| SanDiegoSteve |
Thu Oct 29, 2009 05:59pm |
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43
(Post 633690)
I don't know how you would say that. I think his assessment is pretty accurate, other than wanting a quicker call.
It's pretty obvious to me that you judge rather quickly.
|
Let's see here...I made a statement that is very similar to the following statement, but you chose only to comment about what I said, and gave jicecone a pass. What's up with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone
(Post 633587)
Its obvious you have spent little time umpiring or playing this game because people do not react as fast as you think. Could have, would have, and should have is only realty when being an armchair umpire.
|
Sounds like he said the same thing, only in a nicer way. Calling it "imperfect umpiring" gave me insight into his umpiring ability and/or experience, that's how I could say what I did, and I stand behind what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpTTS43
(Post 633684)
What was he looking at then? If he would have read the play and his partner, he could have gotten into position for a possible appeal play if there had been one. There should have been a no call on Cano. Since he made a call on Cano, I believe that's why the meeting took a bit longer than usual. The question of "where do we put Matsui?" It was obvious to me that U2 made a call on the catch versus the front end of the double play. Maybe it wasn't as obvious 90 ft away to U1. Since he wasn't looking at the catch, I wonder what his reaction would have been if the SS threw directly to F3 in order to double up Matsui? I would think it would be better to react to the play and your partner rather than the players.
|
I think Umpmazza meant to say "shouldn't have signaled safe." Probably an error of omission rather than commission. |
