Strikeout not credited?

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"I was you, I'd stick to ignoring FED rules. That's something you seem to do well."


Okay, let's say a high school batter hits a fence clearing homerun to tie the game. He crosses, but doesn't actually touch the plate...


Still want to play? Be careful what you wish for, Carl.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
"I was you, I'd stick to ignoring FED rules. That's something you seem to do well."


Okay, let's say a high school batter hits a fence clearing homerun to tie the game. He crosses, but doesn't actually touch the plate...


Still want to play? Be careful what you wish for, Carl.

No, you be careful that you don't give the impression you're a politician on the run in Washington.

We both ignore FED rules. True. But...

The rules you ignore have the potential of giving one team an advantage not intended by the rules.

The rules I ignore are those where the miscreant gained no advantage.

Your watchword is: I don't like that rule.
My watchword is: No harm, no foul.

In the great scheme of things (grin), which is the better philosophy?

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"No, you be careful that you don't give the impression you're a politician on the run in Washington.

We both ignore FED rules. True. But...

The rules you ignore have the potential of giving one team an advantage not intended by the rules.

The rules I ignore are those where the miscreant gained no advantage.

Your watchword is: I don't like that rule.
My watchword is: No harm, no foul.

In the great scheme of things (grin), which is the better philosophy?"
Papa C Editor-in-Chief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rules you ignore allow a run to score that shouldn't. How is that less of an impact than not enforcing a rule that is not in the Fed Case or Rule Books? In the grand(better word choice - grin) scheme of things, your ignorance of printed book rules is clearly the poorer choice. As I've said, if the VO rule was important it would be clarified in places other than decade old newsletter that only a few hagards possess.

Secondly, the expected call is "no harm, no foul" to you. I think that most of us would agree that the team you screwed thinks otherwise. You also suggested that if the ball beats the runner by five steps but the runner makes a terrific slide, avoiding a high and lazy tag, you'll call him out because it is expected. That is classic ego at play and horribly tragic. Your vanity prevents the proper call from being made. God forbid you should have to explain your call to a coach! "Not me, I'm the great and powerful Carl Childress, I make the expected call because appearance is better than accuracy." How difficult is it to say, "Coach, the ball did get there early, but tell your fielder to tag the runner so I can call him out."? What section of the umpire manual contains the "expected call" philosophy? I didn't hear Davis professing that view last year. In fact, he said they were being scrutininzed more intensely and told to get the call right.

Are you also one of those umpires that won't call a strike if the catcher doesn't catch it with his webbing up? You probably don't like to call the non-swinging strike when the catcher can't hold the pitch. I've seen these umpires before and they love to tell catchers to grab it clean and they can sell it. B.S.! (Correctly used emphatic element.)
Call the damn pitch and leave your ego at the gate.

Prescience is a gift wasted on umpires. Most of us wait to see what really happened before making the call. We don't assume or let coaches/assignors/evaluators dictate our judgement. We should do the best job we can because the next generation of umpires may be playing or watching.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 04:02 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
[B]You also suggested that if the ball beats the runner by five steps but the runner makes a terrific slide, avoiding a high and lazy tag, you'll call him out because it is expected. That is classic ego at play and horribly tragic. Your vanity prevents the proper call from being made. God forbid you should have to explain your call to a coach! "Not me, I'm the great and powerful Carl Childress, I make the expected call because appearance is better than accuracy." How difficult is it to say, "Coach, the ball did get there early, but tell your fielder to tag the runner so I can call him out."?

Your ignorance of my published work is almost beyond belief. Let's take a look at an excerpt from my book, 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game, RightSports, 2002. (Actually, if I didn't know better, I might think you were giving me a chance to publicize the book. It's available at http://shop.officiating.com/ for $11.95 plus shipping.)

On the other hand, there are moments in your career when you hear that irresistible command: “Carpe diem!” Seize the day.

My students used to say: “Go for it!” Destiny calls. Fame awaits.

Play: R1 goes to third on a single to right. You’re the UIC and you hustle down to third because you see the ball is also headed for that base. The ball beats the runner by quite a long way, but the throw pulls the third baseman to the outfield side of the bag. Still, he has plenty of time to pivot back and get the glove onto the ground in front of the bag. Flustered, he goes for the runner instead of the dirt. R1 fakes left then slithers right and slides around the glove. By the time it touches his chest, he has his hand on the bag.

The ball was there in plenty of time. The fielder did not juggle it. He did tag the runner. But it was not a routine slide.

You may be the only person in the park who knows that the runner’s hand was on the base well before the “high” tag. That is the situation that tests your “judgment,” not your call of “safe” or “out,” but your decision of how you will handle the call. Should you pronounce what everyone saw? Or should you deviate from the norm? If you make the routine call, practically nobody will know the difference, not even the third-base coach.

