Smittyisms

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the aforementioned is what is "getting lost in the translation"

The EXPECTED call IMO delas with plays in which the runner is out by a GOOD MARGIN not a narrow or close margin.

We are talking about plays in which the throw is "right-on" tag where it is supposed to be and the runner is out by some 3-4 steps not a Narrow margin. Whenever the play is close I think even the "old school" way is call what you see.

IMO, I think that is what is getting lost in this discussion.

Pete Booth

Horsedung!!! If the runner is "alleged" to be out for a "long margin", I probably have not made a call yet if the fielder has not stepped on the bag. At some point, everybody realizes that I have NOT made a call yet, and am still looking at the bag.

There is no way I am making an out call just because the first basemen is running towards the dugout. A WELL COACHED first basemen will be looking at me to make sure I have made the out call before he heads to the dugout. It has happened many times, and every time the well coached fielder steps on the bag (thus making it a MUCH closer play now!) for the out.

There is no argument anybody can propose to me that will make me call a runner out when he is safe just because he "looks out" to everybody else.

Originally Posted by Tim C

I will freely attest to how rei calls games.

I worked an early spring high school game with him as my BU.

There was a play at third when the ball beat the runner by at least 15' . . . I am serious with that measurement.

rei had perfect timing and made a "safe" call . . . the defensive side went off.

The runner at third just happened to be F2 when he came out to catch the next inning.

I simply asked: "What happened down there on your slide."

F2: "He never tagged me -- then he lied to his coach and said he did -- I thought I would have been called out."

Regards,

Tim, did I mention to you after the game that the shortstop agreed with my call?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

I have to admit, I'd call the runner safe in this situation if I'm picturing the play correctly. It's a great baseball play to slide to the back of the base to avoid the tag.

Rich:

I don't believe you read the situation carefully. Jenkins and Publius did. No telling about DM.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by lawump

Jim,

I agree with almost everything your saying. In fact, that was exactly how it was taught to me at umpire school in 1997.

However, I will add this: MLB has changed. I have heard direct from a horse's mouth (one of my old mentors who is in MLB). Over dinner he bluntly told me that MLB had changed and had changed very quickly.

With the proliferation of TV cameras (EVERY game (especially now that Montreal is out of the league) has multiple cameras AND the stadiums have tv monitors located throughout the stadium), MLB umpires today ONLY care about getting the play right. And "right" now means: what everyone will see WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE REPLAY on tv.

*snip*

Do you realize you've made these comments to an employee of Major League Baseball? I watch games for a living. It's my job to pay attention to every pitch. It's my job to work closely with broadcast teams. It's my job to scrutinize every pitch and compare each location around the strike zone to what the PU is calling.

All I can say is the proof of what you say cannot be found in the pudding. MLU's are still calling individual strike zones. They're still rewarding pitchers. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays are still being called regularly. I know because I see it everyday.

And broadcasters have various ways of dealing with it in replays. Some of them don't mention a neighborhood or phantom tag play even when it's obvious in replays. Others, particularly former players, will sometimes mention the unwritten rules. I've yet to hear a broadcaster belly-ache over and scrutinize neighborhood play or phantom tag play. It's become an accepted part of the game.

Umpiring the game has indeed changed in the last few years, however. It just hasn't changed in regards to phantom tags, neighborhood plays, and strike zone management. Instead, crews these days are much more willing to meet and overturn a decision than they used to be in years past -- and even then, only under certain circumstances.

Ques-Tec has been useless because it's installed in so few ballparks. In some of those ballparks where it's installed it no longer works, so it's used in even fewer ballparks than originally planned. There are sweeping changes in the works that may very likely change all of that, but not until the Ques-Tec contract runs out at the end of this season.

But all of this is really beside the point, isn't it? None of us umpire games with multiple camera angles and super slow-mo instant replays, do we? So the old MLU techniques should still work well for us. Right?

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by rei

I don't think I have missed any point.

What we have is a lot of umpires who will call things the way it is obvious for everybody else so as to avoid conflict. In the old days: No conflict = Excellent job.

You have missed the point because it's not at all about avoiding conflict, although admittedly that is a desirable by-product. It's about not being bigger than the game. It's about whose reality of events matters most. The game belongs to the participants -- even the spectators -- but not the umpires. It isn't our game. Instead, we're placed in charge of THEIR game. It is their world and their reality of events that we should be calling.

