Perception or Reality
 

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?

No matter which way you call it, 50% of those present are going to dislike it.

Therefore go with the truth.

This is why its important to be in the proper position. Those that want to call what the fans think they see should go sit with them.

Actually, that's not the way it will play out. If I call him safe everyone's going to think I kicked it. It's not like calling a banger where it's a really a close call - There, 50% will hate it and 50% will love it. This one appears to be not close at all. 50% will think I don't know my a** from a hole in the ground and the other 50% will think they got a lucky break from a bad call.

Who gives a flying f**k how many people will be happy or think you kicked it? Call what you see.

Umpiring isn't a democratic election.

Maybe next time, you say "SAFE! NO TAG!" or "SAFE! MISSED THE TAG!" that might help. It's similar to when F3 comes off the base, we say, "SAFE! Off the bag!".

Just a thought.

My perception of the OP is you want to know how others might think of you, which you suspect may conflict with how you think of yourself, which is your ego.

My perception is taken from the fact that you didn’t give your ruling in the OP; you want others to respond first. I suspect that is what you wanted to happen during the game before you made your call. Also, you have “boxed yourself in” to a lose-lose scenario by yourself perceiving that there are two, and only two, outcomes in which others would respond, both being detrimental to your ego:
1. “50% will think [you] don't know [your] a** from a hole in the ground; and,
2. “[T]he other 50% will think they got a lucky break from a bad call.”

As yawetag and customshirts advise and encourage, officials should call the game in a way that they will get what it is they want out of the game.
1. More games, then call it the way your assignor says;
2. Happy fans on the 3d base side, then call it the way the home team says;
3. Happy fans on the 1st base side, then call it the way the visitors say;
4. Happy defense, then the BR is out;
5. Happy offense, then the BR is safe;
6. Happy play-by-play announcers, then the way the replay camera operators have it;
7. Happy color commentators; forget about it, they think it’s our fault that they’re not still out there;
8. Good night’s sleep, then call it your way.

Beyond any shadow of doubt, I would have an out. C'mon. this is an easy one!

Mike C

If you want to work a ballgame and have ALL the fans like you, sell peanuts. If you want to work a game and leave with the satisfaction of knowing that you were in proper position to make the correct call and properly educated as to the rules of the game, be an umpire and make the CORRECT call.

So, in this case, call the runner safe and then if the defensive coach comes out to argue, very briefly explain to him that his F3 missed the tag and how he missed the tag. AS OZZY said, an immediate "SAFE, MISSED THE TAG!" would go a long way toward preventing any "sh*t storm".

ftfy.

On a play where there are 18 people on the field plus your partner expecting the call to go a certain way you better have a good reason why the call defied expectations. A safe "no tag" is one way. On the other hand working your average adult baseball when outs are hard to come by you might want to get this out while you can. Just a thought:D

If your a politician or media bimbo you would probably take a poll.

If your gonna be an umpire, take Yawetag's advise.

Count the votes.

Another expected call minion.

Call what you see, not what others want you to see. It is the least you can do to be considered impartial.

If you're going to make the correct call, on a play like this, you've got to sell it like Oz and Mr. Martin have said. Good umpires learn how to sell a call, when it's not the "expected" one. Plus, on a really close one, you've got to sell the Hell out of it.

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!

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".

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.

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.

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.

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. :cool:

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. :)

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

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.

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.

Because it doesn't look like one to me. how it is perceived by others is their business.

Go back and read the OP, this is what was stated,

"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)."

BSump16 says:

"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."

Exactly as I suspected. I get tired of those who believe in absolutes, as if there is only black and white and no grey.

Lets add to the OP. Lets suppose its the bottom of the 4th and the HT is winning 20-0. VT has no chance and everyone knoes it (VT knows as well). You need 6 outs and everyone goes home. Its two out and you have the play as described. No one sees the missed tag but you! If I'm PU and you call safe. We are going to have a talk afterwords.

