|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 05:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Windy....serious question.... You went on a lengthy tirade(s) in the past re: getting the call right. Here's a case where Davidson's partner may have blundered in making the call, but his partner still had the right call after he did make it. Making the right call doesn't really seem like a "blunder" to me. Davidson then reversed the right call into an incorrect call. Now, that's seems completely at odds to me somehow with the concept of "getting the call right". What am I missing?  JR, as oft before, we disagree. I will be polite about this since you are beginning in the same vein. 'Getting the call right' is about making sure that the call that should be made gets made. You have an umpire who admittedly made the improper appeal call (many would call that a blunder, but some are confused by the synonym). That was his mistake and he admitted as much. The appeal call should have been handled by the PU, but Knight jumped the gun in his zeal to perform. Bob Davidson who was charged with making the call and is desgignated as crew chief, saw it much differently. He was convinced that the player gained an unfair advantage and when asked, went to his partners and informed them of what he saw, then he penalized it. As proferred before, in real time this play was much more difficult. Is it possible to actually get a call like this "right" without using replay? Yes, you know it is. Although you are not a baseball umpire, you see split second timing calls on the basketball court all of the time. Two officials can see the same play and call it differently. (This is illustrated at numerous winter clinics.) However, in MLB a crew member is designated as chief and required to correct any improper ruling. An umpire on Davidson's crew incorrectly ruled on the appeal play. Davidson was charged with 'getting it right.' Imagine how it would feel when you saw the same thing. You are absolute in your convictions - the runner left early and the appeal is coming. The pitcher toes the rubber...the toss to the base...AND YOUR PARTNER INTERJECTS HIMSELF WITH THE OPPOSITE CALL! Knight is lucky Davidson didn't pee himself laughing at that blunder. I'm not privy to Knight's biography, but how much four man mechanics do you have to work before you know who handles the runner on third? There are people here who knew the mechanics and work a handful of four man in their lifetimes. As for replay, I've mentioned it before and I'll reiterate; it is a necesary evil of the future. This is a prime example and Davidson would surely have seen what all of us did in slow motion. If you insist that Davidson did this just for ego sake, he would gain as much 'glory' by interpeting the replay correctly as he did by stepping in here. Replay was designed for plays just like this - I would love to be able to read a Japanese newspaper to see the reaction.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz 
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 05:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I don't believe for a second you worked AAA baseball. Your comments about my resume show how green you are. Why would anyone take those games? 1) To prove to themselves that they can do it. 2) To earn extra money. 3) Because they love the game and the players deserve to play it. 4) It will be entertaining - in many communities, this field is all they've got. 5) To earn a way back into the good graces of the owners. Nothing is in it for me. I've only mentioned a few dozen times that I wouldn't work those games, but don't begrudge anyone who chooses to do so. I'm certainly old enough to be your father and my best years have slipped by. There is little need for me to hurt myself or the game by accepting those assignments. If the boys in the AMLU decide to walk away then they've made their decision. If someone else wants that job, who are they to object at that point? You really should read more before you spout off. I've made these points before and they have nothing to do with Davidson's call. If the MiLB umpires were truly as loyal to each other as they want us to be to them, they would be touting the fact that Davidson did his duty. He stepped in and made a tough call to the best of his ability. They won't because once he is gone, someone gets to move up. That is the dream many of them will soon abandon. [Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:49 PM]
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 06:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 06:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There would have been less controversy if the other umpire had just read the book. You are trying to give him a pass, but Davidson is charged with correcting the mistakes of his crew. When his partner messed up, the controversy was compounded. Stop pretending that Knight wasn't at fault. He didn't have a choice but to acknowledge his mistake. Anyone with a basic knowledge of four man mechanics knows he f-ed up. Equating it to the Championship or World Series' is profoundly absurd. The wrong umpire made an erroneous call versus a blown strike out or running out of the baseline call. Papa C. had a great mechanic for amateur umpires - if you screw up, who cares? Most of us realize that the most important person on the field isn't the grey haired guy behind the catcher. If you see a player miss home plate, a ball land inches foul or a player tag a runner with the mitt but the ball is in his hand and ignore them, you are inept. If you take the money to do the job, you should take some pride in getting the correct call made. Eating the bad ones just makes you look bad, especially when just about every governing body allows some sort of conferencing of officials. Suggesting that you adhere to an archaic princple out of loyalty is silly. But then again, I've never been accused of being a kiss *** here. The rule and mechanics books change every year for a reason. They help older umpires shed their misconceptions.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 10:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Without replay, Davidson's call would stand up. The only reason we are debating this is because it was stop actioned to death. However, the use of instant replay for contests like these and plays like this is obvious. A thirty second look by the umpire in the booth and it is all over. While judgement is the human part of the game, technology has advanced to make an umpire better, not weaker. Look at the NFL and those guys don't make calls with replay in mind. They call the play and if it is challenged, then the scrutiny begins. Baseball at this level will use some sort of replay in the future, count on it. There is simply too much money at stake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Edited by bob jenkins on Mar 16th, 2006 at 08:39 AM]
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 11:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
There have been two triple plays in the World Series. Thanks to Balking Bob Davidson, you will only see in the records.
