In Rollie's latest, he tells the story of when he allowed the #3 coach (Not the manager, not second in command, but the third) to come out onto the field mutiple times and argue calls with him. Eventually Rollie warned him that if he came out again that Rollie would put him "six feet under."

Of course the guy comes out again, and Rollie doesn't eject him, he tells him to leave the field and go sit by some guy on a golf cart. Rollie calls this a "gray area situation", where the umpire has a hard choice of what to do.

Good one Rollie.

Later he wrties this:

Some more quality advice from Rollie.

Because despite numerous near-unanimous user-input regarding him, the powers that be have not figured out that he's a detriment to the profession (both the literary profession and the umpiring profession).

Why would an umpire with his level of experience even be dealing with an assistant coach? I fail to see where the gray area is here. He should have dumped him the first time he came onto the field to argue.

Is he really supporting situational umpiring with the balk scenario he laid out, or is he just asking a question about what others think?

If F1 failed to make a discernable pause, we all know he's balked. So do both managers and most of the players.

What is he going to do if challenged as to why he didn't call it? Tell the manager he didn't see what everyone else saw, or just tell him his team didn't play well enough to be treated to his best efforts in judiciously applying the rules?

I don't see any gray area here either.

Tim.

Memo to Rollie
 

Rollie,

There are bad umpire articles out there.

There are awful umpire articles out there.

There are beyond awful umpire articles out there.

There are articles which break new ground for atrociousness and for which new categories must be invented.

Congratulations on your ground breaking article.

Re: Memo to Rollie
 

I'll assume you guys are all subscribers — though that's not always a safe assumption these days.

Might I suggest you put your complaints into writing and forward them to RightSports. If you did that, we could know who you are, find out your level of experience, discover what your interests are, decide how much weight to give your opinions.

Better yet: Haven't you been behind the plate, doing what you consider to be a fine job, when some creep behind you begins to butcher you. I've been in this business more than 50 years. The <i>first</i> year I called, an umpire colleague marched up to a "citizen," handed him his indicator, and said: "You're so good, come do it yourself." Not a year passes that I don't hear a similar story.

Pick a topic, write an article, submit it - and watch it appear. Immediately, you'll recoup your subscription money. So you can wait for Osborne and Christensen <i>for free</i>, so to speak.

Nearly every time I make this offer, someone says: "Well, I'm not a writer. I just join so I can learn to be a better umpire." We think we can help.

I think Mr. Wiederaenders can help. Remember, we can explain "pause, read, and react" just so many times before we bore everybody to death. How often can we say: Use the Gerry Davis stance, back up a full step behind the catcher, put your nose on the corner, and don't move unless the batter blocks the pitcher's release point: Once a month? Twice a year?

Roland's current series on gray area calls delves deeply into the impact an umpire's philosophy has on the calls he makes. His thesis: Never think that your personal opinions of and reactions to events don't influence your decisions.

We all have preferences. I like pitchers who keep the ball low because that's the best place to put it and not get hurt. Umpires who were catchers, as I was, often give a little bit extra at the knees.

On the other hand, umpires who were pitchers generally prefer the high strike: Batters are not trained to swing level at that pitch at the letters and so find they can't catch up to it. Call a few strikes up there, the batters will try to adjust, and the pitchers will love you as more and more swing and miss.

It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."

We've filled many pages in discussing "the accepted call," the neighborhood play at second, the phantom tag. Mr. Wiederaender's series reminds us there are many other such calls, perhaps some we may not have considered: How do we handle an approaching time limit when one team begins to stall or rush? In summer youth ball, are game control techniques different? Someone complained that Roland talked to a third assistant. I suspect that person doesn't call much summer ball. At least he doesn't work in Texas, where everybody gets in on the action.

What about calls that end a slaughter? (They don't call it a "mercy rule" for nothing.) You've heard more than one umpire say, semi-seriously: "Only a bad umpire lets the game go into extra ininings." Someone in The Forum has a signature that states he will get an out when he needs it.

Mr. Wiederaenders challenges us to think about those types of calls. He argues at one point — and that article may not yet have been published — that a good technique is to imagine third-world plays (gray area plays) and set up in advance "first-world" solutions. That's not a bad idea. (I think he stole it from Jim Evans: "Surprise is the umpire's worst enemy.")

