McCarver's idea of a good call

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I have my doctorate. I know the so-called correct and classic definition of "begs the question."

I also understand that, unlike Latin, the English language is an evolving language and much to the chagrin of some professors "begs the question" has become, as the New Oxford Dictionary of English puts it, “widely accepted in modern standard English” as a replacement for "raises the question."

However, know that I understand that you are are a "purist", should I post to you, I'll dust off my 19th century English.

Did you visit the website? Your descriptivist tosh doesn't hold up.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And while I've got a harangue, Joe Buck must know better than to call a foul ball a foul tip. Tonight he said, "That's a foul tip" when the batter fouled the ball off the edge of the catcher's mitt to the ground. I don't mind when they say "foul tipped in and out of the glove" or something similar, but to come right out and declare it to be a "foul tip" when it's not is just an unacceptable practice.

Why couldn't Buck just call it a foul ball, or explain what a foul tip really is? I'm sure he knows better. He could actually educate the uneducated fans out there instead of perpetuating their ignorance of the rules.

This type of criticism, in my opinion, is unfounded. Everybody watching the game knew exactly what Joe Buck was talking about when he used the term "foul tip."

It just so happens, from an umpire's perspective, the term "foul tip" has a certain, important, meaning.

I'm quite certain that Joe Buck understands the "rule."

If you think about it, the very term "foul tip" is a horrible description from what we, as umpires, understand it to be. Why use the word "foul" when the ball is not foul? It's a bad term that leads to some minor misuses.

Big deal.

I don't think any less of Joe Buck as a result - and neither should you or the viewers.

I knew what he meant - and so did you.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Publius]

Originally Posted by greymule

Has just between you and I "evolved" into correctness because of its widespread usage? Is hopefully, it won't rain now educated usage because some dictionaries allow it? Would you use laws more honored in the breach than the observance to mean laws more often broken than obeyed? Most people do. Most people say I feel badly, too.

Why bend the meaning of begs the question if it's just as easy to say raises the question? Why not reserve begs the question for times when you want to convey its true meaning, especially when modern style books caution against its incorrect usage?

Why say thus when you mean therefore or impact when you mean affect?

I get lots of blank stares when I tell people, "Don't worry; time heals all wounds. You'll be feeling goodly again before you know it!"

Most people I know don't use "impact" when they mean "affect"; they use "effect".

Grey, I don't think it's fortuitous that you help us with these questions, although I do think we're fortunate.

Hell, I'm ecstatic when someone writes that they were "losing" in the last inning instead of...well, you know.

Perhaps one day usage standards will be again be encouraged--perhaps even required. You may think I say that hopefully, but the truth is I could care less irregardless.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm quite certain that Joe Buck understands the "rule."

Really? I'm not quite certain. Joe Buck (AKA Dumb) and his partner (AKA Dumber) have shown time and again that they don't understand a great many of the rules.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Big deal.

It is a big deal. There are other ways to state it, such as "foul ball."

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I don't think any less of Joe Buck as a result - and neither should you or the viewers.

You're right. I coudn't think any less of Joe Buck than I already do. His father was a great announcer. There is not much resemblence.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I knew what he meant - and so did you.

You and I and the other umpires around the world knew, but some fans will think that it is a foul tip when the catcher drops the sharp, direct foul. Some of these same fans will be screaming at their local umpires as a result. That's what makes it unacceptable.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Did you visit the website? Your descriptivist tosh doesn't hold up.

Website? Tosh? Tish-tosh!

Please. I don't use websites when I want to look in a book.

[greymule]

I get lots of blank stares when I tell people, "Don't worry; time heals all wounds. You'll be feeling goodly again before you know it!"

Most people I know don't use "impact" when they mean "affect"; they use "effect".

Grey, I don't think it's fortuitous that you help us with these questions, although I do think we're fortunate.

Hell, I'm ecstatic when someone writes that they were "losing" in the last inning instead of...well, you know.

Perhaps one day usage standards will be again be encouraged--perhaps even required. You may think I say that hopefully, but the truth is I could care less irregardless.

Gold star, Publius!

