When the obvious call isn't the right call

[Rcichon]

There IS a point to this thread: Ozzy reminded me to go get another beer.
Thanks Oz............

[JRutledge]

Don,

I just read all your plays or examples. None of what was suggested was to call any different than what was called on the Cubs/Reds game.

Once again you do not seem to understand a basic concept.

It is pretty sad if you ask me.

Peace

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rcichon

There IS a point to this thread: Ozzy reminded me to go get another beer.
Thanks Oz............

Anytime -- have one on me!

[jicecone]

Don,

Seeing how you quoted me, I have only one question to ask.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I think you doth had too many beers already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gordon30307]

To the best of my recollection I don't think I've ever said to myself this is an obvious safe/out or ball/strike and then made the "obvious call". The preponderance of the evidence is what I use.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by GarthB

2. Please indicate where I gave a personal opinion of what my call would be in my situation that you posted. RIF

I have to say I'm very confused.
If my assumption is wrong it means we are in agreement, that would not be good for you. But if my assumption is correct why would you even be bringing it up?
1. You were responding to my response to this post

Originally Posted by Jim Porter
You have that a bit wrong. The call that's obvious to everyone is the *right* call. The call can't be, "wrong," if it's obvious to everyone. It might not be exactly what you think you saw, but it's most certainly the *right* call.

My response
And why praytell would you make a call contrary to what you saw?
That indeed would be a smittyism

I thought it fair to assume you were not in agreement, therefore willing to call an out when you didn't see one.
If my assumption is wrong I apologize.

Originally Posted by GarthB

3. No one's attitude will be changed by a play not comparable to what was originally being discussed..

I do want to apologize to all the proponents of the phantom tag. Since I have not attained the professionalism needed to cheat the offense and reward the defense for an improper tag I must also not be able to properly identify the plays where cheating is allowed. So if this was not a cheatable play I'm sorry. I'll try to have better discernment in the future.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Don,

Seeing how you quoted me, I have only one question to ask.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I think you doth had too many beers already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just noting my approval to what looks like a trend away from the phantom tag and neighborhood play at the MLB level.
Nothing to get excited about. My approval of the trend has no bearing on your ability to continue the practice.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Just noting my approval to what looks like a trend away from the phantom tag and neighborhood play at the MLB level.
Nothing to get excited about. My approval of the trend has no bearing on your ability to continue the practice.

Don,

Your missing the point.

Whether the "Obvious Call" is the "Right Call" or the "Wrong Call," is totally different then KNOWING when the "Obivious Call", should be the "Right Call."

That is what we are advocating here.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I have to say I'm very confused.
If my assumption is wrong it means we are in agreement, that would not be good for you. But if my assumption is correct why would you even be bringing it up?
1. You were responding to my response to this post

Originally Posted by Jim Porter
You have that a bit wrong. The call that's obvious to everyone is the *right* call. The call can't be, "wrong," if it's obvious to everyone. It might not be exactly what you think you saw, but it's most certainly the *right* call.

You're right, you are very confused. I was not responding to you in any way. I posted a play soliciting comments from the board without stating my call on the situation. That simple.

I do want to apologize to all the proponents of the phantom tag. Since I have not attained the professionalism needed to cheat the offense and reward the defense for an improper tag I must also not be able to properly identify the plays where cheating is allowed. So if this was not a cheatable play I'm sorry. I'll try to have better discernment in the future.

Oh, golly, where to begin?

I guess it's best just left at, your posts seem to demonstrate that you are inexperienced at best, or simply clueless.

Oh, and the amusement is starting to wear thin as you show no indication of growth or learning. You really appear as an umpire with one year of experience X times, rather than an umpire with X years of experience.

Do yourself a favor, get some real training.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Just noting my approval to what looks like a trend away from the phantom tag and neighborhood play at the MLB level.
Nothing to get excited about. My approval of the trend has no bearing on your ability to continue the practice.

You remain confused, in denial or uneducated. The play you brought forth had nothing to do with anything you mentioned in the above quote.

1. It was not a phantom tag
2. It was not a neighborhood play,
3. One play, even misunderstood, does not a trend make.
4. Your approval means little.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I think that Don is in need of either some medication or liquid refresment from the local tavern.

I vote for the beer.

Wait were you talkin' to me?

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Another example last night of MLB umps making the right call instead of the obvious call.

Reds/Cubs game last night, bottom 2. Throw beats Fox to second by at least 6 feet. F4 makes the obligatory dip with the glove but misses the tag. Fox slid straight into the bag, nothing special. SAFE.

Hopefully this attitude will filter down to the amateurs.

Hopefully since this play trickles down to the amateur ranks with the same expectations of an Out call.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then if that is the point you are trying to make, it is a very bad one.

The only thing most of us have advocated is if the throw clearly beats a runner and there is a decent tag applied along with a slide directly into the tag, we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. Usually at the amateur level we are not in perfect position to make a call like this (I did see the play BTW) like the Major League Umpire had. Often that call is made from 30 yards away and from a totally different angle that an umpire in the Major Leagues would have. This would not apply if a slide was away from the fielder or was a good effort to avoid the tag. This is quite a different situation from what Don is trying to make. Actually he does not even understand what he is advocating. Not sure you do either Bob.

Peace

The only thing most of us have advocated is if the throw clearly beats a runner and there is a decent tag applied along with a slide directly into the tag, we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

THAT'S my point. Too many umpires, and Carl Childress is one, advocate that if the throw beats the runner, and the glove is IN THE VICINITY, call the out. Doesn't matter that there was no tag. Just like the 'phantom' touch at 2B on a double play. I've seen throws taken 3' on the 1B side of 2B, and the out is given.

Usually at the amateur level we are not in perfect position to make a call like this...

Then you're not hustling.

Bob

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

The only thing most of us have advocated is if the throw clearly beats a runner and there is a decent tag applied along with a slide directly into the tag, we are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense.

What doubt is there? There is a "decent tag applied along with a slide directly into the tag".