Establishing Baseline

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

However, in this situation, should second base be treated similar to homeplate in that R2 should not be entitled to run towards second base because he is forced to leave that base.

In this instance, second base is treated (nearly) the same as home plate. But, I don't think either is treated the way you want to treat it.

That is, BR is allowed to retreat toward home and R2 is allowed to retreat toward second. The difference is that BR is out if he reaches home; R2 is not out if he reaches second.

One of the reason why I tend not to have problems with any of my games is perhaps I overlook it when people use the wrong terminology for a particular instance. When a coach comes out and asks why his batter couldn't "steal" first when the catcher dropped the third strike.

That's a good philosophy on the field. Here, though (and in most other discussions amongst umpires) we expect umpires to use the proper terminology.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In this instance, second base is treated (nearly) the same as home plate. But, I don't think either is treated the way you want to treat it.

That is, BR is allowed to retreat toward home and R2 is allowed to retreat toward second. The difference is that BR is out if he reaches home; R2 is not out if he reaches second.



That's a good philosophy on the field. Here, though (and in most other discussions amongst umpires) we expect umpires to use the proper terminology.

Thanks for the answer Bob.

As for the terminology, I certainly agree that an umpire should use the correct terminology but in my opinion (for whatever that's worth ) noone should be dished simply because they used an incorrect term. The correct term should be stated and then the conversation continued. After all we're here to learn but to step on each other. Are we??

[Tim C]

So are you telling me how to post?

Regards,

[tibear]

Tim,

I'm not telling you how to post. I am trying to let you know that I didn't think your post was helpful and that if you wanted me to learn, which I hope was the intent, that perhaps there are different ways of doing that.

I realize there is a lot of wisdom that is on this site and that is why I come here. I may ask some strange questions and sometimes use the wrong terminology but then again who's perfect and aren't strange questions the perfect thing for this forum?

If we only got the simple questions about basic rules, it would get boring very fast. However, realize that some of us haven't been umpiring for 30 years and are still trying to learn.

[Tim C]

Not all posts on this site are "helpful" (nee: dudeinblue, canadadump, and other HOF members).

When we started posting on these sites 10 years ago it was much like a bunch of guys sitting at a table having a cold adult beverage.

We could kid, attack, defend, parry and thrust.

We have lost that because some people take offense to every little thing.

I guess that is the modern world.

I will continue to post as I see fit. Not every thread is about learning.

I teach umpires statewide and I use my style.

You don't care for it . . . I can easily live with that.

Regards,

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

Thanks for the answer Bob.

As for the terminology, I certainly agree that an umpire should use the correct terminology but in my opinion (for whatever that's worth ) noone should be dished simply because they used an incorrect term. The correct term should be stated and then the conversation continued. After all we're here to learn but to step on each other. Are we??

There are different methods of teaching, and different methods of learning. Explaining that your sentence (or question -- whatever it was) is "wrong" is one way -- and can be effective. It forces you to try to figure out what was wrong and correct it. You learn on your own, and might jsut find something else in the book that you didn't know (or "knew" but was wrong).

[tibear]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There are different methods of teaching, and different methods of learning. Explaining that your sentence (or question -- whatever it was) is "wrong" is one way -- and can be effective. It forces you to try to figure out what was wrong and correct it. You learn on your own, and might jsut find something else in the book that you didn't know (or "knew" but was wrong).

I agree that if you explain that the sentence is wrong can be effective, but simply saying "I disagree" doesn't do anything.

What does he disagree with: the out call? The baseline established? The terminology used? The font used?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tibear

I agree that if you explain that the sentence is wrong can be effective, but simply saying "I disagree" doesn't do anything.

I disagree.

Take this for what it's worth, but your recent posts remind me of the guy at camps / clinics who gets feedback and then responds with, "yeah, but ..."

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tibear

Thanks for the answer Bob.

As for the terminology, I certainly agree that an umpire should use the correct terminology but in my opinion (for whatever that's worth ) noone should be dished simply because they used an incorrect term. The correct term should be stated and then the conversation continued. After all we're here to learn but to step on each other. Are we??

Thanks Ti. We were not aware that you had been crowned king of the forum. The rest of us will now follow your personal rules of internet umpire forum etiquette. To misquote Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday - "Your hypocrisy knows no bounds."

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by tibear

Thanks for the answer Bob.

As for the terminology, I certainly agree that an umpire should use the correct terminology but in my opinion (for whatever that's worth ) noone should be dished simply because they used an incorrect term. The correct term should be stated and then the conversation continued. After all we're here to learn but to step on each other. Are we??

The correct term is dissed.
From M-W.com:
Main Entry: dis
Pronunciation: 'dis
Variant(s): also diss
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): dissed; dis·sing
Etymology: short for disrespect
1 slang : to treat with disrespect or contempt : INSULT
2 slang : to find fault with : CRITICIZE