Never reward a bad Defensive Play !

[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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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.

Then explore your exception - why do you dress professionally, but otherwise don't care what others think about your performance as an umpire?

I would submit that most of us want to be perceived by our subordinates, superiors, peers, and others as good at what we do. For those with ambition to move up the ladder, such perceptions are necessary, or at least helpful.

The 60' Little League fields are littered with one-year 25 times veterans who have never learned that.

[TussAgee11]

I care what my assignors, evaluators, etc. think of me. But if it is neccessary to make percieved calls rather than correct ones, then I guess I won't be moving up. And I will not submit to simply pleasing coaches and compromising the integrity of the games I work for my future betterment.

I call balls and strikes as an art, how the catcher catches the ball etc.

I will call an OUT if the tag is down in front of the base before the runner slides in.

But. I will not take outside considerations to making bang bang, coin-flip calls because "the defense made a bad throw". Didn't F3 make a nice catch to get the bad throw, and get back to the base?

Doesn't matter to me, which one happened first?

And your dergogatory remark towards LL Umpires was uncalled for, some of the best umpires I have ever played or worked with do solely LL ball. Do you think MLB umps look down at HS umpires? I sure wouldn't think so, so stop doing the equivelent. They are your brothers.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Then explore your exception - why do you dress professionally, but otherwise don't care what others think about your performance as an umpire?

I would submit that most of us want to be perceived by our subordinates, superiors, peers, and others as good at what we do. For those with ambition to move up the ladder, such perceptions are necessary, or at least helpful.

The 60' Little League fields are littered with one-year 25 times veterans who have never learned that.

There are also umpires with solid 20+ year experience working these games. I am one of them. I would feel comfortable going to a collegiate wood bat game in the morning, and turning right around and doing a LL Majors game in the afternoon. Baseball is baseball. I don't know why people make it out to be so damn difficult. I also value what subordinates, superiors, and peers think of me. I don't care so much what coaches think, but most of them like me just fine too.

[bluezebra]

"Batter hits into a DB..."

What's a 'DB'?

Bob

[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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

So you're going with rulebook literal, eh? Then I suggest you read the different rulebook references to batter runner at first base, and other runners on force plays. It's not consistent. Some references endorse the "same time = out," and others reduce, literally read, to "same time = safe."

You could look it up.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

So you're going with rulebook literal, eh? Then I suggest you read the different rulebook references to batter runner at first base, and other runners on force plays. It's not consistent. Some references endorse the "same time = out," and others reduce, literally read, to "same time = safe."

You could look it up.

Read it, been there, done that. I don't subscribe to the contradictory rule theory. I use 7.08(e), 7.01, and 6.05(j) for my "Runner is out" decisions:

7.08(e) - Any runner is out when he fails to touch the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

Rule 7.01 says basically the same thing: A runner aquires the right to an unoccupied base when he touches it before he's out.

Rule 6.05(j) says pretty much the same thing too, in dealing with the B/R: A batter is out when after a third strike or after he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base. (I find the distinction so minute, and not at all contradictory, that it still requires the runner to beat the play.)

So, to summarize: A runner is out if he does not clearly beat the play. A runner is safe, if he acquires the base before he is out, and he's out if he fails to acquire the base before he or the base is tagged.

[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.