|
|||
Quote:
It's obvious that you think that everything in B&W in the book is to be interpreted literally. That is a dangerous and incorrect approach, especially because there is archaic language in OBR that is not to be taken literally. Quote:
|
|
|||
This describes what I'm trying to say:
From Jaksa/Roder: 2. A Batter-Runner over-running first base who subsequently takes a single step (or steps) toward second base with intent to advance is no longer over-running and can be tagged out while off base. Simply turning toward second base after over-running first does not necessarily show an attempt to advance. e.g.; A third baseman fields a grounder but throws errantly past first base. The Batter-Runner pivots toward second and commits one step in that direction before realizing the errant throw has been backed up by the catcher. He chooses to walk back to first: such B/R has shown intent to advance and is out if tagged off base. Jim Evans also says that there is no penalty for turning left, provided the runner immediately returns to the base. If the runner stands around deciding whether or not to run constitutes an attempt. That's why the rules and interpretations say that the runner overrunning first must immediately return to the base. What part of "immediately" is unclear here? Do you think the word is just placed in the rule arbitrarily? Words mean things, and in this case the word "immediately" clearly suggests that you can't stand there for several seconds deciding your next move. Either take off for second, or return immediately to first. Personally, I've never had any trouble distinguishing an attempt from an immediate return. And considering that less than 5% of the games I worked were of the Little League variety, I don't think I used a "Little League" approach. |
|
|||
Your citation above contradicts what you had said earlier, which doesn't help your case. I have always looked at a batter-runner's intent, which is why I've never called him out when he took a step toward second as some kind of impulsive reaction when it was clear he had no intent to go.
As far as "immediately" goes, yes, its very meaning is arbitrary, for just what does it mean? Do you give him one second? Two? Ten? One tenth of a second? Using your logic, a batter-runner who overruns first base, slows down some 20 feet beyond it, turns, stops for a second or two--perhaps to catch his breath--then proceeds back to first base can be out if tagged. No frickin' way am I going to call that guy out if he's tagged. Did he "immediately" return? No. Did he make an attempt to advance? No. So which part of the rule does one follow? Answer: the advance part. As was explained to me at umpire school (Jaksa and Roder happened to be the classroom instructors), the "immediately" part of the rule is considered to be analogous to abandoning his base (before reaching first it's called desertion). One should not call out a B-R just because he's slowly returning to first base, or even if he stops or pauses before returning. That interpretation is way too literal. To take a specific amount of time into consideration incorrectly changes the intent of the rule itself. Moreover, it should be noted that it was suggested by them that the entire phrase dealing with "immediately" ought to be stricken from the rule book precisely because it was misleading and extremely vague. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And maybe "immediately" should be stricken from the rule book. Perhaps you can start a grassroots movement to do so. Until then, just use your own judgment on how to interpret the word. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
I think the immediately part is analagous to the rule in softball that once the pitcher has the ball in the circle the player has to make up their mind as to what they are doing, advancing or returning.
If the ball get overthrown and the BR overruns the bag, and then stops 20 ft down the line and just stands their, looking at the ball, but not making an attempt towards second. Then i think he becomes fair game. If he becomes stationary in a "play threatening postition" then all bets are off. If he becomes stationary and takes a breath, etc, etc. he's fine. |
|
|||
Quote:
The bottom line is we are giving opinions that mean little or nothing. Even if he did not call Upton out, someone would have made a claim that he should have. At the end of the day it really means nothing. And I do not give a damn that the umpire was in the MLB. I do not see MLB umpires as the best of the best. They are people that took a route and accomplished that route. It sounds to me like you are more concerned at who these people are than some of us here that agree with this call. I also know some high profile officials and you can always find someone that disagrees with a call. That is not hard to do. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
With rare exception, MLB umpires are, indeed, the best of the best. Like every profession in life, some may have gotten there due to politics, but MLB umpires are the top umpires in the world. Sure, there are some top notch amateur guys at various levels, but as I said, MLB guys are the cream of the crop when it comes to umpiring.
They're just not perfect or immune to making mistakes. Some here on this board have never criticized a call and have instead rushed to defend everything MLB umpires do. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Most runners look over their shoulder at the wild throw and decide then whether or not to go to second. They don't usually wait until they stop, turn around, then stand there and decide if they want to go. I agree, if a runner merely overruns the base, turns and then gives no indication whatsoever that he is contemplating making an attempt to second base, he is perfectly within his rights to do so. I'm still going to take Darling's, West's and Meals' word on the ruling over your vast MLB experience. I'll go out on a limb and say that their interpretation of 7.08 (c) is the more popular among MLB umpires. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? |
|
|||
Quote:
Here's a link. Click on the thumbnail below the video on the far right side. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index...namlb_tbamlb_1 |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Then I watched the Joe West call on Reyes. Reyes most definitely made a move toward second, then stopped when his first base coach told him to get back on the bag. A lot more cut and dried than the Meals call.
|
|
|||
Quote:
There are different levels of disagreement. One can disagree with the Meals judgement. One can disagree with the rule as written. But if you accept that Meals perceived what he says, then it is hard to disagree with his ruling. As for as the claim that some posters never criticize ML umpires, just check out any thread involving Joe West, or better yet, Angel Hernandez. Last edited by MrUmpire; Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:44am. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pay Rates for High School Baseball Umpires | WhiteHat Ref | Baseball | 58 | Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:44am |
World Baseball Classic Umpires | WhatWuzThatBlue | Baseball | 10 | Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:46pm |
Olympic Baseball Umpires | Buckeye12 | Baseball | 6 | Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:21pm |
Need help from those knowledgeable in FED baseball, softball, and OBR baseball. | TwoBits | Softball | 5 | Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:21pm |
NCAA Baseball Umpires | manhong | Baseball | 5 | Sun Apr 13, 2003 08:21pm |