But an unusual play deserves an unusual call. The baserunner executed above and beyond the demands of duty. He deserves a medal. “Safe!” you yell, signaling vigorously and then patting your chest to show where the tag landed. You might even get away with that: “Grace, the Blue seemed really sure of himself, didn’t he? I wonder what happened. He looked out.”

The defensive coach may hop out to question your eyesight, your honesty, or even your lineage. You can take all that, secure in the knowledge that you called exactly what happened.

Some amateur umpires always take umbrage at such advice. “You’re cheating!” they say. “Who are you to take that upon yourself? You must always call exactly what happened.” Then, they do that, and they wonder why they never advance.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
What section of the umpire manual contains the "expected call" philosophy? I didn't hear Davis professing that view last year. In fact, he said they were being scrutininzed more intensely and told to get the call right.

I presume Davis is Gerry Davis. Here's another excerpt from 51 Ways....

...[W]e don't see the phantom double play very often in the big leagues anymore. Every game is televised. No umpire wants to see ten replays showing him calling an out when F4 wasn't within a foot of the bag. But they don't have ten TV cameras bearing down on your every move at your local park.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Are you also one of those umpires that won't call a strike if the catcher doesn't catch it with his webbing up? You probably don't like to call the non-swinging strike when the catcher can't hold the pitch. I've seen these umpires before and they love to tell catchers to grab it clean and they can sell it. B.S.! (Correctly used emphatic element.)
Call the damn pitch and leave your ego at the gate.

Here's a passage from Behind the Mask, published by Referee Enterprises. It was in its fifth edition in 1991, and I was told it was the best-selling book in the history of Referee. Sadly, it's no longer in print. But Working the Plate, published by Gerry Davis, is - and you can get it at the same site as 51 Ways....

Should a catcher “frame” a pitch?

Never. That unqualified “No” needs some qualification. When a professional catcher “frames” a pitch, he presents it to the umpire. On the corner the glove fingers are vertical, not horizontal. A low pitch is framed the same way. In the big time, catchers who don’t properly present the pitch lose strikes.

But amateur catchers think framing the pitch is taking a pitch that is a little outside your zone and pulling it back across the plate as they grab it. They may call that framing the pitch; I call it framing the umpire. When F2 does that to me, I usually call “Ball.” I really don’t care where that picth was since everybody saw him pull it. If I should blunder and call that a pitch a strike, even when it was, the coach on offense will use my guts for garters.

But don’t overdo that insistence on well-framed pitches. We cannot expect amateur catchers, even those who play for top-rated college teams, to properly present every pitch. Behind the Mask

Don’t insist on miracles, though. You can’t expect your catcher to look like Benito Santiago. If you must teach your catcher one skill, settle for getting him not to jerk the pitch onto the plate. The next guy who calls that team may send you roses. Working the Plate

If you want to discuss "missing the plate," I have an excerpt from 51 Ways.... that makes my point crystal.

But for now...

Everyone on The Forum knows your problem: You've painted yourself into a corner, and there's no way out. To mix my metaphors, you've tied yourself onto a sinking ship called "consistency." Your clamor for "getting the call right" ignores a hundred and fifty years of baseball tradition and practice. And the farther the amateur umpire goes down the food chain, the more he needs those historical guidelines.

Here's a quote from a man slightly more famous than either of us: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson, Self-Reliance, 1841.)

[BigUmp56]

I liked the poetry much better than this.


Tim.

__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________

Why should I join with those in Play,
In whom I've no delight,
Who curse and swear, but never pray,
Who call ill Names, and fight.

I hate to hear a wanton Song,
Their Words offend my Ears:
I should not dare defile my Tongue
With Language such as theirs.

Away from Fools I'll turn my Eyes,
Nor with the Scoffers go;
I would be walking with the Wise,
That wiser I may grow.

From one rude Boy that's us'd to mock
Ten learn the wicked Jest;
One sickly Sheep infects the Flock,
And poisons all the rest.

-- Isaac Watts

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I am truly dumbfounded by Carl's response. You actually took the time to justify your opinion with excerpts from a TOME AUTHORED BY YOU!

I think we can end all of this now, I will support all of my rulings with the manual I distribute at any of my umpire clinics. That makes as much sense.

You give an example of the phantom tag at second base as being unacceptable. But you also insist that a missed base by a runner who hits a fence clearing HR is an expected call. The best umpires are consistent; well, they are consistently accurate. Sometimes you make this too easy.

Recognizing that things are bigger in Texas, your ego must be truly larger than your brain. I can't believe you thought that I should be familiar with all of your publishings or would care. How's that manifesto coming?