We don't see everything, and we shouldn't always call the game as though we do. That's how umpires get the reputation of being arrogant egoists. Rulebook lawyers, microscoping, and minutiae have no place in a well-called baseball game. There is a pro school saying that goes like this -- "Don't let that crap ruin a perfectly good game of baseball."

I admit it's a fine line and a difficult concept. It takes many years to develop it properly. It is indeed an advanced umpiring technique. But it is real and it is valid and it can often be a career maker or breaker.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Hey LARRY. . .it's NEIGHBORHOOD and WEIRD. Just for your INFORMATION!!!

THANKS mr steve

[Publius]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the aforementioned is what is "getting lost in the translation"

The EXPECTED call IMO delas with plays in which the runner is out by a GOOD MARGIN not a narrow or close margin.

We are talking about plays in which the throw is "right-on" tag where it is supposed to be and the runner is out by some 3-4 steps not a Narrow margin. Whenever the play is close I think even the "old school" way is call what you see.

IMO, I think that is what is getting lost in this discussion.

Pete Booth

I can flyspeck it if you want--a margin to me is measured in time, not in feet or steps. The throw beat the sliding runner by three feet, which sounds like a wide margin in print but is less than a second in real time. F5 gloved the perfect throw a foot off the ground, slapped the dirt in front of the sliding R1, and came up throwing. I'm sure it looked to all the world that R1 was out.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

I ADMIT that i dont see alot of RELEVENCE in umpiring TECHNQUES that work well for TV GAMES when 99.5% of ALL of us will NEVER call a game with INSTANT REPLAY. Its not that those TIPS arent VALID but do they REALLY apply to US?

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

You have missed the point because it's not at all about avoiding conflict, although admittedly that is a desirable by-product. It's about not being bigger than the game. It's about whose reality of events matters most. The game belongs to the participants -- even the spectators -- but not the umpires. It isn't our game. Instead, we're placed in charge of THEIR game. It is their world and their reality of events that we should be calling.

We don't see everything, and we shouldn't always call the game as though we do. That's how umpires get the reputation of being arrogant egoists. Rulebook lawyers, microscoping, and minutiae have no place in a well-called baseball game. There is a pro school saying that goes like this -- "Don't let that crap ruin a perfectly good game of baseball."

I admit it's a fine line and a difficult concept. It takes many years to develop it properly. It is indeed an advanced umpiring technique. But it is real and it is valid and it can often be a career maker or breaker.

You should go ref soccer. If I had a nickle for ever time I have heard soccer refs talk about "letting the players dictate what kind of game it will be today", and then watched a player leave the field with a season ending injury from a hard foul from behind that didn't get ANY card! Yeah, the game is for everybody but the guy that got screwed!

First off, there are TWO TEAMS. So, who's reality are we talking about here? The reality of the player who has hustled to get to second and beat a poor tag by a fielder, who was cheated on his rightful base because you want the game to be for................who now?

I don't get it. Simply, we are there to call the game. You can put anything else into it that you want, but the fact it, your job is to call what you see, not make stuff up for the fans/coaches/people on the bench.

I had a game last week. Visiting team right handed pitcher (team has 1st base side dugout) is coming set. I am in C (runner on second only) His elbows stop but his hands keep moving. They never stop. NOT ONE PERSON on his bench, no anybody on the first base line fan area can see that his hands keep moving. To all of those people, he came set.

Of course I balk him. I balked him 4 freakin' times! Coach was ejected on the 4th balk because of the argument that ensued. His "big" comment of the day is "Let them play".

Let who play? The pitcher gaining the advantage that nobody but me and the baserunner can see doing it? Or should I call a fair game and balk him because he DID gain an advantage on that runner at second base?

I can tell you one thing. This kid finally stopped balking, and guess what? 3 runners successfully stole on him TO THIRD BASE!!!

I could come up with scenarios all day long of plays like this. Plays that appear to be one way but are really something else.

Now somebody is going to come along and say "But this is an exception to what we are talking about".

I didn't start to gain respect and move up until I started calling the game as I see it. Of course, about that same time, I started getting great positions, learned to hustle, learned to "look" attentive to the action, etc...

