The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 11, 2011, 05:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Umpires in the media

First-Base Umpires Must Keep Eyes, and Ears, Open
(NY Times).
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 11, 2011, 06:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
Good article, especially for general fans to appreciate the difficulty of the work umpires do. Even mentions the 7.01 wording.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 13, 2011, 12:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Except the correct citation for the point he is making is 6.05(j). Which is exactly the opposite of the point he's making.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 13, 2011, 06:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
Except the correct citation for the point he is making is 6.05(j). Which is exactly the opposite of the point he's making.
If it's the opposite of his point, why would that be the correct citation?

He cited the correct rule for the point he's making. The rules contradict each other. One of over 200 errors. :shrug:
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 13, 2011, 10:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
If it's the opposite of his point, why would that be the correct citation?

He cited the correct rule for the point he's making. The rules contradict each other. One of over 200 errors. :shrug:
Because, if you read the article, the writer is discussing plays at first base (see previous paragraph). He then cites 7.01 for the correct ruling on such plays. He then goes further and says that 7.01 implies the opposite of the "myth" that ties go to the runner.

So, the point he is trying to make is that (in connection with plays at first base) 7.01 applies (wrong) and that therefore the "ties go to the runner" is impliedly incorrect, citing 7.01.

Using the writer's cited factual situation (plays at first base), the correct citation is 6.05j, which is exactly the opposite of the point (dispels "ties go to the runner" myth) that he is trying to make.

Let me know if you need more help on this.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 13, 2011, 11:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,219
Send a message via AIM to TussAgee11
I read it this weekend and despite the small error in a rules cite, I found the article to be very fair and accurately informative to an audience that knows nothing about umpiring.

In other words, it may get someone to appreciate the difficulty of the vocation/profession, and that there is alot more going through an umpire's head than anyone else in the park realizes.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 12:25am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
Because, if you read the article, the writer is discussing plays at first base (see previous paragraph). He then cites 7.01 for the correct ruling on such plays. He then goes further and says that 7.01 implies the opposite of the "myth" that ties go to the runner.

So, the point he is trying to make is that (in connection with plays at first base) 7.01 applies (wrong) and that therefore the "ties go to the runner" is impliedly incorrect, citing 7.01.

Using the writer's cited factual situation (plays at first base), the correct citation is 6.05j, which is exactly the opposite of the point (dispels "ties go to the runner" myth) that he is trying to make.

Let me know if you need more help on this.
Quite frankly, who gives a $hit? The difference is uninteresting, IMO, and not worth being pedantic over.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 12:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Apparently mbyron gave a $hit. I responded to his question. If you aren't interested, fine, read another thread
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 12:54am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
Let me know if you need more help on this.
Here's BSump16, who is gloriously wrong in his reading of the column, trying to be patronizing to the entirely correct mbyron.

BTW, this may be the most informed article on umpiring I have read in the popular press.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 08:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed View Post
Here's BSump16, who is gloriously wrong in his reading of the column, trying to be patronizing to the entirely correct mbyron.

BTW, this may be the most informed article on umpiring I have read in the popular press.
Thank you.

And I agree: good reporting, well written, informative.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 154
Look, the post may be uninteresting, and I'll concede I came across as patronizing; but I'm not wrong, let along gloriously wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 03:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by BSUmp16 View Post
Look, the post may be uninteresting, and I'll concede I came across as patronizing; but I'm not wrong, let along gloriously wrong.
The rules contradict each other (or, more accurately, entail a contradiction). 6.05j applies to the batter, and 7.01 applies to all runners, including the batter-runner.

The former says that the batter is safe unless the ball beats him, and the latter says that he's out unless he beats the ball. This conflict is one of the better-known problems with OBR.

Your implicit contention that 7.01 does not apply to the batter-runner, with its implication that the BR is not a runner, is not supported by the text of the rule.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jun 14, 2011, 04:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
The former says that the batter is safe unless the ball beats him,
As much as I hate to join this,

The former says he's safe when he touches it before he is out.

The latter indicates one of the ways he can be out.

The "conflict" in the rules was between the BR at first and runners forced to another base. One rule had "the tie goes to the runner" and the other had "the tie goes to the defense." Now the rules have been changed so both agree that the "tie goes to the runner."

None of this changes how we (should) umpire.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 15, 2011, 08:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
As much as I hate to join this,

The former says he's safe when he touches it before he is out.

The latter indicates one of the ways he can be out.

The "conflict" in the rules was between the BR at first and runners forced to another base. One rule had "the tie goes to the runner" and the other had "the tie goes to the defense." Now the rules have been changed so both agree that the "tie goes to the runner."

None of this changes how we (should) umpire.
I'm not doubting you but what rule has been changed to make the rules line up with "tie goes to the runner"

-Josh
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 15, 2011, 10:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdmara View Post
I'm not doubting you but what rule has been changed to make the rules line up with "tie goes to the runner"

-Josh


6.05j and 7.08e now read the same -- a runner is out if he is tagged *before* he touches the base. Since a tie is not "before", the runner is safe if there is a tie.

One of those said "a runner is out if he fails to touch the base before it is tagged." So, here, a tag meant an out.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Umpires and the Media grunewar Baseball 8 Tue Sep 22, 2009 09:23am
The media is at it again. JRutledge Basketball 70 Sat Mar 29, 2008 07:17pm
Media at it again blindzebra Basketball 5 Mon Feb 11, 2008 09:41pm
Umpires' image in the media Dakota Softball 15 Sun May 02, 2004 03:52pm
gum-smackin' from the media... BigDave Basketball 7 Fri May 24, 2002 12:22pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1