Never reward a bad Defensive Play !

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Tim C

An MLB umpire kicks a call and some you explain it by "don't reward the bad play."

Rich nailed it.

Regards,

Well I guess we're done, then. We can shut the officiating.com down and the discussion board down.

"Just call what you see."

Case closed, everybody knows everything there is to know about umpiring.

I saw the play in question; the umpire made the right call. He made it because the actual result was a coin-flip in which the "benefit of the doubt" clearly should have been weighted against the - yes, that's right - sloppy defensive play.

You guys of the "just call what you see" persuasion are perfectly within your rights, but I don't understand what you're doing in these discussions. Call what you see. Right. We get it.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Well I guess we're done, then. We can shut the officiating.com down and the discussion board down.

"Just call what you see."

Case closed, everybody knows everything there is to know about umpiring.

I saw the play in question; the umpire made the right call. He made it because the actual result was a coin-flip in which the "benefit of the doubt" clearly should have been weighted against the - yes, that's right - sloppy defensive play.

You guys of the "just call what you see" persuasion are perfectly within your rights, but I don't understand what you're doing in these discussions. Call what you see. Right. We get it.

I hear umpires say "I call 'em like I see 'em" all the time. My response to them is, "I call them like they are."

[TussAgee11]

Steve - both feet hit the bag at the same time. Proposterous.

Two independent events don't happen at the same time. Either he was out or safe. Ties don't exist!

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Steve - both feet hit the bag at the same time. Proposterous.

Two independent events don't happen at the same time. Either he was out or safe. Ties don't exist!

Good lord, boy, where did you get your education?

Event 1 occurs at 1:24:06pm, Central Daylight Time.

Are you saying it is impossible for Event 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. to happen at exactly that same point in time?

To any level of precision short of infinity, two events most assuredly CAN occur at EXACTLY the same time. To the human eye, even the best of them, the level of precision is far short of infinity.

[SanDiegoSteve]

The whole point is, you have to make either a safe or and out call. You can't tell the coach that both events happened at the same time.

Yes, there are times that the way the play was made enters in to the out/safe decision. But the bottom line is that the runner has to beat the play in order to be safe. The onus is on him to actually get there before the tag, not arrive at the same time. Same time = out.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The whole point is, you have to make either a safe or and out call. You can't tell the coach that both events happened at the same time.

Yes, there are times that the way the play was made enters in to the out/safe decision. But the bottom line is that the runner has to beat the play in order to be safe. The onus is on him to actually get there before the tag, not arrive at the same time. Same time = out.

That is simply your way of reconciling the inability to distinguish which came first, an arbitrary decision that "same time = out."

The "benefit of the doubt" concept that I and some others advocate is simply an alternative manner of making the decision on the coin-flip call. It's a concept I endorse because it is not arbitrary and it has a logical and understandable rationale behind it. It is a concept that finds the umpire more often making "the expected call" and therefore has implications for smoother game management and the development of the perception among other game participants that you're a consistent and competent umpire.

It is a bit more nuanced than "call what you see, and if it's a tie then call "out," so I do have to give your system credit for perfectly adhering to the KISS principle, no doubt about that.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

It is a concept that finds the umpire more often making "the expected call" and therefore has implications for smoother game management and the development of the perception among other game participants that you're a consistent and competent umpire.

With all due respect, I don't care about my perception, other than my uniform, to other game participants and worrying about what teams think about my umpiring abilities.

I will call what I got, not make calls to make games go more smoothly. And I'm sure the head hanchos will commend me for this.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

That is simply your way of reconciling the inability to distinguish which came first, an arbitrary decision that "same time = out."

The "benefit of the doubt" concept that I and some others advocate is simply an alternative manner of making the decision on the coin-flip call. It's a concept I endorse because it is not arbitrary and it has a logical and understandable rationale behind it. It is a concept that finds the umpire more often making "the expected call" and therefore has implications for smoother game management and the development of the perception among other game participants that you're a consistent and competent umpire.

It is a bit more nuanced than "call what you see, and if it's a tie then call "out," so I do have to give your system credit for perfectly adhering to the KISS principle, no doubt about that.

What are you talking about? You lost me, pal. A way of reconciling the inability to distinguish which came first? No, by rule, the runner has to beat the play. Ties do not go to the runner. Same time = out has nothing to do with guesswork, or keeping things simple. The runner didn't beat the ball, so he is out. That is the way it's supposed to be called.

I think the "expected call" concept is full of hooey. Smoother game management? I get the calls right, and game participants know this, and I rarely have to explain my calls. I am known as a very consistent and competent umpire by the vast majority of area HS coaches.

I also never said that I "call what I see, and if it's a tie then call out." I call them the way they are, either safe or out.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Good lord, boy, where did you get your education?

Event 1 occurs at 1:24:06pm, Central Daylight Time.

Are you saying it is impossible for Event 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. to happen at exactly that same point in time?

No two independent events can happen at the same time in theory. To the eye, a stopwatch that rounds to hundredths, or your alarm clock, perhaps they can. But in reality, one happened first, and the other second.

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

To any level of precision short of infinity, two events most assuredly CAN occur at EXACTLY the same time. To the human eye, even the best of them, the level of precision is far short of infinity.

Time doesn't exist "short of infinity". Just because you saw things happen at the same time doesn't mean they happened at the same time. There hasn't been any tool that can back up what I'm saying, my theory is based off of philosophy rather than science

Just joggling ya'lls brain, nothing more.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Good lord, boy, where did you get your education?

Education? "Proposterous."

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Good lord, boy, where did you get your education?

Event 1 occurs at 1:24:06pm, Central Daylight Time.

Are you saying it is impossible for Event 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. to happen at exactly that same point in time?

To any level of precision short of infinity, two events most assuredly CAN occur at EXACTLY the same time. To the human eye, even the best of them, the level of precision is far short of infinity.

Well, I could offer a mathematical proof that ties don't exist, but the human eye couldn't discern such a difference anyway.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Steve - both feet hit the bag at the same time. Proposterous.

Two independent events don't happen at the same time. Either he was out or safe. Ties don't exist!

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I said there are no ties. I don't believe in ties, even if the ball and runner happened to arrive at exactly the same time. Ties do not go to the runner. That is on the myth list, for sure.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Well I guess we're done, then. We can shut the officiating.com down and the discussion board down.

"Just call what you see."

Case closed, everybody knows everything there is to know about umpiring.

I saw the play in question; the umpire made the right call. He made it because the actual result was a coin-flip in which the "benefit of the doubt" clearly should have been weighted against the - yes, that's right - sloppy defensive play.

You guys of the "just call what you see" persuasion are perfectly within your rights, but I don't understand what you're doing in these discussions. Call what you see. Right. We get it.

Smack Thump--OUT!
Thump Smack--SAFE!

Coin Flip--OUT!

[pdxblue]

I have never seen a "tie" at first base.

NEVER.

[aceholleran]

This may sound siimplistic, but I call outs at first.

Unless B1 clearly demonstrates that he beat the throw, he is out, in my book.

In 29 years, I have never been involved in an argument over a call at first, unless something hinkey happened (e.g., bad feets, double-clutch by F3, etc.)

Sometimes you can let the players guide this call.

IMHO, it's not about "rewards," it's about getting into a good position, following the ball, then using proper timing and mechanics.

Or should I say "than"?

Ace