Making the Call

[jicecone]

I just received my issue of NASO "Referee" magazine and read the feature on page 38 about Mike Winters, MLB umpire.Now I have never heard of and do not know him but from the article, I now have a lot of respect for the man.

In the article Mike is being interviewed about being on the field for Mark McGwire's home run that broke Roger Maris's single season record. The interviewer asks if Mike seen McGwire miss first base on his HR trot. I will let you read the full answer, but I would ump with this guy any day.

In summary Mike and his partner, Larry Poncino discuss the missed base and what they would have done had McGwire not gone back to touch the bag. Bottom line, Mike states "We would have had to call him out. It would have been an incredible story (to call him out),but I'm glad it didnt happen"

Now my point. How many times have we, as officials, not made a call or choose to ignor a rule because of the importance of a game or action that is taking place? Im not talking about the 15-0 game where if the pitcher throws the pitch between the backstop posts , you call it a strike, either.

Mr. Winters and his partner never did have to make that decision however, I got to believe if they did, it would been by the rules.

Up for discussion.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by jicecone


In summary Mike and his partner, Larry Poncino discuss the missed base and what they would have done had McGwire not gone back to touch the bag. Bottom line, Mike states "We would have had to call him out. It would have been an incredible story (to call him out),but I'm glad it didnt happen"

Interesting post, jicecone................

I know of at least one reknowned member who advocates that the appeal should not be upheld since the batter beat the pitcher and the touching the bases only adds order to the balance of running out a home run. Unfortunately, he has admirers who listen to his every word as gospel.

IMO, you don't call a runner out for missing a base unless you are certain it was missed. Benefit of doubt always goes to the runner in this situation. However, if you are certain the base was missed, if even by an inch, then when the appeal is made it should be upheld. The defense is counting on you to do your job, and they've not given up their attempt to retire the runner despite his knocking the ball over the fence. Who is to say batting is a more important facet to the game than awareness (appeals)?


Just my opinion,

Freix

[bluezebra]

How about the PU who called a borderline pitch ball four, on a 3-2 count, with 2 outs in the 9th, negating Milt Pappas' perfect game?

Maybe the rulebooks should be rewritten. Close pitches are always strikes in a perfect game situation. Missed base appeals will not be allowed if a hitting record has been set. The list could be endless.

Bob

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by jicecone
Up for discussion.

With McGwire's home run, it was obvious to 50,000 assembled fans and a television audience of millions that he missed the base. His body language and his coach's body language were both screaming, "Missed base!" Of course an umpire couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't overlook that.

But what if the missed base wasn't so obvious? What if the umpire felt he was one of only two or three people who even noticed it? If he calls it, what if replays are inconclusive? Then he becomes the umpire that has taken away McGwire's record-breaking dinger. It becomes a much foggier area then. And we'd all be talking about the umpire who thought he was bigger than the game by injected himself into a historic moment, wouldn't we?

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by jicecone

I just received my issue of NASO "Referee" magazine and read the feature on page 38 about Mike Winters, MLB umpire.Now I have never heard of and do not know him but from the article, I now have a lot of respect for the man.

In the article Mike is being interviewed about being on the field for Mark McGwire's home run that broke Roger Maris's single season record. The interviewer asks if Mike seen McGwire miss first base on his HR trot. I will let you read the full answer, but I would ump with this guy any day.

In summary Mike and his partner, Larry Poncino discuss the missed base and what they would have done had McGwire not gone back to touch the bag. Bottom line, Mike states "We would have had to call him out. It would have been an incredible story (to call him out),but I'm glad it didnt happen"

Now my point. How many times have we, as officials, not made a call or choose to ignor a rule because of the importance of a game or action that is taking place? Im not talking about the 15-0 game where if the pitcher throws the pitch between the backstop posts , you call it a strike, either.

Mr. Winters and his partner never did have to make that decision however, I got to believe if they did, it would been by the rules.

Up for discussion.