It was liberating to finally just start calling the game as it is. Far less arguments, and FAR more respect from players/coaches. Yes, still the occasional ejection like what was described above, but I was ejecting coaches before when I was making the wrong call. At least I can look a coach in the eye now and simply state what I saw. That usually makes the argument MUCH shorter! They are watching you. If you can't look them in the eye, and state with 100% what you saw, they will eat you alive.

So, maybe calling all this phantom stuff works for the guy that doesn't have the same respect and who isn't working hard to get good positions and get set to make the call where they can sell their "usual" call to everybody. Sounds like this is more of a hustle/mechanics/knowledge problem rather than a philosophy eh?

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Do you realize you've made these comments to an employee of Major League Baseball? I watch games for a living. It's my job to pay attention to every pitch. It's my job to work closely with broadcast teams. It's my job to scrutinize every pitch and compare each location around the strike zone to what the PU is calling.

All I can say is the proof of what you say cannot be found in the pudding. MLU's are still calling individual strike zones. They're still rewarding pitchers. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays are still being called regularly. I know because I see it everyday.

And broadcasters have various ways of dealing with it in replays. Some of them don't mention a neighborhood or phantom tag play even when it's obvious in replays. Others, particularly former players, will sometimes mention the unwritten rules. I've yet to hear a broadcaster belly-ache over and scrutinize neighborhood play or phantom tag play. It's become an accepted part of the game.

Umpiring the game has indeed changed in the last few years, however. It just hasn't changed in regards to phantom tags, neighborhood plays, and strike zone management. Instead, crews these days are much more willing to meet and overturn a decision than they used to be in years past -- and even then, only under certain circumstances.

Ques-Tec has been useless because it's installed in so few ballparks. In some of those ballparks where it's installed it no longer works, so it's used in even fewer ballparks than originally planned. There are sweeping changes in the works that may very likely change all of that, but not until the Ques-Tec contract runs out at the end of this season.

But all of this is really beside the point, isn't it? None of us umpire games with multiple camera angles and super slow-mo instant replays, do we? So the old MLU techniques should still work well for us. Right?

Are you an employee or an independent contracter? --- Just joking

I can't argue with you have stated (in this thread and others) in terms of what you have seen operating Pitch tracking devices. I do not have the resources to compile stats or otherwise.

However, I stand by what I was told over dinner by my "mentor". Nothing more nothing less. I don't believe him in the least to be a liar. I believe him when he tells me that he (and his brotheren) require an actual tag to be applied in order to call an "out". (I stated in my prior post that the phantom force at second on the front end of a double play is alive and well.) I believe him when he talked about the desire not to be crucified by a non-understanding media. Of course, human error, by umpires, is still alive and well.

Also, I disagree that strike zone management hasn't changed. I spent time on the phone yesterday afternoon with a AAA reserve umpire talking to him about a recent MLB plate job he had. I can assure you he enters a Ques-Tec game with a much different mentality than the one he had when he and I were in the low minors together...or even a AAA game. We have talked several times since he did his first Ques-tec game in the Arizona Fall League about how he has had to relearn (or adjust) his strike zone.

Again, you have numbers. I only have conversations with mentors and friends.

Maybe some umpires believe they are changing...but do the numbers show otherwise? Again, I don't have the time or resources to do a study. I can only state as fact what was TOLD to me.

I don't know how many MLB umps you know...it could be more than me! But I stand by these conversations.

In the long run, does this matter to us mere amateurs...not yet. As I stated above...I agree with what you were posting.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

Do you realize you've made these comments to an employee of Major League Baseball? I watch games for a living. It's my job to pay attention to every pitch. It's my job to work closely with broadcast teams. It's my job to scrutinize every pitch and compare each location around the strike zone to what the PU is calling.

All I can say is the proof of what you say cannot be found in the pudding. MLU's are still calling individual strike zones. They're still rewarding pitchers. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays are still being called regularly. I know because I see it everyday.

You're comparing cheese and chalk. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays OUGHT to be allowed in pro ball because they are devices of self-preservation. Amateur codes penalize the offense (FPSR and MC rule) for doing what the pro game allows. There's no good reason to allow gross misses of tags of either a runner or a base in amateur codes. I'm with you on minor misses of the base on force plays; I'm with rei all the way on tags of the runner.

