When the obvious call isn't the right call
 

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.

Is there a point to this post? Not sure I even understand what you are trying to say.

Peace

The 2nd baseman put his glove on top of the bag and pulled it away when runner arrived. Not a swipe and miss. Obvious, easy call.

Yes there's a point. Too many times umpire's make the 'obvious' call, even though it's not the correct one. There are many who are advocates of this. In the game mentioned, the Cubs' runner slid into second. The fielder had the ball in plenty of time to get the tag and the out. But he held his glove ABOVE the base, not down in front, or on the runner. The second base ump called the runner safe. It was the correct call, because no tag was made. As I said, there are many umpires who say that if the fielder has the ball in time to make the tag, and is close enough, give him the out.

Bob

You're so eager to prove a point, you bring the wrong evidence.

Saw the play. It was both the obvious call and the right call. No question about it.

Excellent! Attitudes are already changing.

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

Another example that you do not understand a basic concept. Oh well.

Peace

No, your experience, or lack thereof, is showing. My attitude toward this play hasn't changed in 30 years.

The example you cite doesn't fit the parameters of the debate. I know of no "obvious call" advocate who would disagree that safe was the right and obvious call to make.

Thanks for playing. Better try next time.

I don't even know where to begin: oh hell, just shoot me and put me out of my misery.

how are obvious plays now chainging the face of umpiring??? is the hobgoblin of little minds now working n some posters here? haha

Originally Posted by Don Mueller
And why praytell would you make a call contrary to what you saw?
That indeed would be a smittyism

Your response
My OP very similar. Reds F4 receives ball before Fox starts slide. F4 has glove stationary in front of bag (high) well before the touch of the bag.
Before replays the tv audience didn't know if there was a tag and neither did the stadium crowd. The expected call was "out"
Only after replay was it an "obvious safe"

And here are some thoughts from some of the other "obvious call" advocates




Striker calling you out

I'm not sure what he means "by tag where it should be", since that is on the runner and he obviously means otherwise

Referring to above post

Referring to above post

As I said, I hope Holbrook's attitude filters down to some amateurs.

My OP very similar. Reds F4 receives ball before Fox starts slide. F4 has glove stationary in front of bag (high) well before the touch of the bag.
Before replays the tv audience didn't know if there was a tag and neither did the stadium crowd. The expected call was "out"
Only after replay was it an "obvious safe"


Watch it again, tag was NOT in front of bag. It was on top (over) of the bag. Never in front.

1. You forget, I saw the play. The two had very little in common. Everyone could see the runner was safe in your play, even you. Only the fielder could see it in my play.

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

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

4. You remain amusing.

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

I also saw the play: obvious call - right call!

Jrutledge
 

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

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

Anytime -- have one on me! :D

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I vote for the beer.

Wait were you talkin' to me? ;)

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

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

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