If you're happiest going over and over what constitutes a balk, you need to let us know "in person," so to speak. Writing on pblic message boards tends to create exaggeration.

If there's a particular topic that interests you, let us know. We'll commission someone (other than Mr. Wiederaenders) to explore your subject.

If you think you can do better than Roland, take your shot. We prefer articles of 800 - 1000 words, sermons rather than text books, illustrations rather than bullets.

Finally, you might email Mr. Wiederaenders directly. Offer some suggestions. Strike up an acquaintance. You might find you have more in common with him than you think.

Re: Re: Memo to Rollie
 

My opinions? You are saying that you don't think that Rollie gives bad advise?

From what I hear, it will take a whole lot longer than immediately for my money to show up.

Yes, that is a good topic. Rollie puts bad advise in his articles. That is what I have a problem with.

I don't say anything when Rollie writes a boreing article (which is 99% of the time), I only speak up about him when he writes something which is misleading/incorrect. Proper editing could solve this problem.

I understand that you have a problem finding writers (we don't need to get into why many of your writers quit), and that you have to publish what you can get. I think Rollie wrties boring stuff. Some people might not find it boring (Everyone I have ever talked to who has read a Rollie article finds it boring). There is a difference between being boring and telling people to do things which are incorrect.

That was me, and I do. I suspect the reason that everyone gets into the action is because of a history of poor officiating. Over time, coaches have pushed more and more, and the umpires have failed to do their job by taking control and ejecting the coaches. It must suck to have to deal with 5 dads each game.

I thought that was Peter.

TWPs and gray area plays are very different. The catcher throwing the ball to the mound and the defense running off the field as the BR runs to first is a TWP. Contemplating whether or not to call an obvious balk is not.

I don't think I can do better than Rollie. I cannot write. It is hard for me, and I do not enjoy it. I think Tim McCarver is a terrible broadcaster, but could I do better than him? No. I could not go on national TV and talk in front of all those people.

Dear Blabby,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Childress
"It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a much nicer way of putting it - inaccurate and no less inflammatory than "ingratiate", but I'll let it slide.

How would a realist answer the following query?

Doesn't one team gain an advantage when an umpire ignores the proper call for appearance sake? As an example, he sees a player miss a base and ignores it because it would require an unusual call on a routine play. Which rule intends to permit this?

Signed,
Hopelessly Romantic

Against my better judgment, but....

Let's talk specifically about my sample play. The batter crushes one over the fence in flight, like Albert did against the Astros. Instead of Minute Maid Park, though, the game is at Busch, and it is a walk-off. Around he comes and amid all the bench players he jumps into the air and comes down an inch from the white. Clearly he missed it. Clearly you saw it. Now, you intimate you would uphold an appeal on that play. Gosh! Talk about threats made by St. Louis fans against Don Denkinger....

The rules INTEND that a baserunner NOT gain an advantage by missing a base. You tell me: Would Pujols gain an advantage, missing the plate by an inch? A realist says "no"; consequently, a realist denies an appeal. (Myself? I would be halfway toward the tunnel by the time he reached the plate and wouldn't see the miss.)

But let's say I'm the third-base umpire in a four-man crew. I've been there many times since we use those almost exclusively in Texas' high school playoffs. Consider: R2. B1 singles to short right, and R2 tries to score. As he rounds third, he plants his spikes several inches from the bag and continues his mad dash home. He is safe on a close play. The defense appeals he missed third.

I can't wait to call out that sucker! Why? He gained an advantage not intended by the rules. Now you (the romantic) would call him out also, which means: You're always ready to make the easy call, which this one is, but the tough ones may give you pause.

You never answered Tee's question; namely, do you call strikes on pitches in the dirt? (Isn't <i>not</i> making such a foolish call the purpose of "timing, timing, timing"?)

Your previous writing said you do, so I believe you even though I don't believe you're "real."

That said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing a discussion with you. You are not hopelessly romantic, merely....

Carl, it probably was against your better judgement, like fighting a fire with kerosene.

You can explain it to them, but you can't make them understand.

My question, are these guys so argumentative and rude in their real life? Do they treat their real life umpire partners in such a way? I have my suspicions.