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And while I've got a harangue, Joe Buck must know better than to call a foul ball a foul tip. Tonight he said, "That's a foul tip" when the batter fouled the ball off the edge of the catcher's mitt to the ground. I don't mind when they say "foul tipped in and out of the glove" or something similar, but to come right out and declare it to be a "foul tip" when it's not is just an unacceptable practice.

Why couldn't Buck just call it a foul ball, or explain what a foul tip really is? I'm sure he knows better. He could actually educate the uneducated fans out there instead of perpetuating their ignorance of the rules.

Steve, bad hair night?

Step back for a minute, read this post of yours. It is much to do about so little of importance. Joe Buck is not gainfully employed to educate, he is a performer. Television spectators do not slip into their easy chairs to watch a World Series ballgame for academic purposes. If you watch professional baseball on television with scrupulous attention to sportscasting detail, you have missed the elephants watching the ants go by.

As umpires, I would firmly suggest that we make higher quality representations of ourselves. We might best serve officiating and the game not by extended, microscopic criticism of broadcast performers but by acknowledging their mistakes with tolerance for their first job requirement.

Entertainment.

Would you (we) not have more influence if your tone is less sharp and the subject less mauled? I believe so.



Surely, a pointed but understated comment would do more than

[greymule]

It's true that the announcers are entertainers first and rules experts probably last. Many of the announcers are living proof (if any proof were needed) that in general players know little more than the average fan—maybe.

If MLB thought that hiring Britney Spears to announce the games would increase the TV audience, they'd put her behind the microphone. (I admit I'm assuming that Ms. Spears is not a rules expert. Maybe she is. And if they ever did hire her, I suspect they would insist that her wardrobe be . . . uh . . . "complete" for on-field interviews after the game.)

But as umpires we have to live with the nonsense spouted back to us by the coaches who get their "expertise" from watching TV. When an announcer says (as I heard three years ago), "As long as the batter is in the running lane, that fielder [with the ball] must stay out of his way, or it's interference," we live with the consequences. Further, while I don't really expect the announcers to know all the fine points, they ought to know the difference between interference and obstruction, and they ought to know what to call a foul tip.

And why isn't that term renamed, anyway? How many times have we had to explain to a coach that a foul tip is not a foul ball? How about a "bat tip" or something else that doesn't have "foul" in it?

[UmpLarryJohnson]

--tipped strike--

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Joe Buck (AKA Dumb) and his partner (AKA Dumber) have shown time and again that they don't understand a great many of the rules.

Apparently your negative assessment of their commentating abilities has completely eluded the networks since Joe Buck and Tim McCarver do an incredible amount of broadcasting. You should know that networks only care about one thing - RATINGS.

Believe me, if the networks thought, for one second, that they would be losing viewers simply because of their selection of announcers - they would have different announcers.

The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. Personally, I think they do a pretty good job even though they may not know the rulebook as well as most of us. Substantively, it does not take away from their body of work.

I dare say that we (as umpires) know even less about how to succeed as a sports commentator.

We are not the "typical" fan when watching a game.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[UMP25]

I highly doubt the network's announcers will have any real impact upon the ratings.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.

So it's an established fact that most people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? Hmmmmm, my research shows otherwise. Like I said, just Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot" and check out the many websites that contain those very words. Actually, many people, not just me, do not like them.

Slamalamadingdong

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I highly doubt the network's announcers will have any real impact upon the ratings.

I highly doubt you're right.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

So it's an established fact that most people like Joe Buck and Tim McCarver? Hmmmmm, my research shows otherwise. Like I said, just Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot" and check out the many websites that contain those very words. Actually, many people, not just me, do not like them.

Slamalamadingdong

Google is "researching" a skewed set, Steve; let me think about this.

Steve v.s. the Marketing Professional of the Networks. Hmmm.

Tough one.


I have to hand it to you, when you go it out for someone like McCarver, hungry, rabid, dog-bone, etc.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I highly doubt the network's announcers will have any real impact upon the ratings.

Dennis Miller, participating on the Monday Night Football crew, had a negative impact.

If PeeWee Herman was announcing, I think they'd lose viewers.

I know fans who hate certain announcers so much, they turn the volume of the TV all the way down and listen to a radio announcer.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN