Should an umpire rule that which is expected

[PeteBooth]

Ok I think it's time to get off the LLWS for a minute. I know Danny's fate is still not decided, but here in NY I'm sick and tired of seeing Danny's picture in the local papers on a daily bases. Leave the poor kid alone and if someone is at fault here - look to the kids parents.

Now Child Services is getting involved, so something that originally seemed to be strictly an age issue is becoming more social in nature.

Now to my thread. In my early days of umpiring I strictly called what I saw - Period. As I moved on to upper ball I found that philosophy not to be sound.

I have finished Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game and the aforementioned was a topic in the book. Should we call that which is expected?

What does this mean? I'm not talking about plays which are close or bang bang in nature, but plays in which the runner appears to be out/safe by a mile and an umpire rules opposite.

Let's take a simple example; r1 stealing; F2 throws a bullet to say F6 who puts tag down where it is supposed to be, R1 is going to be out by a mile but the tag isn't actually made - it's in the vicinity. In other words to everyone in the park (including the offense) the runner looks out. Now are you going to make the out call or actually look for the tag? This could also go under the caption "phantom tag".

The "neighborhood play", "phantom tag", etc, have been passed down through time and have been accepted. Do you accept those traditions? or simply call it the way you see it?

Have you tried both approaches so that you can see for yourself? I have tried both and at least in upper ball, calling that which is expected works best.

Comments!

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Have you tried both approaches so that you can see for yourself? I have tried both and at least in upper ball, calling that which is expected works best.

Then keep calling it that way in the upper level of ball in your area.

It's the same here, BTW.

I had a player attemtp to steal second earlier (duh -- he couldn't have done it later!) this year. The throw was in plenty of time, but the runner did one of those "here's my hand, oops, I pulled it away" slides. Since this slide made a "usual" play "unusual," I called what I saw -- safe. No arguments.

The same player then tried to steal third. This time, he slid straight in. Third out. (no comments on the whether this was a smart play). As he was going to short to play defense, he commented that he hadn't been tagged, but since he slid straight in, he knew he was out. Said it was the right call. No complaints.

Sliding straight in when the ball is already there is one way upper level players "give themselves up." If that's what they want to do, I oblige them.

[Steve M]

Same way here, too. And I think most of us could give a number of examples like Bob's.

[blarson]

I was U2 in a SL Sectional game. U1 was a guy that also does college ball and does some local indepent (pro) league games.

I get a play at 2nd, on of the in the vicinity calls. This kid is off the bag. Farther then I would have normally given him I would have thought.

I don't know what came over me though, I rang up the out and gave a crisp but kind of a non-chalant out. Like one you would give on a routine out but I did verbalize it.

I had already let U1 know that I was open for his critique. A couple of innings later we met. He asked me what I saw on the call at second. I told him how I had it, he said, good, I just wanted to see if you saw it right. That was the right call, notice that you didn't hear a f** thing from anyone in the park. If you called him safe off the bag you would have heard alot of sh**. That is why we do it that way in higher level ball.

Bob

[Edited by blarson on Sep 4th, 2001 at 01:47 AM]

[Bfair]

I think when you speak of the "expected" call, what you are really talking about is the team that made the quality play.
I generally refer to that as "benefit of doubt".

The team making the quality play will get the benefit of doubt. Let's take that runner stealing second where the throw beats him hands down, everyone sees him as out, including me....that's what is expected....until such time as he PROVES to me that he didn't get tagged. Now, when he throws that great hook slide and I am certain he didn't get tagged, I'll call him safe. It's no longer expected. The crowd also saw that great slide and possible missed tag---it's no longer "expected" that he'll be out. Of course, it's not the great slide that makes him safe, it's the fact that it was proven to me he didn't get tagged. I won't call him out just because the throw beat him by a mile, nor will I call him safe because of a great slide---but the quality of the play itself determines who will get that benefit of doubt.

Now let's take the reverse on the play, where the throw is high and F4 is chasing the runner with the tag hoping to touch his upper body before his feet reach the base. Not really a quality throw, agreed?? So, that runner is safe (expected) until F4 PROVES to me that he beat the runner with the tag. The runner will receive the benefit of doubt on this play due to the lack of quality of the throw.

That philosophy will also apply on bangers. Take the following plays that are so close to call you really can't tell..........
1) F6 goes deep in the whole and makes a great catch and throw to F3----banger!!!! He's out.
2) F6 is nonchalant as he picks up a slow roller while BR is busting his butt down the line---banger!!! He's safe.

Reward a quality play, and don't reward a non-quality play.
Of course, if I'm certain of safe or out, that's what called. This applies only to "benefit of doubt" on really close calls where I am not certain.

Potentially illegal play, such as obstruction or interference, is not quality play and should never receive the benefit of any doubt.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[BJ Moose]

Community Standards, describing Obscenity. "I know it when I see it!" Same thing here.

There is a difference between the plays that ONLY YOU SEE.. and ones where the PARTICIPANTS know what happened. The steal play of 2nd, throw BEATS runner by mile, glove gets LAID down in front of bag, and hand goes just past glove to bag behind it. NO TAG at all. This guy is OUT. That runner, sliding on the ground, doesn't really know if he nicked the glove or not.

I watched a partner in "A" call a "Safe! Off the BAg" call on a fairly routine 5-3 play, as F3 sorta maybe "rolled" his heel up as he took that throw, which beat runner by a good half stride. Partner, somewhat analretentive, saw an inch of daylight at the "SMACK" and called WHAT HE SAW.

Oh man, this was a BAD CALL. (Did I mention that there were 2 outs, then 7 more batters came to the plate?)

[bluezebra]

Gee! And all this time I thought an official called what he/she saw, not what the people in the stands wanted. Oh, well, live and learn.

Bob

[Ump20]

Originally posted by blarson
I was U2 in a LL Sectional game. U1 was a guy that also does college ball and does some local indepent (pro) league games.

I get a play at 2nd, on of the in the vicinity calls. This kid is off the bag. Farther then I would have normally given him I would have thought.

I don't know what came over me though, I rang up the out and gave a crisp but kind of a non-chalant out. Like one you would give on a routine out but I did verbalize it...


Bob

I read Carl's book and agree with calling what is expected. I assume this was the front end of a possible double play. If the play at second becomes a force play only then the fielder better be on the bag, especially at the Little League level. Jim/NYC

[Patrick Szalapski]

For the most part, call what you see. But make sure you actually SAW it.

Here's Jim Porter:

By golly, if the runner's safe, he's safe.

But, if you're just unsure, go with what you saw. What did it look like?

If it looked like the runner was out - - if he was simply a dead duck and 99 times out of a 100 he'd be truly out, then call the dang out. It will also look like an out to everyone else, too.

We call what we see. It is not precise. It is an art. We, "see," in many more ways than simply by using our eyes. We see with our minds.

Don't be fooled into believing that we must be totally loyal to only what our eyes see. Letting our minds see, instead, is far superior, because of the unique complexity of the human intellect. Our minds will do a much better job of making the right call than our eyes will.

What something "looks" like can be different from what we actually may "see". In most of those cases, the best call is what it looked like.

Sincerely,
Jim Porter

That about sums it up for me. We've been over this too many times before, so I guess that's all I'll say for now.

P-Sz