As for Rollie's articles, if you don't subscribe, are you just reading the tease? Makes great sense to me...HAHA

Bob P.

CC wrote: <i>"We've filled many pages in discussing 'the accepted call,' the neighborhood play at second, the phantom tag."</i>

There have been many threads over the years on these and similar subjects.

Example: One author wrote recently that a MLB umpire said that "a strike is when I call it and they don't *****". I would submit that this doesn't cover the gray area where the batter and catcher have different opinions,

Another example: Paid umpires, and most volunteer umpires, take it as a matter of pride and professionalism to dress properly. Keep those hackles under control. It's not limited to umpires. It's a philosophy that fits most of society. OTOH, one of the writers here quoted a D1 coach as saying that the creased pants only mattered up to the first pitch. I wrote that I don't care what you wear as long as you can "umpire".

A question on "accepted calls." Are they accepted because the participants think it's OK (or normal) or because they know they can't change it? Do they wish it would change? Same thought on neighborhood plays.

When a coach tells you he understands what you are doing is he really just avoiding confrontation and/or future bad feelings?

Umpires (except HHH) write about dumb coaches and of discussing them over a beverage after the game. (Coaches talk about the umpires too folks).

Some of you welcome evaluations by coaches. Some of you think they're not capable of accurately writing one. Does this reflect truth or aprehension?

For the most part though, what we have here and on the other umpire/rules boards is umpires debating with other umpires on all these issues.

So I would challenge Carl to get, and the participants to tolerate, articles by HS and D1 coaches on the subject(s) of how calls are made and games managed versus what they'd like to see - and if there is a difference. Find several in each category, from various sections of the country. Don't you really want to know - deep down inside?

It's bad enough that the most common writer on this site consistently gives HORRID advice, which will eventually be a detriment to our profession if newbies read it and think, "Ah, here's an experienced guy telling me to do this... so I will."

It's 100 times worse that the person in charge of a site dedicated to improving the profession consistently backs up the articles containing the horrid advice. Continually using the tactic of "If you think he sucks so bad, why don't you try to do better." That is the excuse of the weak. It's YOUR job to publish articles that further the cause of our profession, or at least to not publish those that are a detriment to it. You are failing your job.

Before I begin, I'll address Bob Patrino. You know not of what you speak. If you believe that was a rude rebuttal, you missed the Editor's prior comments. One can only imagine what you construe as offensive on the field. I would say any of those things to his face. A simple question posed in an eloquent manner...how uncouth?!?

Papa C., I asked you to behave as a gentleman. You failed that litmus test. If you disagree with my position, express it without the cloaked denegration. I would be happy to debate this issue in a forum of officials. Your fifty years and gift of gab would be more than met. I chose the high road earlier and found that no matter what I did, you continued to mock and abuse the privilege you've been given. What happened to A2D?

You assume that my experience is negligible and any "real world" umpire would know better than to utilize my theory of umpiring. I suggest you contact, Hopkins and Yeast to discuss your thesis. In Detroit, Yeast said that he accepts nothing less than our best effort out there. He demanded that we hustle, get into position and conference if necessary to make the correct call. Expected calls have gone the way of the umpire's black suit. Hopkins is on record with a similar desire. We don't cheat the game. It has nothing to do with being a "romantic" any more than it deals with you being a "coward". In the NCAA, we keep players off the field even on homeruns - this was put in place because of missed bases! Can't you sell a missed base? Yes, it has a bearing and MLB players are paid an awful lot of money to play correctly. A missed plate on a walk off homerun is a big deal! Remember Robin Ventura's grand slam a few years ago? He stopped at second and they credited him with a double. According to your logic, he should be given the grandslam because it was expected. There, I believe that qualifies as a valid counterpoint to your direct question. He didn't touch home, no home run.

I also addressed the strike zone and balls in the dirt - you seem to forget my comment about the 12-6 deuce. Consistency and communication - these have helped me avoid being stuck with "free hot dogs and soda".

You like to sling mud and think that if you cover it in enough fluff, no one will notice. It may look like chocolate, but it smells a whole lot like manure. You put words in my mouth about the missed third base. Why is that any easier than the play at the dish? I think I know why you were working third base instead of home. The high road be damned, you don't seem to know what it means.

