Perception or Reality

[dfwump]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Here’s the sitch: Adult mens game; OBR. I’m on the bases in “A” and the Batter hits a ball to F6 who’s deep in the hole. B/R reaches 1st when the throw from F6 to F3 goes wide. B/R makes the turn towards 2nd and then realizes that the wide throw to F3 has hit the fence and bounced directly back to F3 who fields the ball. B/R retreats to 1st, diving back to the bag with dust flying. But the ball is clearly there and F3's glove is down for the easy tag. Should be a “no brainer” out.

However, I’ve got a great angle on the play and it’s clear to me that although F3 has the ball down to make the tag in plenty of time, B/R has slid into 1st avoiding the tag by a couple of inches. The only ones in the whole park who know F3 missed the tag is the B/R and me. I don’t think even F3 believes he missed the tag (but he did).

So here’s the question: Do I call him out (which is what everyone in the park believes is the case) or do I call him safe (which, although correct, is really going to cause a sh*t storm, with both teams thinking I kicked an easy one). Which is more important: perception or reality? I know what I did - What would you do?

Guys please re-read this carefully, put yourself in the situation as described and tell me truthfully, honestly, what would be your call. I have clearly stated what mine would be. And IMHO its a no-brainer.

Mike C

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by dfwump

Guys please re-read this carefully, put yourself in the situation as described and tell me truthfully, honestly, what would be your call. I have clearly stated what mine would be. And IMHO its a no-brainer.

Mike C

At what point in your officiating do you separate reality from perception? Then having made that line in the sand, how much liberty do you take to convince yourself, (let alone others), that you made the correct call. Your job as an official is to do everything possible to make the right call, ALL the time. Are there exceptions? NO. Does s**T happen? You bet.

I have seen too many officials with a lackluster lazy attitude, that think going through the motions is exceptable. Don't want to work to hard to become better but, are always the first in line when the money comes out. In fact that is the only reason they are there. I have had to work as a partner and be embarassed of the teams performance because of those types. I have also assigned and listened to many of coaches stories about how they feel when they see this type of official show up. They begin praying.

Maybe your the type that is there to impress someone and looking to be accepted by the boys. Maybe your an ex player from the league and have this need to be everyone's friend, still and never piss off any of your buddies.

I have worked with them all and by far the one's I remember the most and the one's that have gone the farthest, have earned it by working hard to get the call right.

Mike C, I don't know a single thing about your officiating but when the player is safe, he is safe. Get it!

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jicecone

At what point in your officiating do you separate reality from perception? Then having made that line in the sand, how much liberty do you take to convince yourself, (let alone others), that you made the correct call. Your job as an official is to do everything possible to make the right call, ALL the time. Are there exceptions? NO. Does s**T happen? You bet.

I have seen too many officials with a lackluster lazy attitude, that think going through the motions is exceptable. Don't want to work to hard to become better but, are always the first in line when the money comes out. In fact that is the only reason they are there. I have had to work as a partner and be embarassed of the teams performance because of those types. I have also assigned and listened to many of coaches stories about how they feel when they see this type of official show up. They begin praying.

Maybe your the type that is there to impress someone and looking to be accepted by the boys. Maybe your an ex player from the league and have this need to be everyone's friend, still and never piss off any of your buddies.

I have worked with them all and by far the one's I remember the most and the one's that have gone the farthest, have earned it by working hard to get the call right.

Mike C, I don't know a single thing about your officiating but when the player is safe, he is safe. Get it!

Does that apply to strikes and balls? Sitch: Pitcher throws big 12-6 breaking ball that crosses the plate knee high and dives into the dirt. You consistently call that a strike? Sitch: Catcher sets up well inside and the pitch crosses the outside corner of the plate belt high causing the catcher to lunge at it.

You call both of those strikes? Because if you do, I'd venture a guess that you're in a minority of the posters on this site.

Ever given the "in the neighborhood" out call on the play at second that starts a double play? Or do you always make sure F6 has touched the bag while in firm and secure possession of the ball before releasing it.

And enough with the psychoanalysis. It's not a question of "ego" or "needing to impress someone" its trying to find the fine line between the art of umpiring and the science of umpiring.

In reading some of these posts by the amateur Freuds, who have no clue about who or what their talking about, the only psychological concept that comes to my mind is "projection".

[kylejt]

Here's the deal on your play:

There's really no other factor playing in here besides safe or out. No boneheaded, or spectacular effort to be punished or rewarded. So you're left with reality. The reality is safe, so you've got to call that, and sell the daylights out of it.

