fair/foul

[DG]

Lesson in timing. He threw his hands up foul before the ball landed beyond the bag. I can see defending the call during the game, because it is his to make, but he could have owned up after seeing replay.

[JRutledge]

I think some of you are missing the point if you think he should admit he was wrong. For one there is not a single bit of conclusive evidence. His explanation was spot on. The ball touching the ground has no bearing on the call. The video in no way shows he was wrong. It just shows two places the ball landed. He made a call where his judgment told him the ball was going outside of the bag. The video only allows people who do not understand the rule to make an issue out of it and umpires that have never seen a ball curve in their life.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by DG

Lesson in timing. He threw his hands up foul before the ball landed beyond the bag. I can see defending the call during the game, because it is his to make, but he could have owned up after seeing replay.

What does waiting until the ball lands past the bag have to do with where the ball was when it passed the bag?

[DG]

Originally Posted by asdf

What does waiting until the ball lands past the bag have to do with where the ball was when it passed the bag?

I believe a ball that lands fair before the bag and fair after the bag is fair ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by DG

I believe a ball that lands fair before the bag and fair after the bag is fair ball.

I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. What does what you wrote have to do with the rule?

Now, do I think he could've hesitated and used that piece to help him with the call? Sure. Does he have to? No. Is there any conclusive evidence the call is right or wrong? No, not conclusive.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by DG

I believe a ball that lands fair before the bag and fair after the bag is fair ball.

1) You cannot tell 100% from the angle on the video that the ball was on the ground in fair territory in advance of the bag.

2) Where it land has absolutely no bearing whether or not the ball is fair.

[rbmartin]

In this case, all the replay does is show that the call was probably wrong. It does not show that the call was definitively wrong. It is certainly not enough evidence to overturn anything.
The comments made by some broadcasters and some postings on other sites definitively prove that a lack of knowledge concerning the rules of baseball exists outside the umpiring community.

[Fan10]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Bullcrap, call what you think you see and live up to it like Davidson did. I am all for getting it right but, this is one where you have step up to the plate and do your job PERIOD

An MLB umpire would disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Fieldin Culbreth

After the inning, Culbreth still is thinking about Patterson's line drive. "That one I don't feel great about," he tells me. (Amazingly, according to the MLB report, umpires missed a total of three fair-foul calls all of last season.) "I think I got it right, but sometimes you feel less than great about it."

"I thought you had it right," I tell him. "Was there chalk?"

"No, it didn't hit chalk," he says, "but here's the thing: If you ever have some doubt in your mind, you're better off calling it fair than foul. That's because, if another umpire had a better look and comes in and says, 'No, I had it foul,' then you can just return the base runner and the batter continues to hit. But once you call it foul, everybody stops; so if another umpire has it fair, what can you do? You can't just make up where everybody goes."

Link: SI.com - Writers - My Trip to The Show (Part II) (cont.) - Wednesday March 28, 2007 12:45PM

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. What does what you wrote have to do with the rule?

Now, do I think he could've hesitated and used that piece to help him with the call? Sure. Does he have to? No. Is there any conclusive evidence the call is right or wrong? No, not conclusive.

+1

Peace

[kylejt]

You make the call on the ball as it passes the bag. You don't take into account where it bounces next. Bob had the right timing, and went with his best guess. He guessed wrong, it's that simple.

I don't blame him for bailing out on that shin burner. On balls like this, that thing is rotating toward you. Just look where it went down the line. That's a hard, hard call to make. See that bounce before the bag? It's really close to the line. Normally, that thing is spinning foul, and probably is foul at the base. But that's not what happened. Heck, it was several inches fair near the outfield grass bounce. That made no sense, but there it was. No doubt it passed over the bag.

As far as calling it fair if you have a doubt, are blocked out or have a crappy angle, I learned that from a guy years ago. It made sense. And although I may only employ it every couple years or so, it's still sound logic. Give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who hit the ball, and if you can sort it out with a second set of eyes later, so be it.

[umpjong]

You have the main premise wrong. Davidson didnt guess. He saw the ball foul and called it foul. No matter how many times you want to make your "guess" the correct call it aint changing it. From the video, I honestly think he got it right, and he had the best angle and didnt hesitate or show any doubt as to what he had. No matter how much you want to be right, I dont think you are changing anyones mind on this. Had there been any hesitation or signs of doubt you might have some credibility, but there is not and you dont.........

[jicecone]

There was NO doubt on Davidson part and I can't prove that it was any more foul than you can prove it was fair at the point of decision. You keep implying that Davidson should have take into consideration where the ball landed after it passed the bag. Too late, at that point his decision was made as it should have been. Might he call it differently the next time? Who knows, but right or wrong, he made the right call.

I still disagree with the doubt call. You make the call as you see it. If you don't see it, you dont have a call and look for player reactions or other signs to help you. If after the play has completed there are questions, you resolve it. Indirectly it may be the same but thats how I have always treated it.

Sorry, I may be not up with the rest of the world but I have no idea who Fieldin Culbreth is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Fan10

An MLB umpire would disagree with you.



Link: SI.com - Writers - My Trip to The Show (Part II) (cont.) - Wednesday March 28, 2007 12:45PM

And what if the other 67 disagree with him?

An anecdotal remark from 3 years ago proves *nothing*.

[David B]

Originally Posted by umpjong

You have the main premise wrong. Davidson didnt guess. He saw the ball foul and called it foul. No matter how many times you want to make your "guess" the correct call it aint changing it. From the video, I honestly think he got it right, and he had the best angle and didnt hesitate or show any doubt as to what he had. No matter how much you want to be right, I dont think you are changing anyones mind on this. Had there been any hesitation or signs of doubt you might have some credibility, but there is not and you dont.........

I can agree with that. You do the best you can and go on. Simply having TV at the ballpark only shows the difficult jobs that umpires have at all levels whether it is MLB or a HS game.

He was close to the call, he saw where the ball hit and he made his call. That's all he can do.

Thanks
David

[kylejt]

I don't mean guessing in a bad way. It's an educated guess, based on year of experience. There's no way to know if the ball did or didn't go over the bag from where he was standing. He's backing away, sees the ball coming toward him, years of experience tells him it's going to continue to curl foul, and he makes the call. But yeah, it's a guess.

But from the video I've been watching, it bounced fair both before and after the bag. Simple geometry will tell you it passed over the bag, right? But given the same circumstance, I would have probably called it foul too.