Umpiring is an art, not a science. I do HS games often where the teams are sorely mis-matched. No contest here, not even close. The coaches and players know that the zone is going to change with the score. If its 18-0 after three innings, am I going to call a ball a stike...you better believe it! No one says a word.

Its not just ball/strikes, safe/outs , and fair/fouls. Its game management.

Everyone on this board knows what I am talking about, dont pretend you dont.

Mike C

There will be calls that every umpire makes during a season that we call incorrectly because for some reason or not we don't see it. We are blocked, something unusual happens, we don't have the best angle. That happens to every umpire (even in MLB).

That's game management though calling what we thought we saw and selling the call. (IOW, we thought we got the call right, but we did not)

But to actually see a player that is safe called out - that's not game management IMO. That's a missed call. Surely you can get away with it by selling it etc., but that's taking the easy road.

At least that's my take.

Thanks
David

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.

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.

Out is the correct and accepted call.

Call what you see, sell what you call.

This isn't a maybe--both you and Mike have reading comprehension issues. There was no judging occurring on jicecone's part.

I will say it though--if you knowingly make an incorrect call just because "everyone else thinks it is," you are a horse**** umpire who has no clue of logic. The reason the runner looked at you was because he knew you were full of ****, and until you actually make the call, you have no clue who else knows what reality is.

Clever edifiication BSUmp16, the runner is still safe.

Have a good day!

Yeah - I think we've about beat this to death (but the score book has him as out). Thanks. You have a good day too. On to the next topic.

In concept, the OP is similar to the safe call in the Pirates-Braves marathon, except even the runner thought he was out. And the PU did a terrible job selling his call. Same metaphysical conundrum though.

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.

Mike ,

Oh please tell me what makes you the expert on "contemporary umpiring". What does that even mean? I think I missed that topic at my last clinic.

Mike C.

Matt,

Dont get in a lather here. I've never knowingly make an incorrect call, but there are times I make the "expected" call. And so have all of you in the right circumstance. If you say you never have, then you hav'nt called for very long, or you are lying.

Mike C

You're living in the wrong time period. "Expected" has been shot and is writhing in its death throes.

And your next to last sentence is incredible - call it the "expected" way unless there is going to be proof of the correct way? Lie unless someone can prove you're lying? I guess you failed your ethics class - or forgot its lessons.

Umpiring is more than just spotting. Its learning to deal with variables that are always changing to get as much information as possible to get the call right. Knowing what should have happened or probably happened or expected to happen can prove useful to an experienced umpire at the right time when he realizes the limitations his position or responsibilities are placing on him.

At the lower levels, call what you see so you realize you have the balls to do this job.

When you move up, realize that at times you just have to go with the expected call because you realize your eyes may have just lied to you because of your position, the play development, etc.

You can choose to believe whatever you think, however, in big boy ball, the "right" call is not necessarily the "correct" call. Perception is reality whether you like it or not. If everyone percieves you missed the call, then you missed the call period. You know it's true. Call the curve that hits the hollow of the knee and bounces in the dirt or call R1 safe at second when F6 catches the ball after the touch and see how long your services will be needed. Same is true when the fielder has ball in glove parked in front of the bag waiting on runner to arrive. If the runner slides directly into the base he is out no matter if the tag is applied or not. If you call the runner safe when the tag is missed by two inches, EVERYONE will know you missed it and you will lose all current and future credibility.

Sometimes you have to take off your training wheels, put on your big boy pants and become an actual umpire.

Work less games. Watch more TV. See the replays. Listen to the criticism for missed calls. See the missed call played over and over on ESPN. Heck, even AAA games get rehashed on air at the local levels caus they're on TV now. Then read more criticism here and in the paper. Learn. Mom has her video camera at the HS games. Some have them at LL games. You can't escape. Things have changed.

"Expected" has been shot. It's writhing in its death throes. Deal with it.

N/A to the OP, IMO. The strike zone is a different animal.