First, there's no comparison between a man who ran all the bases - and missed home by an inch - and a man who hit a ball over the fence - and stopped at second. You know that.

Second, I went six years where I didn't call the bases once in a 100-plus game season except for double-headers and tournaments. I was at third after calling the plate in the first game.

You dont' have to worry about my combative style anymore, at least as it pertains to you.

The last message was against my better judgment. This one is simply the last once.

He says for the third time.

I would suppose that you consider "Dear Blabby" as a witty retort. I consider it rude and disrespectful. However, given the propensity of those on this board to sink into the despair of name calling and personal attack, maybe Dear Blabby was an attempt at humor.

I know of what I speak, because I speak my own opinion. Nothing in the Editor's response or opinions seems rude to me.

These forums are a waste of time. I'll go back to reading the pay site. If I want mindless arguing, I'll go talk to my ex.

Bob P.

Once more, Bob will be addressed first-

Abigail Van Buren is dead and using "Dear Abby" seemed a little silly. I tried to make light of what was becoming a disheartening conversation. As for your dismissal of condescension on the Carl's part, what do "fag" "Bubba" and "romantic" mean to you? In the context used, they were trite attempts to lord his wordsmithing over the masses. It didn't work here; I actually smiled when I read them. I'm not here to argue with him, just add a counterpoint. Umpiring is not a perfect science. It is an art and each of us interprets this skill differently. I actually like what Carl does with this site. I just don't agree and am smart enough to be able to parry well. I would think that your skin would be thicker after all of those years on the field. Lighten up compadre, officiating is about constant adjustment and communication. Our passion is shared; I enjoy discussing baseball with capable officials. Carl is one of the most zealous I have encountered. He is also smart enough to recognize sarcasm as a tool of engagement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl,

I will attempt to keep this from becoming more personal thatn you have made it. In my first post to you, I stated my opinion and then agreed with your posit, A2D. I have never claimed to be the almighty baseball reference, I simply run contrary to you on this matter. You have accused me of ignoring some of your points and I asked about the lodged ball scenario. You have repeatedly sidestepped it.

I truly believe that you have a gift for helping umpires understand the game and have enough war stories to fill a library. I challenged your abilities when you mocked mine. (free hot dogs, anyone?) Your rules knowledge is exceptional and this forum provides a much needed resource for veteran and rookie alike. Your cavalier attitude is not becoming however. I know, some of your supporters are gnashing their teeth and claiming that my replies are tantamount to heresy. Why is that? We've seen movements to change umpiring styles. Professional, collegiate and high school baseball have all taken steps to promote proper officiating. In your fifty years behind the mask, you've seen changes that shook your core. These recent occurences are just another evolution in umpire behavior. At our level, it is simply unacceptable to knowingly ignore the proper call. We umpire to the talent, true enough. But, not allowing for a terrific play or a poor decision on a player's part is not acceptable behavior on most levels above coach pitch. When the ball beats a runner by five steps, but the fielder lazily puts a tag down on top of the helmet, why would you not reward the adjustment and slide of a runner who fooled the fielder?

You dismissed Ventura's homerun as well. He was mobbed by his teammates and prevented from scoring. He did not complete the requirement for being credited with a homerun. In your missed plate scenario, the umpire saw the mistake and ignored it for appearance sake. You ask, what harm can come from it? How about teaching players how to play the game properly? If that's not good enough, then I suggest that it will serve as a wake up call to aspiring umpires. The rules matter - this is not a judgement call. You said that he missed the bag, that is a rule violation. It is not a home run if he misses first, is it?

Whether you want to believe it or not, I respect what you do and how you've celebrated this amazing game all of these years. I just find it funny that articulate people can demean and harangue with impunity. Your ability with our language affords you some leverage over those less skilled. Why is it that when we disagree you feel compelled to mock and trivialize with flowery prose? I can appreciate some of the humor but I don't understand why a General would cuss like a Private, albeit with more style.

The umpiring world is changing radically. I suggest that some of the accepted calls of the past are archaic. Indeed, you may have an assignor, evaluator or league that tolerates or expects such behavior. If that is what you need to do to survive, then I support your calls. Enough name calling though, we both know it will serve little purpose other than the titillation of our egos. Lord knows neither of us need that. A2D?


