Smittyisms

Originally Posted by David B

I think you missed the point, but this part fits the thread well since this is definitely "Smitty" at his best.

Thanks
David

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.

Call me a "smitty" (as I do NCAA games ) but if a tag is not applied, I don't care if the fielder was holding onto the ball at third since the runner took off from first, he is SAFE! If you are not standing on a bag with the ball in possession on a force play, the runner is SAFE! If you miss touching a bag by 1/2 inch and it is appealed properly, you are OUT! Etc...

I was working with a young guy who I mentor earlier this year on his strike zone. He went on and on about how he has to call this big strike zone to "keep the game moving". I listened and listened. I then asked "How long is your average game". He replied that most of them go the whole time limit.

I then asked him to start calling the "real" strike zone. He did. Game over in 1:50. One of the quickest games he had in this league.

He also discovered that the batters still swing the bat, and often swing it more when you force the pitcher to throw STRIKES IN THE ZONE!!!

I could go on and on. The point is, call the game that is really there and you gain respect. I do not have to explain any philosophy to an arguing coach this way and only need to keep track of what I actually seen! It sure is a lot easier to explain what just happened than to explain why I feel that since the rest of the world seen it as an out it is an out today.

[BigUmp56]

Let me ask you something then, Rei. Lets say you have R2 sliding feet first straight into third on a steal where the ball beat him by at least a step. Are looking for F5 to keep his glove down in front of the bag to actually make contact with the runner's foot, or are you going to allow him to make a swipe tag that's close enough for everyone to believe he applied the tag............


Tim.

BigUmp56. I have a LOT of things to keep track of on the diamond during a game. I am going to see a LOT of plays throughout the year. There are going to be a LOT of "what if" scenarios.

The one thing that is going to be consistent is that I am going to call what I see. If a see a tag, or BELIEVE I just seen a tag, runner out. If I don't see a tag, or don't believe there was a tag, runner is SAFE.

It is as simple as that. I am not out there to make decisions based upon others perceptions. I am out there to call what I see.

There is NO PLACE in the rule book that says I must adjust my decisions on a tag attempt to assure the safety of the fielder applying the tag. That seems to be the main reason given for the "phantom tag" with a runner sliding in. A fielder who is well coached knows that he can move his lazy butt up the base line a bit and tag the runner on the leg if he is worried about a cleat in the hand.

I played baseball. I never once expected a tag attempt I made that was not actually a tag to go my way. NEVER. Most players accept this. Time and time again in college games where I see a lot more unsuccessful tags the fielder does his little "sell job" about not believing I didn't see the tag, but usually admits the next inning that he didn't actually put on a tag and sort of grins about the whole thing. What keeps his coach off my butt is that he usually tells the coach that he didn't apply the tag. Sometimes a teammate who has a great angle give the little signal to the coach that I actually got it right which avoids a big blow up.

On and on. I have mostly good experiences with just calling what I see (certainly, I am not going to suggest that I always see it right though! ). I have fewer arguements now about calls than I did when I was trying to "umpire by popular perception" of the play on the field. I can now sell my calls with conviction, and any coach who has had me twice knows that I am going to call what I see, both ways, consistently.

Also, I spell my username "rei", not "Rei". I will extend that same attention to detail while writing your username in a post.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by rei

Also, I spell my username "rei", not "Rei". I will extend that same attention to detail while writing your username in a post.

I apologize?


Tim.

[JRutledge]

I agree with you "rei" only to a point. Of course I want to see an actual tag, but working 2 man and sometimes 3 man mechanics, we are not always on top of the play to make a call. I am going to call most things with what likely happen. So if a throw clearly beats a runner and the runner slides directly into the bag, I am not going to nitpick that call. I will call what likely happen. Many times what likely happen is not always easy to determine when players do goofy things. I will also see I do not buy the safety issue that many buy into. I just know that when dirt is flying and the angle is bad, I am going to get outs when I can. But if a throw is bad and a slide is to avoid a tag, then I call completely what I see or what I think happen.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Last night in the Padres/Mets game, there was a play in which the ball was hit to F3 down the line and close to the outfield grass, and Il Duke Hernandez (or whatever his name is - F1 for Mets) covered first base. He was fed a perfect strike, yet Hernandez never came close to touching the base.

I rewound and played it over and over on my DVR just to be sure. He jumped completely over the base, not coming remotely close to the base. He then turned to run off the field along with his teammates, as this was the "third out." The umpire, using his delayed timing, waited until everyone was leaving the field to make the "out" call, like it was routine. Nobody argued, nobody complained, as the runner was beaten to the bag by 3 steps. The BR and first base coach for the Padres were talking after the play, but I don't know what they were talking about.

I guess this is another "neighborhood play" when the play isn't close at the base.

[jicecone]

rei,

I believe that 99.99% of officials go out there to do the best job they can with the tools they have. But I believe you are discussing specifics about calling the obvious, when most of us are talking in general.

It doesn't sound like your a nitpicker but if that is what you do, fine.

Any good college ball or semi-pro ball I did, you were expected to hustle and be in position, look professional, act professional and call the game "as expected" by the players and coaches. If there was no tag, you were also expected to make the right call.

I never worked MLB (somehow they missed my name), so I can not relate to what they do, nor do I officiate to expected standards (except those mentioned above) set by others in the Association either, as far as making the "expected call."

I believe we are talking about the "ordinary" here and not the "unusual."

However if you feel as though your job is to call the "unusual", ALL the time, (and I don't think you are), then all I have to say is remember, very ,very, very, very few people come to watch you umpire.

But if the shoe fits and it works for you, have a nice day.

"ordinary"? "unusual".

Holy cow! This is baseball we are talking here. There is ONLY "ordinary" and "unsual" things that happen! LOL

What I am saying is this. When I don't see a tag, I am calling safe, no matter WHAT it may look like. If a runner misses a bag and it is appealed, I will call the runner out. Etc...

If anybody cares to notice, I did say "if I believe I did/did not see" a tag, missed bag, etc... Of course I am out there just doing the best job I can. I know for certain that I will not get every call right, and that sometimes what I think I saw is not exactly what happened. That is why it is called a judgement call.

But to think I saw something and make a call contrary to that because of what I think everybody else saw? Never gonna happen here!

[BigUmp56]

There is a difference then in how my association want's this called as compared to yours. We've always taught that our umpires should call the phantom tag to protect the fielder from being spiked in the hand or arm if the runner slides directly into the bag effectively giving himself up. If the runner does anything unusual like a hook slide for instance, we teach to look for the tag to be applied.


Tim.

[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,

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?

[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.

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?

[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.