Umpires in the media

[mbyron]

First-Base Umpires Must Keep Eyes, and Ears, Open
(NY Times).

[greymule]

Good article, especially for general fans to appreciate the difficulty of the work umpires do. Even mentions the 7.01 wording.

[BSUmp16]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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:

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

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.