You bring up an interesting point, but as Jim Porter said, this particular play was seen by EVERYONE. The first base coach, McGwire himself, Fans and people watching. I'm surprised Referee didn't ask Mike Winters if would have also called coaches interference on this play as the first base coach did assist Mark on his way back to first.

Suppose only you and F3 saw the missed base and it wasn't so obvious as in the McGwire HR and it was a record breaker or for a game winner in a HS Sectional game. Would you then uphold the appeal?

The reason why a runner has to touch all bases and touch them in order is obvious. Without such a rule the game would be a farce. Also, you do not want either the offense or defense to gain an advantage not intended by the rules, however,

On a HR the ball is dead so what advantage is gained by a player missing a base? Unless the missed base is as obvious as in Mark's case, IMO - Do not ruin a Game especially on a record breaker or something we are more familiar with a game winning HR in a HS sectional game.

I also agree with Bob, on his 3-2 count senario. If B1 wants to put the game in my hands he will lose everytime. It's not up to me to determine the outcome. IMO, a 3-2 pitch is equivalent to the last play in a baseketball game (basically the whistles are put away), unless it is truly a BALL, B1 better be swinging.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

With McGwire's home run, it was obvious to 50,000 assembled fans and a television audience of millions that he missed the base. His body language and his coach's body language were both screaming, "Missed base!" Of course an umpire couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't overlook that.

But what if the missed base wasn't so obvious? What if the umpire felt he was one of only two or three people who even noticed it? If he calls it, what if replays are inconclusive? Then he becomes the umpire that has taken away McGwire's record-breaking dinger. It becomes a much foggier area then. And we'd all be talking about the umpire who thought he was bigger than the game by injected himself into a historic moment, wouldn't we?

An umpire has not "injected himself into a historic moment" by doing his job. He was put there for a reason before the game began. He's still there for a reason, but it's not to purposely upset history---it's to do the job he's been trained and paid to do.

Does that include his own judgment of applying the rules?
Absolutely. Experienced officials know that they don't call everything they see, however, they do allow advantage/disadvantage to play a role.

So, is there advantage/disadvantage on whether you uphold an appeal of whether a run scores or an out is declared? Most certainly so. Furthermore, when you purposely make a call you know is wrong knowingly providing an advantage to a team, YOU then become the cause.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[phillycheese]

This is the kind of stuff that makes me excited about being an umpire... now that I am learning to move beyond the rule book. (of course, I still have to finish learning it first!!)

[insatty]

In a previous thread about a bases-loaded walked-in winning-run runner barely missing home, I quoted Carl Childress's excellent advise against an extraordinary call on an ordinary play. Carl's advise in his tome, "51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game," credits Jim Porter's advise about the expected call (Porter's apt analogy to "brown" versus "burnt sienna").

My Childress quote prevoked a hot response from Freix and others, and I suspect that Freix's "renowned member" refers to Childress. Childress to his credit notes that in Pro Baseball his advise is tempered by the omnipresent TV camera, requiring umpires to call the obvious even in the absence of a disadvantage.

But I continue to believe that the strict-adherence-to-the-rules-no-matter-how-ticky-tack umpiring philosophy is dead wrong. If the rule violation that creates no disadvantage is so close that only the umpire sees it, it should not be called. Without the benefit of instant replay, the offical may be wrong (and even with instant replay, a call may not be clearly confirmable nor refutable as all Oakland Raider Fans know too well; Oakland legitimately caused a fumble and deserved to beat New England). This advantage-disadvantage theory serves football so well that no football official will advance beyond Pop Warner Mighty Mights if he doesn't understand and apply this theory for non-safety fouls.

As officials, I believe we must remember that our role is to make the game fair and enjoyable to play and watch. Strict rules knowledge is as required as knowing when to invoke those rules to penalize. Thus, like Mike Winters I call McGwire out on the obvious missed base, but deny the appeal for the walked-in game-winning runner who barely misses home because he and his surrounding ecstatic teammates are celebrating a great game.