when in doubt call...foul?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Uhhh, yeah that's nice, but we were talking about fair/foul calls where there are no lines drawn. Who was talking about close pitches or bangers?

The OP was discussing the "too close to call philosophy", Steve.



Tim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Oh, okay. It sure seemed like a long way to go to get the point. It must have been the speed of light reference.

[ToGreySt]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Uhhh, yeah that's nice, but we were talking about fair/foul calls where there are no lines drawn. Who was talking about close pitches or bangers?

would you all agree that a close pitch that makes you think twice should NOT be called a strike then?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ToGreySt

would you all agree that a close pitch that makes you think twice should NOT be called a strike then?

All pitches make me think twice. It's called timing.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

All pitches make me think twice. It's called timing.

ha HA! *zing*

[johnnyg08]

Yep, on a field with no foul/fair lines...you have to make your best guess...but give the responsibility to the PU though. Also, in situations like this I always say in the pregame..."since there aren't any lines, I'm going to use my best judgement to make a call. this, like any other judgement call today will not be argued." I've NEVER had a problem after that with any close ones...any reasonable person can appreciate and understand that without a line, it's a good guess at best. Good luck to you.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

All pitches make me think twice. It's called timing.

No. Timing is defined as "the proper use of the eyes." With good timing, "hesitation", or "thinking twice" is not necessary.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, I've always reviewed what I've seen in my mind before calling it. I've never heard of "the proper use of the eyes" named as the definition of timing, so I'll have to take your word for it.

I think whatever works for each umpire is fine. Reviewing a pitch, or a close play in one's mind (calling it to yourself first) is not to be confused with being "hesitant" or "unsure" about a call. It mostly confirms the call that was seen with the proper use of the eyes.

Frank Pulli had the fastest strike call I've ever seen, and horrible timing. He also missed a lot of pitches. Coincedence? I don't think so. Was this due to improper use of his eyes?

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

No. Timing is defined as "the proper use of the eyes." With good timing, "hesitation", or "thinking twice" is not necessary.

I respectfully disagree, Garth. Good timing is seeing the ball all the way to the mitt, making a slight hesitation, and then making the call. If you don't make that slight hesitation you'll miss some of those nasty breaking pitches and most likely a foul tip or two.


Tim.

[TussAgee11]

I totally agree with the Summer Ball Mechanic of PU taking the fair foul on the ones down the line with BU in A. The rat coaches will not know that this is not the accepted mechanic. But it will give the best result most of the time. Also, even if the coach does know its supposed to be BU's call, then he's pretty smart, and should also understand that without lines it is eaisier for PU.

Over the bag is still BU.

[Tim C]

. . . youse guiys read my Evans Column in Strikes & Outs --

"Timing in the proper use of eyes" is the Evans credo that is hammered and hammered.

It makes no difference if it is a simple safe/out call or a nutcutter of ball/strike -- the timing is established by the "proper use of eyes."

It is a great credo that is used in all umpire schools and clinics as taught by professional school instructors.

There should not be a hesitation -- timing happens as a natural process if you have proper use of eyes.

Regards,

[AlabamaBlue]

Originally Posted by pdxblue

Light travels at 180,000 MPH. Sound travels approximately 2000 MPH.

Do you just make stuff up? Light travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND, sound at around 760mph depending on the atmosphere. So if you're standing 30 feet away from the bag, the light will reach you in approximately 0.00000003 seconds, and the sound will reach you in 0.0004 seconds. Do you really think you can differentiate that small of a difference? If the ball hits the glove at the exact same time the foot hits the bag, you are not going to be able to hear a difference of 4 TEN THOUSANDTHS of a second. Unless you're superman.

[DG]

Originally Posted by AlabamaBlue

Do you just make stuff up? Light travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND, sound at around 760mph depending on the atmosphere. So if you're standing 30 feet away from the bag, the light will reach you in approximately 0.00000003 seconds, and the sound will reach you in 0.0004 seconds. Do you really think you can differentiate that small of a difference? If the ball hits the glove at the exact same time the foot hits the bag, you are not going to be able to hear a difference of 4 TEN THOUSANDTHS of a second. Unless you're superman.

One could argue that because of the difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound being vastly different a tie could really be a SAFE, or vice versa, but umpires can not distinguish the difference between the speed of light and speed of sound from 30 feet, so ties are outs, just because. Coaches don't generally know the difference either. They just argue the call when the situation demands it and don't when it doesn't.

[pdxblue]

Originally Posted by AlabamaBlue

Do you just make stuff up?

Yes, I do!

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by pdxblue

Yes, I do!

We know. 10 characters rule stinks