I believe it was just a few weeks ago in MLB that a play was made at second and it looked like a routine touch of second, force out. Sorry don't remember game. When 2b came down he missed the bag by inches. The runner was called safe and I believe 2b was tossed. Replay showed the miss and announcers commented on the accuracy of the umpire.

What about the tag at home or missed tag, that ended an extra inning MLB game, also a few weeks ago. I believe there was a OP on that also. Expected call made. No

I have to agree with Rich, the day of the perceived, expected calls seem to have run there course. And yes, I made my share of them also.

It really does come down to , "sometimes you just have to umpire" and as BSump16 pointed out, in the scorebook it was registered as an out and the game went on.

Good discussion though.

I think the issue comes down to whether the "get it right" philosophy has filtered down to whatever level one is working. Yes, on TV the umps have to get it right, because the "expected call" doesn't wash in super slo-mo. But my games aren't on TV.

I called a runner out when it appeared to all the world that he was safe. He was stealing 2B, and the throw was high. He did the old "switcheroo" thing with his hands, and the fielder fell for it: tried to tag the "bait" hand and missed. But he held the tag on the runner's shoulder, and when the runner removed his hand from the base a little, I called him out (tagged off the base after having stolen 2B). It happened so fast, it appeared as if I called him out on the steal, since I never made a safe call: I got a lot of "boos" for that one, because the call was late and "obviously wrong."

The coach, whom I've known for years, asked me after: "something weird must have happened there -- what was it?" When I told him, he just shook his head and walked back to chat with his runner. He's a good coach... ;)

In my area, at the levels I work, I (and most umpires) try to "get it right." I like the direction that umpiring is going, and around here, on the bases, the right call IS the "expected call." But I also make the "expected call" on the curveball in the dirt. So I guess I'm not a purist either way.

How exactly is it different? The strike zone is defined. If a ball passes through any part of it, by definition, it should be a strike. Yet, any competent umpire will gather other info before ruling. I see no difference.

Maybe you should try big boy ball. The expected call is dead.

Two philosophies, two schools of thought. I think we've beat it to death.

Regards to All,

Mike C

One thing that gets in the way, Mike is the personal labelling each school does of the other. School A claims that those from School B are corrupt, cheaters, and low level umpires.

School B claims that from School A are liars, hypocrites and low level umpires.

In reality I have seen umpires from both schools at the very top level of D-1 and professional ball and none of them were corrupt, cheaters, liars or hypocrites.

The primary difference, it would appear, is one of training and perhaps when the most recent training was experienced and who conducted it.

Look at that last line again. It is far safer to make the expected call - one that you know is wrong but aren't man enough to make. If you can't handle a coach barking about your call, sell your gear. If his player can't execute the play properly and you need to enable him, you lost your credibility. I'm not worried about what Granny in the stands thinks about the missed tag and I learned long ago how to handle coaches who want to challenge a blown defensive play. "If everyone thinks you missed the call, you missed the call." Thanks for the laughs, that was really funny. Everyone...(roll eyes)

The expected call is all but dead in 'big boy ball' as you like to call it. The strike zone is the one exception that allows an umpire to ignore the low strike - it has been discussed ad nauseum. The other calls, neighborhood plays particularly, are routinely challenged by excellent umpires. It is refreshing to see the best professional and collegiate umpires not ignoring them any more. This past CWS had quite a few plays that were called as they are supposed to, not as fans think they should be. I would rather emulate those officials and my assignors are happy I do. Of course, you are free to seek approval rather than make the correct call during your games. I wish you luck.

Michael, I am going to borrow that phrase for my clinics: "around here, the right call IS the 'expected call'. Thanks, that was succinct and sound.

If you want to call that guy safe, go right ahead. I'll be the guy standing around home plate laughing my *** off while you're getting yours chewed.

I'll be the one calling him out so you can get the next hitter up to the plate.:):):):)

You have partners working tee ball? Wow. Live the dream.