By the way, edit your last post.

Hmmmmm.....
 

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Windy City Blowhard is trying to make a comeback using a new moniker.

Just a thought.


Tim.

Re: Hmmmmm.....
 

The words were just about at my finger tips as I was reading this thread, you beat me to the punch. It's interesting, but I am just wondering if that is his MO on the field also. A2D

Whatever!!!!!

Quote:

Against my better judgment, but.... Let's talk specifically about my sample play. The batter crushes one over the fence in flight, like Albert did against the Astros. Instead of Minute Maid Park, though, the game is at Busch, and it is a walk-off. Around he comes and amid all the bench players he jumps into the air and comes down an inch from the white. Clearly he missed it. Clearly you saw it. Now, you intimate you would uphold an appeal on that play. Gosh! Talk about threats made by St. Louis fans against Don Denkinger....

Here's the problem with your reasoning on that specific play. Let's say Albert didn't miss the plate by merely an inch. Let's say that he missed it by a foot. Would you still deny the appeal? How about if he stopped halfway between 3rd and home? Of course you wouldn't know if he did being in the tunnel and all... well obviously that's ridiculous since Albert clearly knows better. But wait, wasn't there a world series game a long time ago decided on a similar call, something about hitting a run scoring single and not touching first base??

It's a slippery slope. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the expected call is the right call to make... but still you have to wonder where that line gets drawn between being close enough.... and not close enough.

kcs

<quote><b>Here's the problem with your reasoning on that specific play. Let's say Albert didn't miss the plate by merely an inch. Let's say that he missed it by a foot. Would you still deny the appeal? How about if he stopped halfway between 3rd and home? Of course you wouldn't know if he did being in the tunnel and all... well obviously that's ridiculous since Albert clearly knows better. But wait, wasn't there a world series game a long time ago decided on a similar call, something about hitting a run scoring single and not touching first base??

It's a slippery slope. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the expected call is the right call to make... but still you have to wonder where that line gets drawn between being close enough.... and not close enough.

kcs </quote></b>

I appreciate your digging deeply into the problem, for it specifically points up what I've been saying for 30 years on the national stage, longer in my local associations.

1. The purpose of the baserunning rules is to ensure the baserunner does not gain an advantage.

2. Realists always choose an "inch" on that play. It's called <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>, reducing an issue to the absurd. We argue it is absurd to call out a runner who misses a plate by an inch when there is NO question he is not gaining an advantage. The play forces those who cannot compromise into a ridiculous position.

3. Now, what if he misses by a foot? By three feet? I would argue we should use the current interpretation for errors. A runner leaves first early, gets to third, and realize he must return to first. He cuts across the mound and makes it back. After touchinjg first, he sees that the ball got away from the first baseman so he heads for second (the base he missed on his return) and is safe. Some, working on the principle of "last time by," argue that the umpire should not uphold the appeal. But that's wrong since the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules. Appeal at second; he's out.

4. That is the difference between the runner who stopped at second and the runner who missed the plate by an inch. One simply quit running, announcing he was happy at second. No big deal. The other knew he had a home run and just celebrated an inch too much.

5. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runner made no attempt to comply with the rules, the umpire can - and should - uphold an appeal. There's nothing unusual about that. The "distance" is not as important as the "intent."

6. Finally: I have been castigated because I don't reward good play. Whatshisname should return to my original, 1800-word message and re-read it to see how silly his riposte was.

Now, I know that has nothing to do with you, but I've promised not to respond "directly" to his posts. (grin)

BTW: I also believe he's windycityblue. Like so many criminals, he tried to keep his initials. He was Windy; now, he's "whats."

Lah, me.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 22nd, 2005 at 07:43 PM]

Is Windy, Whats? Or WhatWuz, Windy?

WoW, Will we ever weally know?

I wuv mysteries, Weally.

A2D
 

A2D = "Agree to Disagree"

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; = "I don't accept your argument, but I can't rebut it."

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; = "I'm obstinate and intellectually craven."

