DO you follow the ball to the base???

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sargee7

Bob, Be careful with getting ahead of the ball. Especially if you have multiple runner. If you are expecting a throw to 1B, as an example, you could have a fielder, i.e. 2B, intercept the ball and attempt a play at 3B while you are watching 1B. Now you have someone looking for a call that is yours and you didn't see it. Let the ball take you all the way in, that way you won't get fooled.

Sargee, you are right. I was thinking only of a single runner and a steal when I made my statement.

Multiple runners and a cut-off near the base at which a play might be made is difficult to hanlde with just two (or even one) umpires. If you stay with the ball or watch the cut-off, you will have no time to react to the play if the ball goes through. If you go the (anticipated) play, you will be late if the ball is cut-off. Still, the cut-off allows more time to react, so I'd err on the side of being ready for the initial play.

[sargee7]

Bob, I don't know you and certainly do not mean to belittle your's, or anyone else's experience on this, or any other forum. If I did, please accept my apologies.

It seems now that the only one's who rate any opinion on this forum are the one's that agree with other opinion's. Other than respond to your post, I am still not sure what got the hair's up on a couple of other's necks.

To McCrowder and TimC. I enjoy reading and, sometimes putting my 2cents in on these forums, so, If I am wrong in posting something, instead of being wisea**, why not just explain where and what I have posted as being incorrect. Maybe I, as well as other's, can learn from your vast experience and excellence in officiating.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by sargee7

Other than respond to your post, I am still not sure what got the hair's up on a couple of other's necks.

OK, assuming this to be a correct statement, I'll answer you.

Don't you think it was a TAD offensive for some guy with 6 (at the time) posts to come down condescendingly on a guy with thousands of posts? Granted, it's entirely possible that someone could post here thousands of times and still be an idiot ... but I think it's good advice to pay at least a LITTLE attention to someone's prior posts before assuming the guy is an idiot.

So what "got the hairs up" was you misreading a respected forum member's post, and condescendingly telling him to be careful. Sort of like giving Tiger Woods advice to be careful on his backswing.

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

....Don't you think it was a TAD offensive for some guy with 6 (at the time) posts to come down condescendingly on a guy with thousands of posts?

Now you're starting to sound like "Charlie" - a person who judges ability/knowlege based on how many years he's been umpiring. "Internet Umpires" are no different. Just because you post a thousand times, doesn't mean you can work - like "Charlie", who has been umpiring 20 yrs, doesn't mean he has a clue either.

When I'm on the field, it doesn't take more than an inning or so before I can tell if a person has "skills". Likewise on the internet, it doesn't take more than a couple of posts before you can tell if they have a clue. Bottom line, don't judge ability/knowledge by a (number), rather form your conclusions based on content and observations. Just my opinion

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

Now you're starting to sound like "Charlie" - a person who judges ability/knowlege based on how many years he's been umpiring. "Internet Umpires" are no different. Just because you post a thousand times, doesn't mean you can work - like "Charlie", who has been umpiring 20 yrs, doesn't mean he has a clue either.

When I'm on the field, it doesn't take more than an inning or so before I can tell if a person has "skills". Likewise on the internet, it doesn't take more than a couple of posts before you can tell if they have a clue. Bottom line, don't judge ability/knowledge by a (number), rather form your conclusions based on content and observations. Just my opinion

Sal: I think mcrowder qualifed his comment well enough with the part you left out: "Granted, it's entirely possible that someone could post here thousands of times and still be an idiot"

However, I agree with you primary point and would add that Jim Evans' next post on the internet would be his first.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

Now you're starting to sound like "Charlie" - a person who judges ability/knowlege based on how many years he's been umpiring. "Internet Umpires" are no different. Just because you post a thousand times, doesn't mean you can work - like "Charlie", who has been umpiring 20 yrs, doesn't mean he has a clue either.

When I'm on the field, it doesn't take more than an inning or so before I can tell if a person has "skills". Likewise on the internet, it doesn't take more than a couple of posts before you can tell if they have a clue. Bottom line, don't judge ability/knowledge by a (number), rather form your conclusions based on content and observations. Just my opinion

Sal ... didn't I say exactly that myself?

But for someone with 6 posts to ASSUME that someone with 4000 posts needs to be talked down to? Please.