That was both thoughtful and well reasoned. I agree 100%

Mike C

Umpires at the top levels of collegiate and professional baseball are not making 'expected calls', except for the the aformentioned strike that bottoms out. QuickPitch ran a piece a few weeks ago about the ghost touch of second on a DP attempt. More calls of 'no bag' are being made and fielders have adjusted just fine.

I guess I missed that discussion. So why do we get to ignore not only the low strike, but the high strike as well? You seem to be a well versed umpire, so I anticipate your answer.

Because if I call those pitches strikes, the number of quality assignments I receive from my assignor will plummet.

I am in total agreement with you on that. If we are to buy the whole "get the call right" philosophy, why are assignors dinging umpires for calling "legitamate" strikes?

Just as the EXPECTED call wasn't made on EVERY call before, the "RIGHT" call isn't made on EVERY call now.

The ball that nips the zone and finishes in or just above the dirt is a problem for umpires, especially those judged by QwesTec and multiple camera angles. Amateurs pick up their habits and it becomes customary to not see those pitches as strikes. It is still considered acceptable to ignore those strikes, unless they are marquee pitchers hurling them. Josh Beckett, Justin Verlander and Barry Zito all have been given the benefit of those calls for their incredible 12-6 dueces. Kerry Wood used to have a devastating 12-6 and got many of those calls.

Coaches claim that they want a big zone but not that call...wait, only when they are at bat. Many pitching coaches whine about shrinking strike zones and demand that the true zone be called. Do you call strikes when the catcher drops the pitch? Soft gloves it?

I am fortunate to have assignors that appreciate those of us who call strikes. My games have never suffered because of my desire to follow the rules. Conversely, I know a few guys who have lost assignments because they refuse to call anything above the waist or at the knees. If you have been told to ignore the high strike by your assignor, do what you need to do.

I find it pretty funny that some of you continue to think the 'get the call right' or abandonment of the 'expected call' philosophies are my folly. While I am a supporter of these changes and a fan of the evolution of umpiring, I am only reporting what is being done out there. The past CWS was a case study in how umpires are expected to work. The scrutiny being given to televised baseball is growing and efforts to improve umpiring even more so. Calling someone out, even though you know they aren't, is not progress.

NOBODY, is 100% pure on "getting it right" and darn few are 100% on making "the expected call."

We all work the best we can to do the best job as we have been trained and as we have grown to understand. There are still ML umpires who will give the original version of the neighborhood play. You can see it in highlights and replays. There are still Super Regional an CWS umpires who, in the bar late at night, will tell you exactly when they make the "expected call" and when they don't.

It's been obvious for several years that the instances of professional umpires and upper level D-1 umpires "getting it right" has increased greatly. As time goes it on, "making the expected" call will be so narrowly defined as to barely exist. In the meantime, we all make our calls and own our calls and deal with the consequences that come with both making the expected call and getting it right.

It's nice to see you agree with me, finally. Umpiring is evolving. Rookies spend big bucks and plenty of time training while trying to look like the pros. Amateur ball is seeing the benefits of this and most embrace it.

I don't think I am better than those who disagree with my opinions here. I find it humorous that I get PMs with "resumes" from anonymous members here who think they are. In the end, do what your assignor or pay check issuer wants of you. I am blessed to work with guys and for assignors who want me to officiate with integrity and effort. It's time for my son's football practice now, so you guys can have at it.

Depends on what you mean by legitimate. I go by what my assignor considers legitimate. According to him, a 12-6er that nicks the zone but finishes in the dirt is not a legitimate strike. A belt-high fastball that the catcher sticks 2" off the plate is a legitimate strike.

My assignor assigns games for about 40 college conferences, plus the Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League and the Cape Cod Baseball League, among others. I do what he wants me to do.

Oh great, so you do what your assignor wants you to do, even if it is in conflict with the official rules (because by rule he is dead wrong on the two examples you give - and you know it). As a matter of principle, where do you draw the line? If he decides that the zone should be nose to toes is that what you give him?

