Scotty, which runner did you miss touching 3rd?

There were guys on first and second and there was a hit to the outfielder,the runner on second came around and scored,then the ball went to the cutoff and the throw was to home for the runner that was on first,after the safe call was made my me at home the assistant coach from the team that was in the field made a scene saying he never touched third. So it was the second runner,or the guy on first. My base ump was doing his duties at first and second since the throw could have(and probably should have)gone to second to get the out. My boss happened to see the play and said we were both in the right position,and that if the runner did miss the bag,he missed it short,which would have been hard to see for the base ump anyway.

I commited to home since that in my oppinion was the more important base at that time. Usually I work in a 3 man crew but we had two that night. I'm not all that concered the run didnt make an outcome in the game anyway,i was just stating that it happened to me.

I agree that in a 2 man crew it can be difficult to watch everything going on. I think what we sometimes get 'fixated' on watching players running around we forget that there is no reason to have our eyes anywhere but on the baseball unless the baseball takes us to a base or player. Somewhere we have lost the concept of "watch the ball, glance at the runner's".

My point, our "job" is to watch for touch/tags at the bases we are responsible for, and to cover "plays" at those bases when the ball and runner ends up there. Any other time, all eyes should be on the ball. In most cases, as PU, you will have time to glance at runner's rounding third for the touch, and still be able to make the call at the plate.

You are correct in those rare cases where you can't watch for a touch, you have to call the runner safe on appeal.

Detroit Rise
 

I follow PUDGE and DETROIT was really a terrible choice (my opinion).

Now Detroit has a manager, a solid offense and pitching. Not one, but two FLAMERS with a TAIL WHIPPING component on the end of their fastballs. That is something the Texas Rangers could never find. I bet you'll get a RISE out them if they go on to win the 2006 World Series. I have to ask. How old is your new wagon?

Sounds like a lot of fan gripping. Davidson was 15-20 feet from the base and most on here were hundreds of miles from the base. From what I saw in the replay it is certainlly possible that he missed the base and Davidson had the second best seat in the house to call the play. Cruz had the best angle and he certainly made a reaction that could have influenced Davidson to think that we thought he just saw was in fact what he just saw.

And Garner did not argue the call...

Three replay angles were better than Davidson's angle and they were inconclusive. There is no freaking way that anyone can claim he was not guessing. If he got it right(which he does not know, Garner does not know and we do not know) he got it because he had a 50/50 chance. It was a lousy decision by him in the 11th inning of a game.

Davidson did not see a base missed. Garner did not see a base missed. Cruz may have seen it.

Davidson blew it because he is a poor professional umpire.

Joe

A very common and generally accepted principle of umpiring - especially effective at higher levels - is "let the players call the game for you." In this case, the base coach made gestures that looked very much like HE thought the runner missed the base. If the umpire's view was not perfect, but at least supported a conclusion that the runner very well may have missed the base, then the base coach's actions were enough to tip the preponderance of the evidence into the "he missed it" column.

The fact that the manager did not even come out to discuss the call is telling, also.

Yeppers, think so. Still.

First, I agree that Oswalt probably did miss the base.

Second, I agree that there are calls where an umpire uses, let's call it "external input" other than his own eyes and ears to make a call. But in every clinic I've ever attended, a missed base is NOT one of those calls. This is a call that you HAVE to see to make. Davidson guessed.

Perhaps he guessed right, but that doesn't make it less of a guess.

If you have to guess on a missed bag, he HAS to be safe.

There are times when you can use external means to make a call in sports (I know soccer is a different sport, but in the WC Final, the assistant referee definatly glanced at the JumboTron to see what happened since nobody saw it).

Do you think there's ever plays that lead umpires in the MLB to have a conference and conveniently have one positioned to be glancing at the scoreboard?

They generally don't show close/controversial plays on scoreboards in the stadium. So i would say probably not in answer to your question. But it seems like a logical idea.

It seems to me that Bob D. just likes the call that puts him in the limelight. He also made a very questionable call in the World Baseball Classic where he called a player out for leaving third early in one of the semi-finals. Replays showed he actually left late. So many good umpires in AAA and this guys is working in the big leagues again....????

FWIW, I watched Davidson work a plate a couple of weeks ago (TV game) and thought he had a much more reasonable strikezone than the typically overly tight zone most MLB umps have. He was actually calling some corners.

Please!
 

Anyone on this forum ever spent any time with Bob D? He is great with us "amateur" umpires. Always ready to talk and help us. Sure he has a rep for the balk call but I've never seen a replay that proved his balk call incorrect.

Those that bad mouth Bob are, I'll bet, the same ones that bad mouthed Big John M before his untimely death. He was another that loved to talk plate mechanics with "amateur's". Did he have a wideeeee strike zone? You bet, but for both teams. Adjust!

Is Bob D the best umpire in major league baseball? Most of us would agree he isn't. But does he belong in the majors? D*** right!!

I don't care either way about Mr. Davidson. All of my comments would have been exactly the same, regardless of the umpire involved.