Out or ?

[insatty]

The runner should not be called out on the appeal:

"That is a routine play that deserves a routine call. Don't ever waste an unusual call on a pedestrian, even banal play."

Childress, 51 Ways to Ruin a BASEBALL Game, ¶ 23, p. 35, play 21.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by insatty
The runner should not be called out on the appeal:

"That is a routine play that deserves a routine call. Don't ever waste an unusual call on a pedestrian, even banal play."

Childress, 51 Ways to Ruin a BASEBALL Game, ¶ 23, p. 35, play 21.

Appeals are part of the baseball game.
Who is anyone to say the hitting is more important than pitching, running, throwing, coaching, or alertness to the game (appeals). A large portion of maintaining the rules is thrown on the defense in requiring them to appeal infractions. All that is useless if there is an umpire who doesn't understand that---as you apparently don't.

If the defense appeals, it's because they expect a call from you, the umpire. Do your job and call the out if you are certain the base was not touched. The defense has done their job. Despite allowing a hit, walk, or home run that allowed this runner to score, the defense STILL did not give up their effort to attempt to legally retire this runner. Have appreciation for their knowledge and persistence and do your job.

Is NOT doing your job here providing an advantage?
I'd think a run scored versus a runner being called out IS providing an advantage not intended by the rules----and YOU are causing it if you don't do your job here. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

As far as "51 Ways to Ruin a Game", do you jump off a cliff if someone tells you to?


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by insatty
The runner should not be called out on the appeal:

"That is a routine play that deserves a routine call. Don't ever waste an unusual call on a pedestrian, even banal play."

Childress, 51 Ways to Ruin a BASEBALL Game, ¶ 23, p. 35, play 21.

I don't think even Carl would fail to call a runner out upon him missing home base and a proper appeal. I could be wrong, but I hope he can speak for himself and show us his intent behind the maxim above and how we should apply it. I don't think it is as you say.

P-Sz

[insatty]

Good point, Patrick. Freix, also, makes a good point, but his persuasiveness is severely lessened by his ad hominem attack.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by insatty
Good point, Patrick. Freix, also, makes a good point, but his persuasiveness is severely lessened by his ad hominem attack.

Not an ad hominem attack. Merely a point that much of what you read here provides different viewpoints with different logic and support behind them. Regardless, YOU have to make YOUR decision on how you would handle a situation and why. The decision is YOURS.

The point has been discussed in a different forum in greater detail with the opposing view being that the touching of the bases after a home run is merely a technicality, and the failure to touch the base truly gains no advantage for the runner since his miss was during relaxed action. Fact being, the batter beat the pitcher and deserves the home run.

Of course, my viewpoint is different for the primary reasons stated:

1. I feel an advantage IS gained when, in fact, either a run or more scores or the runner is declared out.
   
2. Appeals are part of the game and reflect the alertness to the game. Who am I to make them any less a part of the game than hitting, pitching, running, or throwing?

The defense is counting on me to uphold the appeal if they see and appeal the infraction. I should not uphold the appeal if there is doubt that the infraction did not occur, but if I'm certain the base was missed (even if by an inch), then I should perform the duty I'm paid to do and uphold their appeal.

Still, that's MY decision to make when called upon to uphold an appeal.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[phillycheese]

Ad hominem, maxim

Boy, I usually have my rule book handy when reading the threads, now I have to keep a dictionary!!!

Phillycheese(just trying to get his post count up)

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by phillycheese
Ad hominem, maxim

Boy, I usually have my rule book handy when reading the threads, now I have to keep a dictionary!!!

Oh, I accept that a priori.