Hey, I understand the need to be responsive to the way others may perceive your calls and to adjust those calls accordingly. It's a matter of game management and the art of umpiring. Glad to see you agree.

Now you're getting it.
No need to draw a line.Zero chance of that happening. Keep it real bro.

OP this is actually a great philosophical question. This should be a great discussion and teaching point at a new umpire clinic. The reason you are getting so much hostility is similar scenarios have been posted here at least a hundred times and no one is changing sides no matter how the story is tweaked.

I appreciate the replies and do have an understanding on the topic at hand. My point is that in most amateur ball, there are not the HD camera angles that can parse the play down to the mm. My other point is that there is a hypocracy concerning the "get it right" philosophy. Strike zone v neighborhood play v original op. I also realize that this philosophy is different from level to level. Outside of MLB, in pro ball there are still the expected calls and if they are not made, you can lose credibility with the teams and the evaluators. If MLB did not have the cameras they do now, there would still be the expected call. The improvement within technology has been the biggest reason for the "get it right" mantra.

I appreciate the discussion.

HD or not, 40-60% of my games are televised, with replay. I get to see what I did and did not do, and what the unwashed masses think. (Hint--once they see replay, they see it my way, assuming I got it right.)

This is not hypocrisy. The rulebook makes a distinction between these types of calls, hence the particular attention paid to the arguing of balls and strikes.

Whatever.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his *** when he hopped. Reality is reality.

Again you miss the point. It also states in the rules that you cannot argue judgment calls yet we, as umpires, allow it to a point.

You call the expected strike zone not the rule book zone and that is accepted yet there are times when the expected call should apply to the bases but suddenly everyone gets in a tizzy and calls it taboo. I hear "screw the team that screws up" mantra on here as well. Again, usually that's not getting the call "right". I guess what you are saying is that it is ok to follow most of the rules but assignors can dictate which ones to bend. There are expected calls that contradict the rule book in all sports. Like it or not it is part of the game and there are times when it is appropriate.

Truthfully, honestly...SAFE, NO TAG!

I have never given a coach's arse what anyone thought of my call. I'm an umpire, not the beer salesman.

Do you make calls as you want, or, as others here do, as your assignor wants?

I take it you always call the 12-6 in the dirt that crosses the zone a strike? The inside pitch that nicks the corner but the catcher misses - you've got a strike? The crossed-up pitch that hits the outside corner but the catcher lunges for? All strikes? If so, good for you. If not, you obviously do care what someone else thinks; and make sure you keep the beers cold - you'll sell more that way.

Well,

Last night I was watching the Indians and White Sox in Chicago, and Carmona was throwing nasty stuff. Everything moved around faster than a PGA Tour player on a golf cart.

I am sure this did not get on MLB.com, but Carmona threw a pitch to Konerko that moved so much Lou Marson (I think who was the F2) who was set up outside he reached inside to catch it. Well, the pitch was just off the middle of the plate, it wasn't close to inside, and our PU rang up the strike.

Now Konerko saw where Marson's glove was, as opposed to where Marson was, and stood int he box and raised cain about the pitch. The Play-by-play man and color guy talked about how Knoerko handled it with class, and didn't show up the umpire, but complained for a long time about the pitch.

There was no false zone posted on the screen, and I wish there would have been, because it was a clear strike and should have been called. But the pitch made Marson look bad and if was borderline, it's a ball. Several CWS umpires did the same thing in Omaha, and nobody said boo.

This is all brought up to say one thing, even in MLB: If it's a clear strike, or the ball beats the fielder, and the close tag/maybe no tag is made, it's an out. It looks like an out and should be called and out.

But there are times where it looks bad, and it's still a strike or an out, and sometimes it looks bad and it isn't an out. That's why they pay good umpires not so good inflated American currency to call games, because they use good judgement on plays like this and know when to make the 'expected call' and when not to.