To borrow a bit from TAC, ~ sigh ~.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"Everyone on The Forum knows your problem: You've painted yourself into a corner, and there's no way out. To mix my metaphors, you've tied yourself onto a sinking ship called "consistency." Your clamor for "getting the call right" ignores a hundred and fifty years of baseball tradition and practice. And the farther the amateur umpire goes down the food chain, the more he needs those historical guidelines.

Here's a quote from a man slightly more famous than either of us: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson, Self-Reliance, 1841.)"

From Papa C.

So, you now speak for everyone...that's very humble. I believe that I showed that the consistency issue is a problem in Houston, not Chicago. I have always said that we should work to improve our angles, hustle and respect the game enough to get the call right. You ignore multiple rules for tradition and appearance sake, while I rely on the printed word in the Rule Book to guide my decisions. The RWE quote should be beneath your mirror at home. Better yet, place it above your monitor.

At least you've abandoned grammar patrol duties. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.

[BigUmp56]

Who knows, Mr. Windy, maybe when you stop being such a detriment to the internet umpiring forums, you can take the time to write a few of your own books on umpiring.

Then, maybe people will take you seriously.


Tim.
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________
Arrogance and Ignorance



This story paints a picture of a boy you may have known,
Whose arrogance was so intense he went off on his own.
He left his home, he left his friends, he left humanity,
He really could not tolerate their ignorance you see.

So often was he bothered by the little things in life,
And family and friends would only give him grief and strife.
" They're not so smart," said he aloud with remarkable distaste
" Their skin's too thin for them to win my favor and my grace."

In his own mind he's very kind and helpful as can be
He simply tries to tell these folks "You must be more like me..."

[The cobbler doesn't make boots right, he doesn't make them strong.
The seamstress seldom sews clothes right, she seems to sew them wrong.
The dancer's feet are made of lead, or so we're led to think.
The singer never hits her notes, Not G, nor F, nor C.]

And if they all march to the beat of a slightly different drum,
There is a problem, so you see, to him they're all so dumb.

--Quinn McAuley




[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 06:03 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I am truly dumbfounded by Carl's response. You actually took the time to justify your opinion with excerpts from a TOME AUTHORED BY YOU!

I think we can end all of this now, I will support all of my rulings with the manual I distribute at any of my umpire clinics. That makes as much sense.

You give an example of the phantom tag at second base as being unacceptable. But you also insist that a missed base by a runner who hits a fence clearing HR is an expected call. The best umpires are consistent; well, they are consistently accurate. Sometimes you make this too easy.

Recognizing that things are bigger in Texas, your ego must be truly larger than your brain. I can't believe you thought that I should be familiar with all of your publishings or would care. How's that manifesto coming?

To borrow a bit from TAC, ~ sigh ~.

You attributed three opinions to me. Carl: (1) doesn't give credit for a great slide that avoids an out; (2) doesn't understand that some umpires cannot call the phantom double play at second; and (3) forces catchers to demonstrate prowess before calling close pitches strikes.

Lurkers or passers-by might believe your unrebutted claims of my positions. That would be bad for my business. So, quoting from my published opinions, I proved you were misrepresenting what I urged umpires to do. Furthermore, you have advocated all three positions I "took time to justify"! On those three issues, we are in agreement, but your antipathy to me blinded you.

More dangerously:

You are perfectly willing to attribute to your opponent any position you need that advances your cause. That is unconscionable.

As for my "manifesto," I suppose you are talking about the Texas State Baseball Curriculum. Thanks for asking. It's at the printer.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I believe that I showed that the consistency issue is a problem in Houston, not Chicago.

You haven't shared with us the evidence of how you know there is a "consistency issue" in Houston.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Actually, I just did...thanks for making it look easy.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

You haven't shared with us the evidence of how you know there is a "consistency issue" in Houston.

It's 340 miles from my house to Houston. Why not ask Corky Carter about consistency in his hometown.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I don't live in Chicago either, but you felt comfortbale lumping me into that group before. More Kryptonite, Carl?

I (TAC told me that speaking for others was improper) know that when we actually discuss baseball, you have admitted that my consistency is akin to a one note band. My stripes don't change and that has brought me wrath and accolades. Neither makes me change what I've long written. The funny thing is that you've published one thing and then write another here. Do you really believe that ignoring that missed plate is any different then the phantom tag at second? It is obvious that your NCAA days are behind you or you wouldn't be spouting all of this gibberish about expected calls and "51 ways".

You can huff and puff but my house is pretty sturdy.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 23rd, 2005 at 07:38 PM]

[GarthB]

Uh.....the game has been over for a long time. Everybody left early when the score got so onesided. The lights are about to go out. Go home.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Does the other team know they lost?