Never reward a bad Defensive Play !

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

"Which one happened first" begs the question. In a "coin-flip" call, you don't really know which happened first, that's why it's called a "coin-flip". To the greatest extent of your perception, you can't tell which happened first. So, you can (1) flip a coin, (2) always call them out, like Sandiego Steve does, or (3) base your judgment on which side earned the call.

I endorse Door # 3.

I didn't say that I always call them out on a coin-flip. I did say that if the runner does not beat the play, he is out. No flipping involved. Leave me out of the flipping. If the runner's foot arrives before the ball, well then, he's safe. I don't see the gray area here at all.

"But Blue, how could you call him OUT???"

"Coach, did you see that pretty play he made. He went deep in the hole and threw it from his knees."

"Yeah, Blue, but the runner was safe!!!"

"Doesn't matter, coach, on really close plays, the pretty play wins."

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

"But Blue, how could you call him OUT???"

"Coach, did you see that pretty play he made. He went deep in the hole and threw it from his knees."

"Yeah, Blue, but the runner was safe!!!"

"Doesn't matter, coach, on really close plays, the pretty play wins."

Isn't the imagination a wonderful thing? I would never have thought of attributing such a conversation to Dave, but then, I'm limited by knowing he's not stupid.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Isn't the imagination a wonderful thing? I would never have thought of attributing such a conversation to Dave, but then, I'm limited by knowing he's not stupid.

Oh, I can't illustrate absurdity by being absurd, but it's okay for Rush Limbaugh to do it, huh?

I'm making a point that going by what a play looks like is not the best way to make a close call.

Dave was attributing things to me which I did not say, so I was merely giving my opinion on the subject.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh, I can't illustrate absurdity by being absurd, but it's okay for Rush Limbaugh to do it, huh?

Well, that explains a lot.

[kylejt]

I took me several years to understand the concept, and it's still pretty hard to teach to some folks. Black and white is easy. Fuzzy logic is tough.

We have coin-flippers all the time. I liken these calls to having a three way toggle switch in your head. D makes a terrific stop, I throw the switch to "OUT". D kicks the ball around before gloving it, I've got it in "SAFE". On coin flippers, I go to the switch for the call.

COIN-FLIPPER: Where a human being can not decipher if the ball beat the runner.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh, I can't illustrate absurdity by being absurd, but it's okay for Rush Limbaugh to do it, huh?

I didn't know Rush was a participant in this discussion board.

I'm frankly getting a little tired of having to correct you.

There's a solution to that problem.

I call the plays the way they "are," not how I "see them." What is so hard about this to comprehend?

How an individual "sees" a play is how it "is" according to them. I don't follow this statement at all.

OTOH, if you mean "I call the plays based on what I see happen at the moment of safe / out and not what happened prior" then that's simple to understand. It's just as simple to understand that some do consider what happened prior when making a call.

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:

I read 7.08(e) and 6.05(j) as completely contradictory -- the former says the runner is out if he fails to get there first (ties go to the defense); the latter says the (batter-)runner is out if the base is tagged first (ties go to the runner).

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I didn't know Rush was a participant in this discussion board.



There's a solution to that problem.



How an individual "sees" a play is how it "is" according to them. I don't follow this statement at all.

OTOH, if you mean "I call the plays based on what I see happen at the moment of safe / out and not what happened prior" then that's simple to understand. It's just as simple to understand that some do consider what happened prior when making a call.



I read 7.08(e) and 6.05(j) as completely contradictory -- the former says the runner is out if he fails to get there first (ties go to the defense); the latter says the (batter-)runner is out if the base is tagged first (ties go to the runner).

The statement that you don't follow was a quotation from a famous MLB umpire, whos name escapes me, who said this in response to the "call 'em as you see 'em" line, infering that many umpires "see" it one way, when in reality the opposite call would be the correct one.

So, according to your interpretation of 6.05(j), the tie goes to the runner, which contradicts one of your 40 myths of baseball

# 15. Tie goes to the runner.

# 15. There is no such thing in the world of umpiring. The runner is either out or safe.

So, it sounds to me like you use 7.08(e) as the standard way of judging non-tag plays.

Oh, and what is the solution to the problem of continually needing to correct his misinterpretation of what I was trying to say? Don't just tell me there is a solution, and leave it like that. Go ahead, tell me the solution. What is it, quit trying to correct that person?

[DG]

This discussion is very similar to the one about the unhittable curve ball that dives over the outside corner and the catcher catches it while falling to his knees. It clearly was a strike when it crossed but no one calls it because it did not look like a strike to anyone present, even the umpire who saw the catcher falling down to catch it.

A booted ground ball that the fielder has to retrieve and then make a play at any bag that's a banger, a tie even to the human eye, is not normally expected to be an out by anyone present, so why complicate issues. On the other hand, a defensive gem that ends in a tie, belongs to the umpire, ie an out.

Throw a fastball an inch off the black belt high and the catcher sticks it and see what I call.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by DG

This discussion is very similar to the one about the unhittable curve ball that dives over the outside corner and the catcher catches it while falling to his knees. It clearly was a strike when it crossed but no one calls it because it did not look like a strike to anyone present, even the umpire who saw the catcher falling down to catch it.

A booted ground ball that the fielder has to retrieve and then make a play at any bag that's a banger, a tie even to the human eye, is not normally expected to be an out by anyone present, so why complicate issues. On the other hand, a defensive gem that ends in a tie, belongs to the umpire, ie an out.

Throw a fastball an inch off the black belt high and the catcher sticks it and see what I call.

F-----g A!

Exactly.