DO you follow the ball to the base???

[Tim C]

I will post anything, at any time I select.

Regards,

[David B]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

Gentelman,
I realize that I didn't include all the facts as perhaps I should have. In reguards to my question I was referring to only one runner stealing not multipile options for the fielders. And you should also note that I did not ask what was the BEST OR CORRECT way to make these calls I asked how you do it so I would take all the info and filter it as I wanted to use it. So please lets not start splitting hairs here. If someone makes a post that you perhaps you don't agree with so what, state your thoughts and move on. BASEBALL BASEBALL BASEBALL thats all.

That's fine and dandy;however, through the years it is a frustration with how much "bad" information is posted. Often times with no rebuttal and a young umpire might read that and think its a good answer.

Posting information is good; however, it helps to look at who is posting and their track record.

There is not a correct way; I would suggest that you practice both methods and see what works for you.

I found that I follow the ball to the glove and my eyes to the base on the plays at first. Works great and my calls have actually gotten more consistent. (not that they were bad to start with)

But I've seen very good BU who call it the other way also.

As Carl has noted, the biggest problem with young umpires is that they don't call enought outs at first on the close plays.

Take that for what its worth, but it goes a long way ...

Best of luck

Thanks
David

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

Yes it sounds so clear. And this is basicly the way I have been doing it as Bob has stated but man those bang bang plays sometimes get me thinking did I get it right and I can't help but think that maybe I'm doing something a little wroung. Basicly I wait for a release of the ball ( on a steal) then turn and move a little to get set and I guess now thinking maybe I was just focusing on the area ( all 3 coming together ball, glove, hand or foot)and not the fielders glove which makes more sence I think.

From this statement, it sound to me as though you're seeing the play fine, but questioning yourself after you make your call. If that is the case, perhaps you should consider your "timing" as the issue and not "how" you see the play. Take an extra couple of seconds to let your brain catch up with your eyes.
On very close plays on steals or attempted doubles and such, I find myself actually thinking things like, "Oh man, the ball beat the runner to the bag, but you've gotta put the tag on the runner in time. I'm gonna here moaning and groaning on this." And then I sell, "SAFE!"

Often times, its natural for an up-and-coming umpire to question himself in his first couple of higher level games. That's nothing new, and I think we've all been there. But if it continues after 5-6 games, you need to look at your mechanics/skills. Hang in there and give yourself time to adjust to the higher level. JMO

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by sargee7

Mccrowder, sure didn't mean to get on your wild hair, but you know what happens when you assume. I surely didn't mean to degrade what might be bob's experience and if that that is the impression, I apologize. But you don't know me and please don't assume to do so. Don't let the "newbie" to this forum relate to MY experience on the field.

I'll let your posts stand for you - this is where I base my assumptions about you. You want to change that opinion? Feel free... I wait with baited breath.

Did you re-read the post you were replying to yet? Bob was most assuredly not saying we should look toward a base that we think the ball it going to before it's actually going there.

4000+ posts. 9 posts.

I think I'm safe in my assumptions so far...

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

So please lets not start splitting hairs here. If someone makes a post that you perhaps you don't agree with so what, state your thoughts and move on. BASEBALL BASEBALL BASEBALL thats all.

You must be new to the internet. This is not going to happen no matter how much you want it to be that way.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I wait with baited breath.

M - I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but: please stop eating the bait.

[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.

[PFISTO]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You must be new to the internet. This is not going to happen no matter how much you want it to be that way.

Peace

Actually I'm not new at all. I just don't have many posts here. You are probably correct in your statement as in all the forum's. I have generally found these types of places a very good place to get additional information. As I would consider myself a student of the game. I don't come here to get an education from the ground up I come here to listen to other people's viewpoint's then I decide what is usefull or not. Having said that it is painfully clear that there are many so called experts sitting behind a keyboard ready to jump at the chance to show everyone how smart they are or how much they know my point was that I wasn't asking for the best or correct way as much as I wanted to know what works for you. Anyway I have heard some usefull comments which is all I really wanted. Thanks for your time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by PFISTO

Actually I'm not new at all. I just don't have many posts here. You are probably correct in your statement as in all the forum's.

If you are not new, then you should now that people will judge your comments based on superficial reasons. That was really the only point I was trying to make.

Originally Posted by PFISTO

Having said that it is painfully clear that there are many so called experts sitting behind a keyboard ready to jump at the chance to show everyone how smart they are or how much they know my point was that I wasn't asking for the best or correct way as much as I wanted to know what works for you. Anyway I have heard some usefull comments which is all I really wanted. Thanks for your time.

If you understand that people come here to show how smart they are, then you should not be surprised with the responses you received. I am not endorsing any position. I am just stating that this is how things are going to be done whether you or I like it. It is very easy to act like you know something wile sitting at a computer screen.

Peace