P-Sz

[insatty]

Freix's newest point is much more professionally proffered. But after careful consideration of Freix's, Patrick's, and Carl Childress's arguments, to me Carl's wins out. Because my primary officiating is in Football, where non-safety fouls are not called unless there at the point of attack and provide an unfair advantage, my perspective may differ. There is holding on nearly every play, but how fun would the game be for the players and spectators if football fouls were as plentiful as basketball fouls? So after reading many publications on Baseball officiating, I think Carl's answer to his critics like Freix is well taken:

"Absolutely nothing can be gained by calling out that runner. The purpose of the rule requiring runners to touch every base in turn is to ensure that they advance around the field in an orderly fashion. A runner skips third trying to score on a single. A runner going from first to third misses second. Those runners tried to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. Those runners, if appealed, deserve to be out on the merits of the plays.

"On the contrary our [walked-in runner] gained no advantage. . . . Save your career. Deny that appeal. [¶] To be sure, I admit there is a huge group of amateur umpires [like Freix and Patrick] who disagree with me on that point. . . . [¶] . . . But if that play ever happens to you, when you call out that runner, you may be sure it is a decision that will haunt you for as long as you pull on the mask." 51 Ways at pp. 35-36.

[soonerfan]

Originally posted by insatty
Freix's newest point is much more professionally proffered. But after careful consideration of Freix's, Patrick's, and Carl Childress's arguments, to me Carl's wins out. Because my primary officiating is in Football, where non-safety fouls are not called unless there at the point of attack and provide an unfair advantage, my perspective may differ. There is holding on nearly every play, but how fun would the game be for the players and spectators if football fouls were as plentiful as basketball fouls? So after reading many publications on Baseball officiating, I think Carl's answer to his critics like Freix is well taken:

"Absolutely nothing can be gained by calling out that runner. The purpose of the rule requiring runners to touch every base in turn is to ensure that they advance around the field in an orderly fashion. A runner skips third trying to score on a single. A runner going from first to third misses second. Those runners tried to gain an advantage not intended by the rules. Those runners, if appealed, deserve to be out on the merits of the plays.

"On the contrary our [walked-in runner] gained no advantage. . . . Save your career. Deny that appeal. [¶] To be sure, I admit there is a huge group of amateur umpires [like Freix and Patrick] who disagree with me on that point. . . . [¶] . . . But if that play ever happens to you, when you call out that runner, you may be sure it is a decision that will haunt you for as long as you pull on the mask." 51 Ways at pp. 35-36.

Insatty,

I agree with you up to the last part of not calling a runner out because you may get a red-assed coach all over you and you won't be able to sleep at night. Hey, all a runner has to do is touch the plate...real tough. If he misses it when the red carpet is laid out no chance he can be tagged or forced out...he needs to be called out. If a coach comes at me angry about that, I will throw his kid under the bus. I would frown on that 99% of the time, however all he had to do was touch home...I had nothing to do with it. If it is that clear he did not touch and we don't ring that up because it was a banal play, then I loose sleep. JT

[phillycheese]

Hmmmm, I'm thinking with a bases loaded walk, I'm gonna be blinking at the moment the runner passes homeplate. That way I don't have to argue philosophy with anyone, "He missed home coach?- sorry didn't see it, play ball"

[soonerfan]

Originally posted by phillycheese
Hmmmm, I'm thinking with a bases loaded walk, I'm gonna be blinking at the moment the runner passes homeplate. That way I don't have to argue philosophy with anyone, "He missed home coach?- sorry didn't see it, play ball"

