Perception or Reality

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You know, all this talk of the neighborhood play has gotten to be quite boring.

Here's the truth, distilled into fewer than 1000 words: It's dead. Buried. Fielders at all levels are getting the bag. The really good players make it look like they're not on the bag. But with a trained umpire's eye, you can see them hold the bag for a split second.

I don't bother even thinking about the neighborhood anymore. Either the ball is with the fielder while he's in contact with the bag or it isn't. How can a coach argue with you when you tell him the fielder wasn't on the bag? That they "always get that call?" How can a coach, umpire, or assignor possibly defend that in this day and age?

I call the pivot the same at all levels from little kids up through small college and adult ball. It's easier. I don't have to make stuff up.

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

Just like the curve ball that hits the dirt, it's a different play with a different "right" way to call it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BSUmp16

Check out the "No Tag at the Plate" thread on this forum and then get back to us on what your call would have been.

What's that have to do with a neighborhood play?

If a tag's missed at the plate, it's missed. I don't go into plays with preconceived notions.

I also don't spend a lot of time trying to see a millimeter's space between a glove or a leg. That doesn't make it an expected call -- it means that I recognize that the human eye isn't capable of discerning such and trying to do so will cause me to be wrong more often than I'm right.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What's that have to do with a neighborhood play?

If a tag's missed at the plate, it's missed. I don't go into plays with preconceived notions.

I also don't spend a lot of time trying to see a millimeter's space between a glove or a leg. That doesn't make it an expected call -- it means that I recognize that the human eye isn't capable of discerning such and trying to do so will cause me to be wrong more often than I'm right.

It's got everything to do with sometimes making the perceived call over the real call. Since you won't come out and say it, I assume you'd call the runner safe. I, on the other hand, have no problem with the out call. It's good umpiring.

[MikeStrybel]

What? All umpire calls are perceived calls. If you worry about what fans, players and coaches percieve then it is time to contact eBay about selling your gear.

Your comment about the plate call is amiss. The plate umpire called the play because his angle showed the catcher holding onto the ball after what appeared to be enough contact with the runner. He did not have the benefit of slow motion replay. He judged the playing action and made his call, it was hardly the expected call. (sigh and roll eyes)

[dfwump]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

What? All umpire calls are perceived calls. If you worry about what fans, players and coaches percieve then it is time to contact eBay about selling your gear.

Your comment about the plate call is amiss. The plate umpire called the play because his angle showed the catcher holding onto the ball after what appeared to be enough contact with the runner. He did not have the benefit of slow motion replay. He judged the playing action and made his call, it was hardly the expected call. (sigh and roll eyes)

Mike,
You habitually make definitive statements of fact without supporting information. How in the world do you know why the plate ump in question made this out call. Do you have information the the rest of us do not? Perhaps you know the umpire and talked with him after the game? If not, you have amazing powers of insight.

Mike C

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by dfwump

Mike,
You habitually make definitive statements of fact without supporting information. How in the world do you know why the plate ump in question made this out call. Do you have information the the rest of us do not? Perhaps you know the umpire and talked with him after the game? If not, you have amazing powers of insight.

Mike C

Yawn.

How in the world do I know why the plate umpire made the call? Really? Really? Because he called the guy out while looking at the play and assessing that a tag had been made. There is no instruction from MLB to call a runner out when he runs over the catcher but is not tagged. Mike DiMuro didn't simply guess at the call, he was trained to get a good angle and watch what happens. He did what he could and waited a second to see if the ball was still held. I don't require clairvoyance, just an ability to read the rules and know what they mean. Try it instead of being a stalker.

[DG]

The runner crashed the catcher, catcher held onto the ball. Expected call made based on best judgment. I would be surprised if any of paying fans present had issue with the call and even more surprised if any of the players being paid had a problem with the call.