Look, you asked for an honest answer, and I gave you one. I call my strike zone the same way I have for 26 years now, and it hasn't changed a smidgen, despite all the high strike crap that has been pushed down our throats. Sure, it gets slightly expanded a little for 18A or 18 Rookie type leagues, where most of the players haven't picked up a bat since Little League. But at the higher levels, with former big league and college players all over the place, my zone is polished and precisely where I want it called, not where anyone else dictates, assignors included. I have never had any assignor ignorant enough to try to tell me how to call ball. When I quit playing ball in 1985, and started umpiring, it all came very naturally to me, and didn't need outside help.

I very rarely receive any complaints about the zone I call, so it must be okay. I do get occasional complaints about the pitch call, but that is because I missed it, based on MY zone that people get used to in the first inning. If a catcher is trying to fool me into calling a inside pitch by pulling his mitt back to the corner, but forgets to actually catch the ball, no friggin way is he getting a strike. But if the pitch actually nips MY corner, it matters not at all to me if he catches the ball or not. A strike is a strike. If the 12-6 curve (and I've called Zito's back when it was better, and Silva and Harang had pretty good ones back then as well IIRC) doesn't pass through the bottom of MY zone, then it isn't a strike. If the curve is pretty enough, nobody will complain on strike calls just because the catcher doesn't catch them properly. A 12-6 curve that hits the dirt is the catcher's fault. It's his job to make his pitcher look good, not mine.

Fair enough

My sentiments exactly. Sometimes ya just gotta umpire.

[QUOTE]IMO, you are missing the point. The MAIN reason Professionals and college umpires are NOT calling the neighborhood and the expected call is not because they do not want to or being an excellent umpire etc.

the reason is because of replay. Plain and Simple. a close play on ESPN is shown over and over and over again using a gazillion angles and Super Slo mo. Same with the college games that are on TV.

If this OP were posted "back in the day" the call would be out - PERIOD. You mean to tell me the PROS/D1 college umpires do not want outs if they can get them.

The neighborhood / expected call were around a LOOONG LOOONG time and it was the same for both teams. There used to be an old adage - When you are OUT you are OUT.

just because things change etc. doesn't necessarily translate into a better game.

In the play in question, F3 had his glove down, Plenty of time to get the runner. One of the reasons for the expected call was "why risk injury when there is no need to"

Since I am NOT on TV etc. I still subscribe to the "neighborhood" / phatom tag / expected call theories. I grew up with these calls and NO-ONE thought "twice" about it. We did not think that the umpires were cheating / had lack of Cijonies / etc. It was the way WE wanted the game to be called. It was the same for both teams so no-one had an unfair advantage over another.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]Well said! I'm all for getting the call right, but there are excepted traditions in this game that are being changed based on what the average FAN wants to see. The changes in philosophy are not based on what baseball people want. If you were to poll 100 professional and 100 collegiate baseball players about the phantom DP, I would guess you'd find the vast majority of them are in favor of having it called the way it has been for years. They want to get out of the game with two primary goals acheived. They want a victory for their team, and they want to leave the field un-injured. Requiring a fielder to receive the ball right on top of the bag with a hard sliding runner bearing down on him is counter intuitive to one of those goals. The same can be said on a tag play where the ball beats the runner. There's no reason to require a fielder to leave his hand and arm exposed to being spiked while waiting for a runner to slide right into it.


Tim.

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782210]You missed many of my posts regarding this subject. In almost every one, I have noted that television coverage is responsible for making umpires more accountable for their calls. We saw a similar change occur in umpire demeanor. It used to be acceptable for umpires to say what they felt out there, that is not the case any longer.

I have been at this for a while too, Pete. I don't speak of my experience or brag of past accomplishments. Along the way, I saw umpires who emulated the big boys and made phantom calls, MF'd those who questioned them and mailed it in when they didn't care. Thankfully, some did care and the way we are expected to officiate has evolved. If you truly believe that making the wrong call (per the rules, not what brought you less criticism) didn't create an advantage then, IMO, you are mistaken. Calls don't even out. Some umpires like to think so, but it's rarely the case.

