|
Mon Oct 21, 2002, 03:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
Oops!
Quote:
|
|
Mon Oct 21, 2002, 08:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
HHH
Peter , great reading thank you for the smile, a lession in there some where, Who is C2? maybe the guy has written more
book's on baseball rules than you have fingers to pick naysal oysters with!!! Thats who
|
|
Mon Oct 21, 2002, 11:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
For what it is worth, I am in complete agreement with whoever has the most posts and has their own corner on a website and might be interested in publishing an article I plagarized...oops, wrote.
For what it is worth, I have known Carl since he was in diapers and I am behind him 100% and won't have anyone disagree with him, ever ever. Guys...take a stand. "REASONABLE EFFORT" What does that mean to you? Take time out to stop worrying about how we look in the "Cyber mirror" and get a grasp of what is being asked! We all love you either way guys. We will buy your books. We will go to your websites. You don't have to worry about ruffling feathers here. I assume that you all side, during an arguement, with the coach that might be the most apt to be on this website or buy a writing, or visit a website? Come on now..."if you don't stand for something...you will fall for anything." Downtown, keep these guys on their toes. You're doing good. If you want a professional opinion, other than the ameturistic ones here...give me a note at address below  Dave officiating.dumb dave@t/C2/holycowness.com
|
|
Mon Oct 21, 2002, 11:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle!
Youbefoolin and the DT guy have done the impossible!
They've posted such knee slappin' material that, for the first time I can remember in the past five years, HHH, Porter, T. Alan, Benham, Childress, and Fronheiser are in complete agreement on an issue! Quick, someone get a camera. This is truly a Kodak moment. I don't think Youbesmokinsomething or the guy with the DTs has any idea of the rarity of this situation. There is a better chance of Rosie O'Donnell winning the Betty Crocker Homemaker of the Year award than there is of this happening again.
__________________
GB
|
|
Tue Oct 22, 2002, 07:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle!
Originally posted by GarthB
Youbefoolin and the DT guy have done the impossible! They've posted such knee slappin' material that, for the first time I can remember in the past five years, HHH, Porter, T. Alan, Benham, Childress, and Fronheiser are in complete agreement on an issue! Garth regardless of umpire differencies, there is one thing we ALL share or I should say MOST of us Share in Common, and it is the most basic of umpire principals: When we can get an out TAKE IT. Heck we have all done games in which we wanted (or maybe we even did (Grin) invoke the IF with 2 OUTS just to get the game over. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Tue Oct 22, 2002, 09:27am
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks gentlemen.
It has been an exciting conversation. I never expected to find this caliber of people in an internet forum. It has been many years since I felt like "the kid" yet this conversation definitely angered me and yet humbled me. Induction by fire.... I look forward to more informative discussions. Hope to hear from you all again.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Thu Oct 24, 2002, 09:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Even More Amazing
Quote:
Peter
|
|
Sat Oct 26, 2002, 02:36am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gentlemen: (Most of you are, I'm sure)
Talk about a pissing match. Wow! The IFF rule certainly appears to be much more controversial than it should ever be. I can't believe that so many of you cannot find common ground and provide guidance and understanding to those that seek you advise and counsel. A fly ball comes off the bat and you have probably less than 3 seconds (waiting for the apex) to determine and declare if its appropriate to call IFF. It's not automatic, if it were, then umpire judgement would not be necessary. Peter (HHH) mentioned that he was involved in an NCAA game on a very windy day and still never hesitated declare an IFF. I too, have had the occassion to make this judgement (college game and very windy 20 - 40 MPH) and chose not to invoke the IFF rule. Both of us may have been correct in our judgements. When a towering infield fly started out over the third baseman's head (apex) and actually hit the ground between the second and first basemen, some 130 odd feet away, I knew that there was nothing "ordinary" about it. Even at this level of play, fly balls on this day were providing nothing but frustration for all players who were attempting to catch any fly ball. No objections, no arguments from either team. While I believe that there will always be non-routine elements that come into play while applying the many rules of the game, I also understand that these rules are there in order to level the playing field. No advantage to the offense, and no advantage to the defense. When one considers the reason for a rule, then one can more equitably administer a rule. I have also called many an IFF with unskilled players out of position, that, in my judgement, should have been easily caught with ordinary effort. Isn't judgement a question of balance? Circumstances, facts, conditions, etc. all need to be considered. I happen to think "NEVER" and "ALWAYS" are the greatest enemies of a good umpire. Some decisions are more difficult than others. All decisions, however, should be based on one principle - NO ADVANTAGE given to either the defense or the offense. In a word it's called being "fair" (npi). Be fair, work hard and give it your best shot, nobody has the right to ask for more.
