Timing play or not?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by etn_ump

Easy Jim.

We ruled correctly, just wanted rules citations for future references.

Sorry I asked.

Glad you got it right, hope you have read the offered citations. Your credentials cause me to be surprised that you don't know this most basic principle. But, maybe I'm expecting too much. I believe the pros blew a time play last year so you got it right without knowing why. Anyone else remember a time play gone wrong in MLB. (I typed timing twice in the previous sentences and caught my mistake).

[johnnyg08]

There was one involving Cleveland a while back where they added the run back on the board later in the game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Incredible.

I went to JEAPU and the Jim and his instructors never referred to it as anything but a time play. And they corrected students who said timing play.

It has stuck with me since.

They also stubbornly refuse to use the terms A, B, C, and D as base umpire positions on the field, so I guess we should never use those either.

[greymule]

Grammatically, a case could be made for either time or timing, but the former is the baseball term.

The one that bothers me most is check instead of checked swing. Saying "a check swing" is like saying "a bake potato" or "a close-minded person."

But I'm an editor, and I can testify that even the Ivy League professors write, "This policy lead to a decrease in crime."

It is indeed hard to believe that anybody doing college ball would not know the rule for the OP. Many people don't know it, but it's in the rule book in black and white, and it's the same in all codes; you don't need J/R or Evans to figure it out. Still, I can think of several rules that I never fully understood until a few years ago (thanks to this forum). I can also remember a few times when I had to explain to a long-time umpire something that I had thought was common knowledge.

"There was one involving Cleveland a while back where they added the run back on the board later in the game."

And a few years ago, R1 had rounded 2B and was on his way to 3B when an outfielder made a diving catch. The MLB umpires called R1 out on appeal at second base and later admitted their error.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

They also stubbornly refuse to use the terms A, B, C, and D as base umpire positions on the field, so I guess we should never use those either.

Jim acknowledged and discussed their use in amateur ball. Then he explained why he and other professional instructors, including those at PBUC choose not to use them.

It would be more accurate to say they use a different system. The use of the word "stubborn" implies that they refuse to use a superior system. They (professionals) do not believe it to be superior. They believe they are using what works best for their purposes.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Jim acknowledged and discussed their use in amateur ball. Then he explained why he and other professional instructors, including those at PBUC chose not to use them.

It would be more accurate to say they use a different system. The use of the word "stubborn" implies that they refuse to use a superior system. They (professionals) do not believe it to be superior.

They aren't always right.

[etn_ump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I think the question was asked because your OP did not state rules citations and it was asked similar to that of a rookie.

It is a time play and the run scores - simple as that. With your posted credentials, I would think that this would be an easy 1-2-3 decision for you. But if you want rule references, I would suggest with your posted credentials, you should dig out your rulebooks and look for yourself. Seeing as how this was FED, you also might want to refer to the FED casebook. I'm sure with your posted credentials, you have one of those buried in your equipment bag. Why not post the rules you find and the casebook references for those of us who have no posted credentials so we can become smart, too!

I shouldn't have asked.

I was in Atlanta working a week long tournament, out of town, without my rule books, went on my laptop to ask a question and I catch all this crap.

All I wanted was rule cites not a whole bunch of garbage.

You wonder why more people don't use this site, this is why.

Do the letters, F.O., mean anything to yall?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

They aren't always right.

Nor are they necessarily stubborn...nor necessarily wrong. They are different with a reason.

And I've never heard them refer to those who disagree as wrong or stubborn. So in my book they are least more understanding and tolerant.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by etn_ump

Do the letters, F.O., mean anything to yall?

Field Officer?

I will point out that your OP asks, "Does the run count?"

It doesn't state, "I know this run counts, but I'm pout of town without my books and need to prove it. Can someone please provide the OBR reference?"

[MrUmpire]

[QUOTE=etn_ump;685044]

All I wanted was rule cites not a whole bunch of garbage.

Then you should have indicated you were up to your resume and knew the rule and just wanted a citation, instead of asking a dumbass rookie question.

You wonder why more people don't use this site, this is why.

What is why? People pretending to be experienced veterans asking dumbass questions?

Do the letters, F.O., mean anything to yall?

Forward Observer?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by etn_ump

I shouldn't have asked.

I was in Atlanta working a week long tournament, out of town, without my rule books, went on my laptop to ask a question and I catch all this crap.

All I wanted was rule cites not a whole bunch of garbage.

You wonder why more people don't use this site, this is why.

Do the letters, F.O., mean anything to yall?

Methinks you might be just a l'il too thin-skinned for sports officiating.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by etn_ump

I shouldn't have asked.

I was in Atlanta working a week long tournament, out of town, without my rule books, went on my laptop to ask a question and I catch all this crap.

All I wanted was rule cites not a whole bunch of garbage.

You wonder why more people don't use this site, this is why.

Do the letters, F.O., mean anything to yall?

Why would any umpire work a week-long tournament without access to a rule book, much less without bringing it along? Didn't any of the other umpires at the tournament have a rule book? How about the tournament director(s)? How would you resolve a protest at the tournament if nobody had a rule book? Just curious....

JJ
F.O. (Fine Official)

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Field Officer?

I will point out that your OP asks, "Does the run count?"

It doesn't state, "I know this run counts, but I'm out of town without my books and need to prove it. Can someone please provide the OBR reference?"

Touche'. But he had a laptop, and apparently access to internet to ask the question. So he had access to an OBR rule book at MLB.com

My trunk trunk has rule books in it, something he should consider.

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

Rather than "piling on", I'll just offer a different perspective.

When I saw etn_ump's post, I didn't notice his "credentials". So, I just tried to answer his question.

Personally, I thought it an exceptionally good answer. But hey, that's just me.

Now that his credentials have been called to my attention, I too am a little surprised that he asked the question.

But...

Some of the best umpires I know and have worked with are not especially "articulate" about the rules. They KNOW the rules, and how to properly apply them - they just aren't especially good at explaining why and giving supporting rule cites and such.

I myself am very good at those latter things, but some of these guys who aren't are better umpires than I in my own estimation. They just are.

Yes, I'm sure.

The body of etn_ump's posts here lead me to believe that he's a credible umpire in the leagues he works.

JMO.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Some of the best umpires I know and have worked with are not especially "articulate" about the rules. They KNOW the rules, and how to properly apply them - they just aren't especially good at explaining why and giving supporting rule cites and such.
JM

Same here.