Philly,

Why blink? I can see if the game has turned into a fiasco and it's time to go home and no one will care. The game that I envision is at least a competitive game, that is the view I am coming from. So, if I say "I blinked, coach," I am not really doing the game, players nor myself and my assignor any justice. That has to be the easiest call to make in the sport and to say you blinked would cause a coach to wonder how many other plays you "blinked" on. Players and coaches are called RATS for a reason, they will talk and talk bad about anyone they can. I have a friend I played with in college who is now a head coach at a college locally and when he and I see each other all he talks about are the bad umps he had and the bad calls they made and how he makes a day pretty miserable each time he sees them after that. There are, I believe, 22 colleges that play baseball here in OK and believe me coaches talk. They never say how good of an umpire they had and what a great call they made. That is expected of us every game so of course they won't talk about it, but if you blew one that cost a game...the word will be out. Philly, do not take this as me ripping you. I am saying why I would not "blink" on that play because I pride myself on hustling every play, being in position and making the right call. Not that I pull them out of a hat in a game, people do not come to see me umpire, but I want to do a good job. That is why I was calling college baseball the next spring after I graduated, I knew the game, the rules and my job as an ump and I took it as serious as a heart attack. Sure, I have been ripped for some of the things I have written here, but that's what makes this fun. I have also been ripped and said, damn he's right. JT

[phillycheese]

Maybe I oversimplified JT, (and please, rip me all you want- ) I guess if a guy blatantly misses home on a bases juiced walk, I'd be calling it on appeal. Its hard to imagine something like that actually happening in a game though. A more real world scenario would be missing home by a whisker. Kind of like what we see when a runner goes for the inside corner of 3rd on his way home, but actually steps fully on the dirt, but the side of his shoe makes contact with the bag. From 60 feet away, who knows if he actually knicked the bag or not. Thats not enough of a miss to call an out on appeal, and thats the same philosophy I'd take on the play at home.

Let me try this again with no reference to blinking. I was being a bit banal(drop the 'b' ) in keeping with the theme of the thread:
"He missed home coach? Didn't look like he missed to me"

[jicecone]

""Because my primary officiating is in Football, where non-safety fouls are not called unless there at the point of attack and provide an unfair advantage, my perspective may differ. There is holding on nearly every play, but how fun would the game be for the players and spectators if football fouls were as plentiful as basketball fouls""

Wait one minute here . Lets not mix up apples and oranges here. What the heck does this have to do with baseball. I also officiate Ice Hockey and there are many fouls that can be ignored away from the play, unless someone gains an advantage but, thats still not the same thing. Were talking about "the point of attack" because that action leads directly to a run being scored or not. How many touchdowns have you allowed when these fouls take place at "the point of attack"? Do you allow a touchdown if the player just barely steps out of bounds? Or almost keeps both feet in play on a great touchdown catch? Thats what were talking about here.

13 years ago I called a player out for missing third base on a homerun. Im not bragging, I was doing my job, which sometimes takes more guts than going with the group. It was a championship game and resulted in that team losing. The other team made an appeal because they felt they were playing in accordance with the rules. I made the call correctly because I was there to officiate BY THE RULES.

Officials come in all sizes, shapes and each has the right to determine how to officiate their game. I can only speak for myself, "I have slept sound every night because I handled it by the rules".

[phillycheese]

You want to compare apples to apples, missing a base is not the same as staying in bounds on a football field. If we were talking about hot smashes down the line being fair or foul by whiskers- that would make sense. Touching home plate on a bases loaded walk or home run is not a point of attack. There is no possible play by the defense on that runner (ignoring appeal here), and thus the runner is not gaining an advantage by missing the plate.

I applaud you for having the guts to make your call on that homerun. I'm just saying if the miss is imperceptible to a casual look, then I didn't see a miss. Why look for boogers that no one else can see. Sure, if theres a big juicy one hanging on your nose, about to drip on your lip, go ahead and pick the dang thing.

Just my 2 cents,
Phil

[jicecone]

Believe me, Im the last one to (pick a booger) But, the things we write on these threads, sometimes makes me wonder if new officials grasp the understanding of when to decide to overlook that missed base or technical balk.

Everyday we see what happens when are permissive society allows us to get to the point of total relaxtion. Our guard is down. The same with officiating. We start overlooking the main rules because the group finds it acceptable for you to choose what rules to enforce or not. And you want to be part of group! And before you know it your letting the wrong things go.

Mabey I'm being a little too philosophical here but the defense does have a play at the point of attack. Its called an appeal.