__________________
Ed
|
|
Mon Oct 28, 2002, 07:04am
|
|||
|
|||
You let a high popup in the Infield drop between the 1st baseman and the 2nd baseman and did not declare an Infield Fly???? I don't care if you had a monsoon blowing across the field . . . that's an "Infield Fly"! Why didn't you declare it AFTER it dropped? Nothing in the book of "fairness" prohibits you from doing that. Why limit yourself to "three seconds"; (your timetable). The correct call on that play is "Infield Fly".
And the rules of the game, or the umpire's judgement for that matter, speaks nothing of "fairness". We are to administer the rules of the game, regardless of what may or may not seem "fair". There are probably more examples of of "unfairness" (is that a word?) in the rules of baseball than there are of fairness. Think of another profession where a person can "fail" 2/3 of the time, and still be called a "superstar". Wouldn't you think a batter should be able to get on base at least 50% of the time, if the rules were "fair"?
|
|
Mon Oct 28, 2002, 08:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 28th, 2002 at 08:00 AM]
|
|
Mon Oct 28, 2002, 01:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I never said I agreed. I just got tired of arguing the inane. I'm feeling refreshed today.
I really haven't learned anything new from our discussions about the Infield Fly but I have learned that some of you here have big enough voices (and professional clout) that you could probably push any call, no matter what the controversy, through the game/managers. And if the managers don't like your call, you eject them. That's our authority as umpires - used correctly or abused, that is our authority. I sense that we are all arguing the same thing. Yet each of us has in our minds our own vision of a particular fly ball, that we likely called correctly, but are unable to portray that vision verbally in this forum so everyone will agree with our call. (I also realize there may be several contrarians with loud voices and professional clout, that will jump in and disagree with this paragraph. So be it.) I personally will never call an infield fly that I don't feel could reasonably be caught. That is my condition of ordinary effort - the ball could be caught. Runners can, and do, make this decision too. The vast majority of the time my decision and the runner's decision will be the same. Runners are not going to wait for my decision; if they don't think the ball can be caught, they are going to be moving. That's what runners do. They know the difference between a hit and an infield fly nearly as well as I do. I just get to call the infield flies (or not). My call is the true determining factor and the runners must live with my call. Don't misunderstand. My judgement is independent and final. I don't meet with the runners, while the ball is in the air, and hold a voting session discussing angle of trajectory, defensive positions, how many beers the shortstop drank the night before, which players have peg legs, what mit size they are using, wind speed and direction, where the sun is, color of uniforms, color of the ball, which bat was used... I just make the call... as do you. And that call is final... done and over with. I can't possibly be alone, amongst this crowd, in recognizing there are balls hit, which land in the infield, and that were not catchable (a poorly/miss-hit ball that goes 25 feet up and lands 15 feet in front of home plate between the 1, 2, and 5 positions - it will probably roll foul anyway). Even if the entire defensive team is leaning against the outfield fence with their mits on the ground, smoking cigars and exchanging phone numbers with buxom blonde fans, I will not call that hit an infield fly. Neither should you. But, if you are loud enough and eject enough coaches, I think you could get away with it. I still am immensely impressed with the caliber of people invovled in this thread. I am anxiously looking forward to their excited responses. Page 4 here we come! PS. TimC, I have since realized that a great part of this thread is all in fun/comraderie.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Mon Oct 28, 2002, 01:46pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Mon Oct 28, 2002, 04:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Tony IMO, you are still missing the point. The IF has really nothing to do with the defense, but everything to do with the offense. The bases are 90ft. and runners are stationary or at most maybe a foot or 2 off the bag depending upon where the ball is. If you don't call the IF, one could resurrect a YOUNG and ALIVE Bob Hayes and the defense would still get an easy DP. I'll agree it's amazing the IF took 3 pages and perhaps more. If you are talking about kids who do not shave perhaps your argument holds more weight. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Wed Oct 30, 2002, 11:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To me, I've never taken into account the ability of the person on the field when deciding on ordinary effort. I feel that ordinary effort means that ANY infielder, not just the person trying to make the catch, can eaisly get themselves under the ball and make a catch. By easily I mean not going into a full out sprint and diving to reach it. It has always seemed like a pretty easy call for me to make and I've never had any complaints from a coach when I have or have not called it.
|
|
Wed Oct 30, 2002, 01:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm with you GS23, even if it is your first post. There's not a whole lot of thought process that goes into the call. It's either an Infield Fly or it isn't. Period. Quite simply . . . it's high enough for someone to catch, if they were in the proper position to catch it. No judgement on ability; no judgement on position; no judgement on much about anything, except the height of the ball and whether it's gonna be fair or foul.
Nice post. Jerry
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
