Never reward a bad Defensive Play !

[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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

On that note, and your followup post that shows I've upset you to the point that you're getting personal, I conclude there's nothing to be gained by further dialogue.

Look, both you and Garth have been basically insinuating that I'm stupid, so I think it got personal way before my post.

[ozzy6900]

This is a interesting thread! I find some of the responses to be quite entertaining. This being said, it's time for my opinion, I guess.

Umpiring is not rocket science, it is simply knowing the rules, seeing the play and making a call. If the ball cuts the strike zone, it's a strike! If the runner touches the base before the ball arrives, the runner is safe! It's that simple, the runner is safe or out. An umpire sees the play, applies the rules regarding the play, and makes a call! The runner is either safe or out - there is no such thing as a tie.

Along the same lines, trying to digest all the information presented in a play as simple as B1 trying to beat out a throw at first should not be clouded with the presentation of the defense. Simply put, if the defense drops the ball 5 times, throws a two hopper to first and F3 bobbles the throw securing it a moment before B1 touches the bag, B1 is out! There is no discussion or weighing of the incompetence of the defense - the runner is out!

If, on the other hand, B1 runs like a gazelle and F6 throws a bullet but B1 hits the bag first, would you consider B1 out because F6 snagged the ball and threw a rocket to F3? Of course not! The mere thought of considering outside forces to the play becomes a bit scary! So many things happen during a play that an umpire could need a PC to determine the outcome!

That is why we focus on the the play and only the play. The ball comes and the fielder touches the bag or tags the runner. The runner touches the bag either before the ball arrives or after - the runner is either safe or out!

I've said it before, an umpire that focuses on the efforts of the defense to make a call is nothing but a spectator on the field - and spectators don't belong on the field of play!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Look, both you and Garth have been basically insinuating that I'm stupid, so I think it got personal way before my post.

Please, show me.

[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.

[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).

[bluezebra]

"Batter hits into a DB..."

What's a 'DB'?

Bob

[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.

[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

[Cub42]

Pause, read react. That simple. Don't think or talk to much.