Comparing it to pitches is fine. If a catcher sets up inside, but reaches over his shinguards for a pitch that might have got the outside corner, we're not rewarding that. Or, one that up and in, and he flat out missed, and it hits you in the arm, but may have caught the plate. Ball.

But, if a batter is peeking, and sees the catcher is inside, and the catcher sees that, changes the pitch to the outside edge, and they hit it. Yeah, the battery is getting that one, black included. Maybe even a little dirt, too.

But that's Umpiring 102. Second semester stuff. And that classroom doesn't exist on most campuses. It's hand me down stuff, from a guy you trust.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Here's the deal on your play:

There's really no other factor playing in here besides safe or out. No boneheaded, or spectacular effort to be punished or rewarded. So you're left with reality. The reality is safe, so you've got to call that, and sell the daylights out of it.

Comparing it to pitches is fine. If a catcher sets up inside, but reaches over his shinguards for a pitch that might have got the outside corner, we're not rewarding that. Or, one that up and in, and he flat out missed, and it hits you in the arm, but may have caught the plate. Ball.

But, if a batter is peeking, and sees the catcher is inside, and the catcher sees that, changes the pitch to the outside edge, and they hit it. Yeah, the battery is getting that one, black included. Maybe even a little dirt, too.

But that's Umpiring 102. Second semester stuff. And that classroom doesn't exist on most campuses. It's hand me down stuff, from a guy you trust.

You're job is not to "reward" pitches you like and "punish" pitches you don't. You're supposedly there to impartially apply the rules. Either you believe that a strike should always be called a strike and an out should always be called an out - or you don't.

This is where experience comes into play and was why I started this thread - to see what other ump's experience had to offer. I think you have to be at least aware of how your call will be perceived and how it will effect game management. For what it's worth, in the initial sitch I called the B/R out. Not a peep from anyone (except for a questioning look from the B/R) and the game proceeded smoothly.

[jicecone]

I don't quite remember Freud having stated that he umpired Baseball but, thats probably a different Forum.

You can choose what ever words you like to justify your analysis of perception, reality, projection, art, science etc...etc, bottom line is, you are there to make a instantaneous decision of what you saw. Thats reality. And this is what an official should endeavor to base his development on.

I don't call 12-6 knee-high and crossed up pithches strikes unless they look like one. Most of the time they don't but, there have been occasions.

And yes, "needing to impress others" is directly related to how you are perceived and accepted by them. It may be the extreme case of perception that we are discussing here but, it is where one can end up if that is the path they choose.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I don't call 12-6 knee-high and crossed up pithches strikes unless they look like one.

How is this different from the option discussed in th OP.

You don't call a strike that meets the rule book standard because it didn't look like one, and in the OP an umpire may have not calle a runner safe becuase he didn't look safe.

Not taking sides, just noticing some inconsistency.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I don't quite remember Freud having stated that he umpired Baseball but, thats probably a different Forum.

You can choose what ever words you like to justify your analysis of perception, reality, projection, art, science etc...etc, bottom line is, you are there to make a instantaneous decision of what you saw. Thats reality. And this is what an official should endeavor to base his development on.

I don't call 12-6 knee-high and crossed up pithches strikes unless they look like one. Most of the time they don't but, there have been occasions.

And yes, "needing to impress others" is directly related to how you are perceived and accepted by them. It may be the extreme case of perception that we are discussing here but, it is where one can end up if that is the path they choose.

As I understand what you're saying - on ball/strike you go with what is perceived to be a ball or a strike (you won't "reward" a crossed-up pitch as a strike unless its perceived by others ("looks like") a strike, even if it is a strike; but on safe/out you always go with reality (and would never give an "in the neighborhood" out) even if both teams and everyone in the park thinks you screwed the pooch. OK, it's a useful (but not particularly logical) distinction.

May I point out, however, that if you continue making calls that you know are correct, but everyone else thinks are wrong, you won't be considered as being honest and having integrity; you'll be considered as lacking judgment and being incompetent. Such is life.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jicecone

bottom line is, you are there to make a instantaneous decision of what you saw

Sounds to me like your timing is way too fast. No need to make an instantaneous decision. Let the play develop and wait until you are clear about the call. It isn't anything until you call it.

[dfwump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

At what point in your officiating do you separate reality from perception? Then having made that line in the sand, how much liberty do you take to convince yourself, (let alone others), that you made the correct call. Your job as an official is to do everything possible to make the right call, ALL the time. Are there exceptions? NO. Does s**T happen? You bet.

I have seen too many officials with a lackluster lazy attitude, that think going through the motions is exceptable. Don't want to work to hard to become better but, are always the first in line when the money comes out. In fact that is the only reason they are there. I have had to work as a partner and be embarassed of the teams performance because of those types. I have also assigned and listened to many of coaches stories about how they feel when they see this type of official show up. They begin praying.