On the other hand, an excellent ball and strike umpire.
|
|
Wed Mar 15, 2006, 11:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gents... FYI...
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/sports/20060316TDY24004.htm This was on ump news today. Although I agree that Davidson made the wrong call, I find it amusing that a journalist would publish an article, referring to a rule that he has wrong. Quote: "Davidson erred badly in the eighth inning by calling a runner out in a situation where other umpires never do. The rule in the books says a runner must wait for the catch before advancing. However, if he leaves at more or less the same time as the catch, major league umpires rarely, if ever, uphold appeals on the play. Tsuyoshi Nishioka's upper body was in motion as he turned to watch left fielder Randy Winn make the catch. Davidson said he saw Nishioka leave early. If he believed so, he had the duty to apply the rules impartially--in the manner in which they are typically applied. In this case, the accepted call would be "safe." Team Japan played by the rules as they are observed and was punished by Davidson. United States manager Buck Martinez goaded the ump into making his own call after Martinez was unhappy with second-base umpire Brian Knight's call. Davidson later covered his *** by asserting the call was his to make all along--even though he only took that stance after undergoing Martinez's assertiveness training session." Personally I found this article hilarious. Davidson could have done some 'preventative' umpiring and avoided the entire situation, and international press bashing. He could have warned the pitcher before balling him. And could have backed up Knight's call, as Sal suggested, seeing as he was not in any position to make that tag up call in the first place. Yes Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right. It was a former MLB umpire, and apparently a 'homer' who got it wrong. Just My 2 Cents Worth
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 12:25am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Personally I found this article hilarious. Davidson could have done some 'preventative' umpiring and avoided the entire situation, and international press bashing. He could have warned the pitcher before balling him. And could have backed up Knight's call, as Sal suggested, seeing as he was not in any position to make that tag up call in the first place. Yes Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right. It was a former MLB umpire, and apparently a 'homer' who got it wrong."
I suggest some reading materials; the Jaksa/Roder, PBUC Manual, Evans' Manual or any local program that includes four man mechanics. I don't believe Sal suggested that Davidson should not have handled the tag up. He questioned where he was standing, but that point is immaterial. He had an angle that allowed him to see both the catch and runner. Watch it again and you will see, though unorthodox, it was still his call to make. Only through the use of instant replay was Davidson's call proved otherwise. Do they allow instant replay use in Canada?
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 12:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
And not to mention that the author doesn't know the rules. The runner does not have to wait for the ball to be caught before leaving the base. How about when the ball is first touched? This is another case of a member of the media that thinks he's a baseball expert.
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 12:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't believe Sal suggested that Davidson should not have handled the tag up. He questioned where he was standing, but that point is immaterial. He had an angle that allowed him to see both the catch and runner. Watch it again and you will see, though unorthodox, it was still his call to make. Only through the use of instant replay was Davidson's call proved otherwise. Do they allow instant replay use in Canada? [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry if my wording was poor. I was responding to Sal's comment that "Knight got the mechanic wrong but the call RIGHT. Davidson got the mechanic right but got the call WRONG. To avoid a sh!t house, Davidson should have just stayed with the original call and had Knight buy him a couple "pops" after the game for stepping on his di@K." And by "Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right" I meant the call, not the mechanic. I'll make sure I edit better next time. Anyways, thanks for the reply. Good Canada bash...lmao...I appreciate it.
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 08:40am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And by "Knight, messed up his appeal responsibility. However he did get it right" I meant the call, not the mechanic. I'll make sure I edit better next time. Anyways, thanks for the reply. Good Canada bash...lmao...I appreciate it. [/B][/QUOTE] Bashing Canada is not fun...just something to do when you have games scheduled and rain mixed with snow is on the way. I addressed Sal earlier, but to reiterate - by avoiding a sh!thouse (as he put it), would mean he was ignoring something he thought was incorrect. Like ignoring a missed plate on a home run, we don't have the luxury of choosing which rules we like to enforce. His job was to make the calls - not avoid controversy. I agree that the replay shows his foot still in contact with the bag when the ball is touched. Davidson saw otherwise and didn't have the luxury of a big screen and slow mo. I'll stick by the man that is taking the heat here. He wasn't being a homer, he was being an umpire.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 08:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 11:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
He wasn't being a homer, he was being an umpire.
Yeah I agree. Despite how much I disliked his call, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. My homer reference was referring to the article. I have been called such before, needless to say they never stayed around for long. I particularly found it interesting that I was working a game with two teams that I had no hometown association with whatsoever. Anyways hope the weather clears up. We start up here next week.
|
|
Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
All in favor? Aye The ayes have it.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