I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
 

Why are you guys still reading the posts and paying for the site? Is someone holding a gun to your head to make you read these articles? If you do not like what is being said, stop paying money to something that you do not believe in. I have never subscribed to this site for a reason. I also do not worry about what advice other individuals say. If you are not smart enough to know what to take in and what to throw out when someone talks to you about a subject, I am not sure how many of you can umpire or officiate. I go to many camps in different sports and you have to know when to tune out those that do not fit your philosophy. It is really easy guys. If you do not like the articles either do not read the articles, do not pay money to the site or take what you like and throw out what you do not like. It is really that simple.

Peace

Windy City:

I accept that you will try to respond with passion and integrity, but leave the name calling for the "other's" on this site. And yes, my skin is thick. However, I don't understand how other officials can call each other insulting names, and this is not directed at you personally.

Like you, I take great pleasure in insulting someone who has a lesser command of our fine language, but I will save this for someone I don't respect as near as much as I respect Carl Childress.

BTW, I have scoured Carl's posts on this thread and find no sarcasm directed toward you or anyone else. Maybe I missed it?

Bob P.

Re: I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
 

Rollie has only been writing since February. I paid for my membership before Rollie started to write.

Rollie's advice is flat out wrong. It is not a matter of if one should try to fit his stuff into one's philosoply. His advice is incorrect for everyone.

I do like reading Rollie's articles because many times it is funny how terrible they are.

Rollie's articles are beyond terrible. I don't understand why I can't complain about how bad he is. Other writers generate discussion from their articles, so why can Rollie's not generate discussion also?

Bob,

JJ deleted the post after some of our forum contributors became caustic. Carl did throw those barbs and I did not respond with name calling. I actually encouraged him to pursue the high road. JJ can verify the exchange, his integrity is rarely challenged here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was disappointed to see it take so long. When I first entered "the fray", I was forced to choose a new name. I did not try to use WCB, I actually selected my nom de net from a frequent jibe at umpires. I figured that my writing style, decision to address yet another "Get it Right" piece, and direct mention to Carl that I was back where I belong would be enough clues. As many have noticed, I have adapted my style in order to opine on this forum. While it is regrettably easy to taunt those with weaker writing skills, I will try to remain above the mudslinging.

I did notice that only one other member has taken the time to address my concerns. Where do you draw the line in when making subjective calls? I asked if the umpire would allow the home run hitter to miss first and that was ignored. Why? If home is more important in the Robin Ventura example, I would like to see why it is less so in yours.

I'm not sure why you won't respond directly, if you've read my pieces and were honest with yourself, you'd know there is validity in my cause. I was castigated three years ago when I first proposed that umpiring was changing and conferencing would replace replay as the modus. I said that it would sneak into collegiate baseball and it did. Our world is changing and we are more accountable, even on the LL fields. Video cameras have changed the way we behaved thirty years ago. We are paid to do a job and I believe that means hustling, being in the best position to make the call, communicating and relying on your crew for help. Maybe this isn't the way it is done in your neighborhood. If that is the case then you have a much more difficult job than I.

Agreeing to disagree was first put forth by Carl in the now deleted thread. I agreed with his diplomacy and have tried to promote this concept. My job is not to enlighten or convince you anymore than Carl, JJ, Sal or any other reasoned umpire. Providing a valid counterpoint when appropriate is. You say safe and I say out. Each of us believes we are correct. We should be used to that after all of these years.

Re: Re: I have a question for those that do not like Rollie's articles?
 

Rollie is not the only person that people have a problem with as it relates to their writing or advice they give. If people are writing opinion pieces (which most of these are going to be on some level), you have to understand you are not going to agree with all of them.

I have been to camps where people were saying things I would never uses. That is the risk you take when you pay to hear or read people speak. You have every right to complain, I just think complaining here is not going to be that productive. I thought Carl spelled that point out well.

Well you get some benefit out of the articles. Just like I cannot listen to everyone that graces this discussion board, I would not be surprised there would be people I cannot agree with if I paid for the site. I am not telling you what to do, just do not understand why people come here and vent all the time about it as if they have little to no say over the matter.

I am not saying not to talk about him. This is a board you can do that as long as the moderators do not think you cross the line. I just think if you feel you can do better, than contact Carl to put your name in the hat. No matter who writes for this board we are not going to always agree with them.

Peace

Windy, thanks for the thoughtful response.

