when in doubt call...foul?
 

had a Senior Babe Ruth game this week at an absolutely awful field, no foul lines beyond the bases and what lines were painted weren't much to speak of. Im on the bases and the batter hits a shot down the right field line while I'm in A. it's right over my head so I turn and start running out, but I get out there and I realize that I might not be able to tell without a reference, I turn a round and find the base and try to straddle it and line up with the foul pole. the ball, of course, comes down right on the line. I call foul.

During my apprentice program that my high school association put together, the instructors have talked about what to do when you're not 100% certain. for example, if a pitch is close enough to make you stop and think, it should be called a strike. same goes for a play on the bases, if it's too close to call it's an out. whether it's the right philosophy or not it got me though my first few games very well. My question is, do you give the same benefit of the doubt to the offence or the defense here? should the "when in doubt call" be fair or foul

just curious if this is a situation anybody else has encountered.

Joe

I guess what I should have said was it came down where it could have been either, with no line I had no real idea where it was

Joe

I agree with all your other "Too Close To Tell" philosophies, but for a Foul Ball, if it's too close to call, I lean to wards FAIR.

In a whole lot more games than I would like, there are no foul lines past the infield dirt. In some HS summer games, there are no foul lines whatsoever. In these situations, it's whatever you call it, and if they complain, tell 'em to line the field next time.

It depends on why the umpire missed seeing the call. If he was blocked out somehow, and the teams aren't making a clear call for him, the default should be foul. If he is merely working a crap field, he doesn't need a default, he just calls what he has. As SDS said, if they don't like the calls, they can line the field next time.

If they don't bother to put down the lines, you just do the best that you can. After that, don't beat yourself up!

I'm with nick on this one, when in doubt, call it fair. My theory is that if we're giving the pitcher the benifit of the doubt on close pitches, give the batter the benifit on fuzzy fair/foul calls.

I sometimes encounter fields with no line past first or third base base, and also see fields with a line on the grass past first and third, but no line on the dirt between the bases and the grass. In either situation, we pregame it so the plate ump has fair/foul responsibility for balls hitting in those areas. He can establish a frame of reference by looking at the base and home. The field ump has no such frame of reference.

On most fields, and I'll admit there are exceptions, BU can line up the foul pole with a tree or a window, or a light pole, .... beyond the field. The time to set the reference is before the game starts. By using this, BU can get a pretty good look at the ball.

On the default -- if the batter "beat" the pitcher (that is, pulled the ball hard), I rule it fair. Otherwise, I rule it foul.

This is #2 in my "Summer ball mechanics" manual (self-authored, but regrettably unavailable to the masses just yet). On fields that haven't been lined, BU comes in and pivots on that play, and PU takes the catch/no catch and fair/foul call. PU has 1B and the foul pole to use as reference. Bob's suggestion proves that he's never umpired in Texas, where typically the "object" behind the baseball field is the high school football practice field, and beyond that, the lone prairie.

I don't understand "too close to call"! If you are paying attention, and tracking the ball on the pitch, the pitch is either a strike, or a ball. Simply, there is no such pitch that is "too close to call".

Having blown my fair share of calls, I know for certain that the reason I blow calls is because I am not giving 100% attention to what is happening right in front of me. Also, I may not have anticipated what "could" happen, so when something unexpected happened, I was surprised. Again, simply my fault.

So, I believe you can move about 99% of those "too close to call" calls to "I seen that quite well" simply by anticipating would "could" happen and be prepared for anything. You will sell your close calls much better when you react with authority and confidence!

A little something I share with newer umpires about bangers at first base. I was taught to listen for the ball to hit the glove, and watch the foot hit the bag. If you see something before you hear it, SAFE! If you hear something before you hear it, OUT! But not always out!!! Consider this:

Light travels at 180,000 MPH. Sound travels approximately 2000 MPH. On those "too close to call" bangers at first where you really thing you seen and heard something at the same time, it is quite obvious that what you heard happened BEFORE what you seen, because sound travels MUCH slower than light does.

Try explaining that to a coach that is arguing a banger at first. I did once and the coach smiled at me and turned and walked away. :)

But really, if you are going to have a "philosophy" about close plays, don't make it "close pitches are strikes, etc...", make it "I will anticipate with might happen and will give my undivided attention to the play".

