I think the Doc hit the nail on the head.

Now, to directly answer Windy's question. If the fence clearer misses first by an inch, you may get away with calling him safe on appeal. If he misses first completely, by a great margin, clearly visible for all who care to pay attention, you might have an out. Why "might"? I've seen those appeals called "safe".

My point is, just because a runner misses a base, you don't have an out. Some other human being with eyes, ears and feelings has to complete that feedback loop. The subjective aspect of what we do rears its ugly little head, when we begin to ask ourselves questions like, "Do I want to open this can of whoopa*&?" I generally answer yes, and sometimes against my better judgement.

To steal a phrase, "the romantic wants to call everything he sees, regardless of outcome, because its the "correct" thing to do". The realist might not make that call, because its the "right" thing to do.

Bob P.

Okay, I get it...apparently my mistake has been to assume that everyone knew these were appealed calls. Let me very specific, you've seen it, the opposition has seen it and they know you've seen it (you are a consistent, fair and hardworking umpire after all). Then they appeal the non-call (since no safe signal is given on a fence clearing homerun). What do you do?

Let's face it, most missed bases are not by large margins. The runner tries to cut the corner while stretching a double or misses third while flying home. Rarely do we see anything more than a few inches as the infraction. The obvious misses are just that, obvious calls. Be honest...

I've never implied that we need to learn the rule better. I've simply said that we need to enforce them fairly. Not what our version of fairness is, true equanimity. Too often, we see veteran umpires make decisions based on what they think is an acceptable call. Earlier, I wrote that umpiring is an art and not a science. While our interpretation is important, this is not a creative process. Indeed, some rules are finite. When we add supposition and plausibility to them, they become grey. (A pitched ball that legally enters the strike zone is always a strike. "Wait a second, blue, he balked and this is high school. No pitch!" or A batted ball caught in flight is an out. "Uh, blue - he used an illegal mitt or the pitcher balk in HS") Definitions are finite examples of the laws of baseball. They are designed to prevent confusion. It is when we apply exceptional thoughts that they become arbitrary.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Oct 23rd, 2005 at 06:29 PM]

If the call is that obvious that is a no-brainer. You have to call that player out. If I have to guess or suspect that something took place, I might pass on it. I am not going to make a big call based on a complete guess.

Peace

Do you know Bill Orris? What did he do in that Super Sectional at Northwestern?

I do know who Bill Orris is. I do not know him very well. I had dinner with the guys that worked the state finals (Class AA) last year, he was there.

I learned long time ago if you make calls only to please people, you will not have a very productive career.

Peace

Jeff, did we just agree on something?

It seems you are caught up in this internet culture. I disagree with opinions, not personalities.

Peace

Rockin' Robin was not credited with a Grand Slam because he abandoned his effort to reach any base past first. He hit the ball out of the park for a walk off Grand Slam and was mobbed by his teammates after he reached first. It was a thrilling play and made many of us scratch our heads about what the official scorer would do. Of course, they got it right - you must touch all of the bases in order to be credited with a homerun.

I won't put words in his mouth. We must also await the answer to my three day old question. Carl, do you allow the player to miss first on that same fence clearing homerun? Remember, you and the opposition saw him miss the base - even by just a few inches! They appeal and are anxiously watching your signal.

I noticed it. I remember clearly thinking at the time that no umpire would have the stones to call him out, nor call interference on the coach. Maybe they went to Carl's school of umpiring? :D

Regarding the subject of ignoring a minor miss on a home run, I agree with Carl. I also disagree with Carl on the same point. To see how I can agree and disagree at the same time, you will have to read Part IV of my new four part series scheduled for publication in November.

Peter