Interestingly, for all the sound and fury to the contrary regarding how our way will impede one's career, mine looks a lot like his. 20+ years, moved up to d3 ball several years ago, and the NCAA coaches whine about those calls a lot less than internet forums would have you believe.

[lawump]

This whole concept can be summed up as "making the expected call".

I'll give you an example from my minor league days:

I had a "whacker" at first base on an infield ground ball with two outs and multiple base runners (I was in "C").

The play was very, very close, and I was using very, very good timing (that is taking a long time) to make up my mind. Finally, I decided the runner was "safe". Before, saying "safe" or giving my mechanic, I noticed F3 throwing the ball back to the pitcher's mound (not to F1), the fielders trotting off the field, and the B/R taking off his helmet and batting gloves and with the first base coach waiting to take them back to the dugout.

Now what would you the base umpire do in this situation?

I think some posters in this thread would say: "You had a good long look at the play...you determined by examining all the evidence (watching the base, listening for the ball to hit the glove) that he was "safe", so call him "safe"."

Others, would do what I did: "He's out."

[PeteBooth]

rei]Horsedung!!! If the runner is "alleged" to be out for a "long margin", I probably have not made a call yet if the fielder has not stepped on the bag. At some point, everybody realizes that I have NOT made a call yet, and am still looking at the bag.

rei a couple of questions if I may.

What criteria do you use when you are Unsure or perhaps a better way to phrase it is you do not exactly know if the player was tagged or not. ? If you have never have been in that position then God bless you.

Even when we have the prefect angle - do we actually KNOW that the runner's hand touched the bag before the tag, etc.

Also, you are working Solo - do you have any criteria for making safe / out calls when in some instances you are 80 - 90 ft. away from the play (ala the pick-off at first base and steal of second)?

On another note: do you "reward" good plays when dealing with "coin flip" calls. ie; Ground ball deep in the hole - great play by F6 and it'a a coin flip. Do you take into account that the defense made a great play and EVERYONE expects the OUT call or on the reverse side. B1 is busting it out of the box on a routine play in which the fielder proceeds to bobble it, boot it and again the call is a "coin flip"

Thanks

Pete Booth





Pete Booth

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by rei

You should go ref soccer. If I had a nickle for ever time I have heard soccer refs talk about "letting the players dictate what kind of game it will be today",

*snip*

rei, you're still not getting it. I never said anything about letting players dictate the game. That's entirely different.

Yes, there are two teams. The concepts I'm talking about deal with the same reality for both teams. I'm talking about when the umpire is the only one in the world who believes he saw it a certain way. It takes years of officiating baseball to develop the judgment and instincts to know when it happens.

I didn't say anything about, "making stuff up." It's already there. There's nothing to make up. You're not fabricating a thing. An out is an out.

I have a very difficult time believing that you and the baserunner were the only two people who could see the pitcher was failing to come set. Nevertheless, that's not something you should ignore. After all, the baserunner could see it. The pitcher was gaining an advantage. Balk him everytime.

But if you're telling me that you're calling safe an R1 who's out by 6 steps because the pivot man was merely straddling second base instead of actually touching it, then I'd call you a microscope umpire. If you're telling me you'd call R3 safe in that Red Sox game I talked about because the catcher's heel came centimeters off the plate a second before gloving the throw, then I'd say you were obsessed with minutiae.

[Jim Porter]

Originally Posted by Publius

You're comparing cheese and chalk. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays OUGHT to be allowed in pro ball because they are devices of self-preservation. Amateur codes penalize the offense (FPSR and MC rule) for doing what the pro game allows. There's no good reason to allow gross misses of tags of either a runner or a base in amateur codes. I'm with you on minor misses of the base on force plays; I'm with rei all the way on tags of the runner.

Interestingly, for all the sound and fury to the contrary regarding how our way will impede one's career, mine looks a lot like his. 20+ years, moved up to d3 ball several years ago, and the NCAA coaches whine about those calls a lot less than internet forums would have you believe.

FPSR and MC rule still don't penalize a runner for sliding spikes first into an arm or ankle. Even at the NCAA and high school levels, there is still an element of self-preservation to those plays.

But that doesn't matter. I'm talking about an umpire making a call he thinks he sees when everyone (and I mean everyone) believes the exact opposite occurred. You can recognize when that happens. It is a technique that can be developed and honed for getting the call right -- not making the wrong call just because you think everyone isn't going to believe you.