Maybe your the type that is there to impress someone and looking to be accepted by the boys. Maybe your an ex player from the league and have this need to be everyone's friend, still and never piss off any of your buddies.

I have worked with them all and by far the one's I remember the most and the one's that have gone the farthest, have earned it by working hard to get the call right.

Mike C, I don't know a single thing about your officiating but when the player is safe, he is safe. Get it!

So, from those two posts on this thread you can glean that I am lazy, go through the motions, a show boat who craves attention from the boys, and just want to be everyone's friend...sheesh! Come out and watch me call a game before you "type" me ok. And the BR is out.

Mike C.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by dfwump

So, from those two posts on this thread you can glean that I am lazy, go through the motions, a show boat who craves attention from the boys, and just want to be everyone's friend...sheesh! Come out and watch me call a game before you "type" me ok. And the BR is out.

Mike C.

No Mike this is what I said:

"Mike C, I don't know a single thing about your officiating but when the player is safe, he is safe."

What you wrote is what you "PERCEIVED". Which is exactly how you came to the conclusion that the runner was out, even though it was clearly stated that he wasn't. I will let you do the math.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by jicecone

No Mike this is what I said:

"Mike C, I don't know a single thing about your officiating but when the player is safe, he is safe."

What you wrote is what you "PERCEIVED". Which is exactly how you came to the conclusion that the runner was out, even though it was clearly stated that he wasn't. I will let you do the math.

No jicecone, here is what you said: "Maybe your the type that is there to impress someone and looking to be accepted by the boys. Maybe your an ex player from the league and have this need to be everyone's friend, still and never piss off any of your buddies."

If you're willing to make those kinds of judgment calls, Maybe your the type who jumps to conclusions. Maybe you just like to be arrogant. Maybe you lack confidence and have this need to try to sound authoritative.

I don't know a thing about you or your officiating, but if I put the "maybe's" in front of my name-calling I can try to put the blame back on you when you (rightly) call me on it.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by dfwump

Guys please re-read this carefully, put yourself in the situation as described and tell me truthfully, honestly, what would be your call. I have clearly stated what mine would be. And IMHO its a no-brainer.

Mike C

Mike: truthfully, I think there are two, fairly disparate questions here.

1. What would I "see"; and
2. Do I call what I see, or what someone ["everyone"] else "sees"?

In the OP sitch, I believe I am likely to "see" an out: in general, if the ball is there and the glove is in place, sliding "past" the tag safely just does not happen, and I don't propose to get metaphysical about the number of air molecules between the runner and the tag.

But that IS NOT what the umpire in the OP "saw": he clearly saw the runner safe. I know I have had situations in which I was the only person in the park who knew what ACTUALLY happened on a play. I also know I am not good enough or smart enough to "get the play right" by making the wrong call [based on what I actually saw] intentionally. I always call what I see, when I see it.

But, recognise that any umpire will not always "see" every critical feature of every play: it is simply not possible to be in perfect position and observe perfectly EVERYTHING that is happening. THIS is where the dynamics of the "expected call" plays out with good umpires: if everyone in the park saw an out, and you did not see anything that conclusively PROVES [to you] that it was a "safe": you probably ought to go with "out", even if you are in some doubt. But when you are in NO doubt: call what you see; sell it if necessary, but it's one hell of a lot easier to defend the truth

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by dfwump

Guys please re-read this carefully, put yourself in the situation as described and tell me truthfully, honestly, what would be your call. I have clearly stated what mine would be. And IMHO its a no-brainer.

Mike C

Many of us did. It is a no brainer, if you are umpiring to avoid controversy then call him as others expect and do it from a LazyBoy in the stands. If you know a runner is safe and you call him out simply because he should have been (under other circumstances) then you are doing a disservice to the profession. Contemporary umpiring maintains a desire to get the call right even of it looks bad from afar.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Many of us did. It is a no brainer, if you are umpiring to avoid controversy then call him as others expect and do it from a LazyBoy in the stands. If you know a runner is safe and you call him out simply because he should have been (under other circumstances) then you are doing a disservice to the profession. Contemporary umpiring maintains a desire to get the call right even of it looks bad from afar.

That's some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. You must go through quite a bit of hand sanitizer from picking up the ****ty end of the stick all of the time.

There are times when the accepted call is the correct call ie. neighborhood play, strike zone. An experienced umpire knows this. I would have thought you would have known this as well.

Unless there are 42 different cameras with different angles, you should make the call that is obvious to everyone, even the grandmother whos grandson just got called out.

Being a credible umpire is more than calling balls/strikes, outs/safes.