It is unfortunate that I missed some deleted threads, it really prevented me from getting the complete picture of what happened between Carl and yourself. I'm going to drop this right here, and attempt to do as you say, and get into the meat of your argument and see if we agree or A2D.

I suspect that we agree more then disagree, much like with Carl and myself. About Mr. W. I read Roland with a salt shaker in hand. No, not for the tequila (I haven't tried that yet), but for the grain of salt that one needs with Roland. And yes, sometimes I shake my head at some of his ideas, but it takes all kinds to make this world go. Its like after I started using the GD System. It was very new, no one really knew how to teach it, so what did the instructors do at every clinic I attended? Well Bob, that looks OK, but you really need to get closer to the catcher, pull you head down a bit, get heal-toe. You know how it goes. You just smile and say thanks, and promptly ignore what they say. We all know what is best for ourselves, so give Roland a chance. He does have some good things to say. No one has to go out and do everything he suggests. What works for me, may not be for you.

If a runner misses a base, and no one sees it but you, did it really happen? There is no "automatic" call anymore, since FED rules were changed.

Ever make the "right" call at the "WRONG" time? What happened? Wasn't pretty I bet. I had one of those. It was a championship game, winning run on 3b. Defensive coach wants to intentionally walk the batter to set up a double play, however, they had never practiced the intentional walk. Offensive coach yells out to remind me, "Bob, that catcher can't jump out of that box too soon, you know". Great, thanks coach. I'm thinking, hoping, praying; please make this work. Of course, on the first pitch, the catcher bounces about 10 feet out of the catchers box. I call the balk, send the runner home and end the game.

Lah me....what to do?

Bob P.

Here is an exact play from a Super Sectional (Final 16 teams) in Illinois a few years ago. The batter for the better seeded team hits a bomb, clearng the fence by more than a high school kid should. His team is celebrating, but we have a policy that keeps the teammates off the dirt until he touches home. He is beaming as he sees what awaits him and misses the dish by half of a foot - that's all, but enough that people could see it. At Nortwestern University's field (the game site), the fans are right on top of the action. Predictably, the umpire, fans and defensive team see him miss. They wait for him to enter the dugout amidst the revelry. Then...yep, they appeal and the home plate umpire (three man crew) calls him out. The run comes off the board and the place is up for grabs. You better believe that he took the heat for making the proper call on an unusual play. He wound up working the State Final that year and went back for his second trip this year. So much for stunting your advancement. He is consistently ranked as one of the top officials in this state and works multiple high school sports at the championship level.

My question - again not answered by anyone here - what do you do on the fence clearer and the batter/runner misses first base by a few inches/half a foot/full step? It is no less trivial to the outcome of the play, much less the game. While I can appreciate your contention that certain coaches demand the expected call, they only do this when it is their favor. These same men jump up and down about missed bags, tags and dropped baseballs. They want the 12-6 strike in the dirt when their ace is on the mound. They scream bloody murder about it when it is called on their .106 hitting batter. I submit that no matter which tact you choose, you ultimately have to sleep knowing that you called it fairly. That doesn't mean both ways, it suggests objectivity and respect for the game.

I was glad to see that my words have not lost their command. I appreciate your honesty and look forward to more exchanges. Who knows, maybe we'll agree completely some day.

Why is that a counterexample? You said yourself that everyone in the place saw the miss. Everyone expected him to be called out on appeal, and PU made the expected call. That half the people didn't like it is business as usual when we call an out.

But regarding your more general point: you keep harping on "where do you draw the line." I take it that Carl and others have been suggesting that the art of making these calls requires developing the judgment to know when to call the out.

This is not an algorithmically determined science: to answer your question there would have to be a strict rule of the form: "Always call an out when (and only when) A, B, C, ... or Z." There is no such finite rule: any you might try to state would have exceptions, given the infinite permutations of the game.

When no exceptionless rule exists, some say, "well, I guess anything goes!" Not so: the easy outs are still easy. The only points of disagreement lie with the hard cases. And experience and good training are needed to inculcate good judgment and enable one to make those calls consistently. That's not a matter of learning a rule better.

So there's a satisfactory explanation of why nobody has answered your question. The explanation is that it has no answer since it's the wrong question.

Hm, I feel another article coming on...

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