Your statement about the expected call arriving from a player's need to avoid injury is off. Lazy/cheating players and umpires caused it to happen. When they found it wouldn't be questioned, the die was cast. Thankfully, umpire mechanics, pride and instant replay recast it.

I worked with a guy who used to say, don't polish your shoes (when he saw me shining them up), this level of ball doesn't deserve it. He would limit his hustle and reply that it was expected. I always wondered, by whom? I maintain that if the throw beats the player, the glove is on the ground in front of the base and the runner adjusts to beat it, the runner is safe. I have no problem telling a defensive coach why the guy was safe. My assignors concur.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=MikeStrybel;782373]I am not trying to change your opinion but from your responses you really do not KNOW or truly understand the definitions of the neighborhood / phantom tag / expected call theories.

They are NOT make up calls which you seem to imply.

There were excellent articles written by some of the most well reknown umpires on the subject matter. One who comes to mind was Jon Bible who used to be a frequent poster at umpire.org.

We are NOT talking about a lazy tag etc. etc.

FWIW here is the definition of the neighborhood play.

R1 - 1 out.

Ground ball RIGHT AT F6 to start the traditional 6-4-3 DP. The ball is in PLENTY of time to get R1. "back in the day" as long as F4 was in the NEAR vicinity of the bag = OUT. No need for him to hold the bag upon the sliding R1especially if you are playing by PRO rules which for all practcial purposes has no sliding restrictions like FED / NCAA.

It was that way for YEARS not just my experiences. According to you all those PRO umpires who used to call the neighborhood are no good, cheating etc.

If the throw is off or a player is lazy is a COMPLETE different story and IMO that's not what happened in the OP or at least the way I interpret it. His glove was where it should be in plenty of time to get the runner.

Like I said just because things change doesn't necessarily translate into a better game. Yes it's the "new breed" and if I was fortunate enough to be umpiring at those levels then yes I would do as the Romans but I am not.

Pete Booth

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.

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

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.

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)

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;782396][QUOTE]Wow, you win today's drama award. I remind the board that you are the person who insists that making an erroneous call doesn't put one team at a disadvantage because it all evens out. History says otherwise.

Seriously, if you want to put words in my mouth, just hold up the white flag. I do contend that making that expected call is lazy and allows one team to cheat. It also smacks of arrogance and a need for approval - be it through ratings or silence. The ghost tag of second was considered acceptable for just a short part of baseball's history. It has now all but disappeared in professional and collegiate umpiring, thankfully.

I love the smell of rightousness and arrogance on an off day.

The expected lecture was received on an unexpected thread.

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.

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.

Better yet, in this day of replay, super slow-mo HD, and anything else they can think of....

Not one compalint from the Boston faithful that no tag was made on this play.... Wanna know why ????...............

It was the expected call......


Even from the fans.

You remind me of the dog who chases his tail out of a need to look fast to the other dogs. Let it go. Let it go.

I disagree. There were no complaints because everyone - including the announcers watching the replay - was 100% certain the runner was tagged. It had nothing to do with the expected call.

Logic. Thank you. Every call is expected by at least some in attendance, often by those with little knowledge of the rules or mechanics. Pandering to those who want to cheat the rules is not acceptable to most professionals. If you receive money for doing the job, you are a professional. I read that from another on this forum.

Expected calls - those made with exception to the rule - are thankfully leaving the game. Some need to let it go.

That's my whole point.

Even after the super slow-mo razzle dazzle HD showed that the tag had not been applied according to rule, there was no complaining that a tag had not been made.

Yet, on the play at the plate in the 19 inning game, the immediate gripe was "the catcher was waiting on the runner and the runner popped up 3 feet in front of the plate". Had the call been "out" and the super slow-mo showed no tag, you would not have heard a peep from anyone for the reasons stated prior.

Both expected calls.

Anyone who says it doesn't happen hasn't a clue.

Never mind.