Bare down blue!

been there
 

In summer ball I too have my share of those ballfields that in my native state would most likely be called cow pastures.......and in the case of a field with no fences, no foul poles and no lines past the bases, they get what I call...... ( I work 2 of those)

I make my best judgment with what information I have at hand and thats it. If they want me to be less subjective, they can put in a fence and foul poul and line the field.....

best of luck....

Stan

I've had a game with a streaker before but I won't be doing it anytime soon.

Oops....:o

I'll let the spelin' airor stand just because. :D

Waaaaaay off topic
 

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.

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

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.

ha HA! *zing* :D

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Had . . .
 

. . . 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,

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.

Yes, I do!

We know. 10 characters rule stinks

Hestitation is phony timing. It accomplishes nothing. It's no different than the Smittys who tell you, "Count one-one thousand, two, before calling a pitch." Garbage.

If you utilize proper use of the eyes you won't miss any "nasty" breaking pitches, foult tips or dropped third strikes for that matter. But first, you must learn proper use of the eyes.

I ain't never learned nuthin' 'bout no baseball umpirin' from no Smittys, but I have been instructed not to call pitches too quickly, and was even evaluated down once for a perceived "too quick timing" on pitches. This was from a big shot muckity muck pro school guru type guy, who wanted everyone to be as slow and deliberate as Greg Bonin or like Jerry Layne used to be (Jerry has speeded it up a bit).

I agree that counting the seconds is ridiculous, but a delayed strike call has always been taught in the clinics and classrooms I have been a part of. It only shows that you are not rushing your call, not that you are "hesitant." Of course now, I never attended any classes taught by Jim Evans, so I can't speak for what he teaches.

I don't miss any nasty breaking pitches, foul tips, or dropped third strikes either. I must have proper eye usage.

Well, I had 2 nasty fair/foul calls lately. Both were in 18U tourney games.

1. R1, RH batter is a little late and loops a liner down the RF line. F3 is just inside the line, and the coach comes up to the line just in foul territory. They're looking down the line and block me out. Ball drops fast - too fast for me to read the problem and adjust to see where it lands.

2. R1, RH batter pulls one to deep left, right into the setting sun. I move down the line, watching F7 run toward the line to make the play. I try to pick up the ball, but can't. Next time I see the ball it's bouncing up.

I understand that these are both my fault: I need to get in position somehow to make the call in (1), and I need to pick up the ball in (2). I called both 'foul', but I like the idea of calling it fair when the batter "beats" the pitcher.

There was quite a bit of crying in (1), as I guess the ball landed on the line. In (2) only the 3B coach cried, which means either that the ball was foul or that nobody else could see it either!

When there is no line where there should be a line, and the home team is not going to put a line in, my standard thing to say is:

"Since there is an imaginary line, you gentlemen are going to imagine that I get every close call on that line right!". That gets a good laugh, but also gets my point across!

If you make all the close ones go against the home team, you will see a line by the next game! ;)

I don't see any problem with having the PU take ALL fair/foul calls on the lines if there are no lines in the outfield.

With good timing - proper use of the eyes - one will not call pitches too quickly, and one will not have to utilize any phony hesitation. The timing will be correct without it.

Also, with good timing - proper use of the eyes - one will not make callst to quickly on the bases and will never have to say, "Out..no...Safe". Again, this will ocurr without any phony hesitation. Propers use of the eyes will provide the correct timing.

This not just a "Jim Evans" thing. This is taught at both pro schools.

Instead of taking someone else word for proper mechanics, whether it is one of your local "mucky mucks" or anyone on the internet, go get trained first hand. The Evans Desert Classic is not far from you and will make you a better umpire in a week.

If a poster on the ignore-list types, did he make a sound?

That is what I was saying. I was evaluated down, even though my timing was actually right on the money. This eval was done by a totally anal guy who couldn't find anything else to criticize me for. Oh, he also docked me for sweat appearing on my Elbeco shirt (this in 1992, remember) during a game in 85 degree heat. What a joke. I sweat working the plate in a snowstorm.

I have no problems with timing on the bases either. I don't make "out...no....safe" calls. My "hesitation" is not phony, it come from years and years of fine-tuning my calls. Like I also said, I must have the proper use of my eyes, so as not to have these things happen. I realize that the proper use of one's eyes is extremely important, I had just never heard it directly connected with timing before. Now I have.