The Official Forum
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Dale Scott calls a ball foul then fair (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/90600-dale-scott-calls-ball-foul-then-fair.html)

jicecone Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:27pm
Oh now it is a fraud? Next thing it will be a conspiracy by the umpires against the Padres. Lets call a joint session of Congress to get behind this National Travestry. Arrange a UN General Session for 8:00pm.

Steve, all I hope for is that someday I can become 1/2 as good of an official as you think you are in "Steve's World".

Rich Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 837714)
Well, you started out defending the call and stating that he didn't call Time or Foul, even after you saw the MLB video. Are you now willing to say that by emphatically throwing both hands far above his head, he was in effect killing the ball in this case, and therefore had no business changing his call to a fair ball, and thereby causing a triple play that never should have been? When the runners saw him signal, they correctly surmised that the ball was no longer alive for some reason, and did not need to continue the play.

Sure, we have all screwed the pooch in similar fashion in one way or the other occasionally, but we usually own up to it, not alibi and cover it up with the backing of three other umpires to perpetrate the fraud. We say, "I messed up, I'll bear down harder next time," or some words of contrition. The fact that all four umpires huddled up, and then tried to sell a bill of goods that the ball magically became alive again, after being clearly signaled dead, was not being forthright and honest. By saying, "At no time did the umpire verbally kill the play on the field," they are saying, "Hey, you are all a bunch of idiots, and you didn't see what your eyes tell you that you saw." Once Scott threw his hands up to the sky like he was going to shout, "Hallelujah," he should have sold the Foul call for all it was worth.
Personally, I love watching the Padres get screwed. Especially when that homer Dick Enberg gets all angry at the umpires.

REFANDUMP Tue Apr 17, 2012 01:17pm
Sometimes I think we forget that we're not robots. It appears to me that Scott put his hands up while backing away from the catcher. I can see where the Padres players thought the play was killed, but on a close play like this, I'd assume the call would have been "sold" by the umpire. The only selling was when the ball was called fair. In my opinion, this was an unfortunate mistake the instinctual reaction of Mr. Scott.

Dakota Tue Apr 17, 2012 01:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by REFANDUMP (Post 837722)
...It appears to me that Scott put his hands up while backing away from the catcher....
Yes, and then he started to pull them down, and went back up with a distinct and sharp palms out dead ball mechanic. Regardless of what he verbalized, he clearly (to my eyes) signaled foul and then signaled fair. By not owning his mistake, he gave the Dodgers a cheap triple play, and one like it has never been earned before and won't be earned again (and wasn't earned this time, either).

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 17, 2012 01:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone (Post 837710)
Ever blow a call, start to make a safe signal and realize the runner is out, call a balk that wasn't, a foul ball that wasn't, fail to call batter interference, obstruction, miss a pitch, etc etc etc.

How many of those did you go back and change because everyone thought you should?
None. See... you've actually made my point for me. He killed the ball, and runners reacted. He went back and changed this to fair ball semi-immediately, but the damage was already done. Once he killed the ball (on purpose or not!), the only solution is to live with it, and take almost all the crap from that coach that he wants to dish.

JRutledge Tue Apr 17, 2012 02:01pm
The reality is if the had called a foul ball and the video showed that the batter was not hit by the baseball, then we would be killing the guys for by calling it too soon. He was wrong either way.

Peace

Eastshire Tue Apr 17, 2012 02:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 837735)
The reality is if the had called a foul ball and the video showed that the batter was not hit by the baseball, then we would be killing the guys for by calling it too soon. He was wrong either way.

Peace
I don't think so. I think he's getting killed for calling it both ways. Umpires make mistakes all the time, but it takes calling a ball foul then fair to generate 5 pages (so far) of discussion. For that matter, if he'd called it fair then foul, I don't think it would generate this much discussion.

MD Longhorn Tue Apr 17, 2012 02:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 837735)
The reality is if the had called a foul ball and the video showed that the batter was not hit by the baseball, then we would be killing the guys for by calling it too soon. He was wrong either way.

Peace
1 call, had it been wrong, would have gotten him yelled at, but not crucified. It's the multiple calls that makes this one disastrous.

JRutledge Tue Apr 17, 2012 02:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 837737)
I don't think so. I think he's getting killed for calling it both ways. Umpires make mistakes all the time, but it takes calling a ball foul then fair to generate 5 pages (so far) of discussion. For that matter, if he'd called it fair then foul, I don't think it would generate this much discussion.
There are several examples of the media going nuts over calls that they think should have been called. It often does not last that long in the sport of baseball because the situation takes place one day and there is a game the following day. I was also not talking about this board and the reaction here, I was talking about the reaction from the media and public. We are discussing this from a different angle here, but this was not discussed from the same angle on SportsCenter or every other sports talk show that I heard this being discussed.

Peace

JRutledge Tue Apr 17, 2012 02:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 837740)
1 call, had it been wrong, would have gotten him yelled at, but not crucified. It's the multiple calls that makes this one disastrous.
That depends on what happened afterwards. If the batter went on to hit a single or score some runs on a hit, and LA goes on to lose or the outcome is affected, yes he would have been crucified IMO. And it was not disastrous to me or to many if he did not verbally say anything. Players often react to things regardless of what we signal. I think SD used that as the excuse to not move, but if he did not signal anything they would have claimed the batter looked like he got hurt. Having been in some blowouts about similar situations and I did not signal anything or verbalize anything, I am not convinced that was the reason they stayed put.

Peace

RadioBlue Tue Apr 17, 2012 04:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 837693)
Who calls "dead ball"? It's either "FOUL" or "TIME". This isn't softball.
1) That signal is a "dead ball" signal. If that's what you've signaled, that's what you've called.

2) If a batter chops one that comes up and hits him but the PU is blocked and doesn't see it, do you as the BU call "foul!" or do you call "Dead!" As for me, I'll call "dead!" It's my partner's responsibility to know if the batter was still in the box, or not and, therefore, is his "foul" call, not mine.

Tim C Tue Apr 17, 2012 05:06pm
Quote:
"That signal is a "dead ball" signal . . ."
Not true my good man, not true.

T

kylejt Tue Apr 17, 2012 05:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue (Post 837778)
1) That signal is a "dead ball" signal. If that's what you've signaled, that's what you've called.

2) If a batter chops one that comes up and hits him but the PU is blocked and doesn't see it, do you as the BU call "foul!" or do you call "Dead!" As for me, I'll call "dead!" It's my partner's responsibility to know if the batter was still in the box, or not and, therefore, is his "foul" call, not mine.


I've never heard anyone call "Dead!". I've heard "Dead Ball!" but that's universally past it's days. Now, it's either "Time!" or "Foul!". "Time" is proper, "Foul!" is accepted, remembering that it may not actaully be a foul ball, as part of the box is in fair territory. Plus, the runner can have one foot still in the box, the ball hit him over fair territory, and still not be out for INT.

RadioBlue Tue Apr 17, 2012 06:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim C (Post 837779)
Not true my good man, not true.

T
Perhaps you're right at the college or pro level. Since I don't work those levels, I won't dispute what you're saying. I can tell you that it is a "dead ball" (as well as "time" and "foul") signal at the NFHS level.

http://holidaybasketball.com/images/...ead%20ball.jpg

But my point remains the same, if you've signaled it, you've called it.

RadioBlue Tue Apr 17, 2012 06:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt (Post 837780)
...universally past it's days...
Ouch! :eek: Now you're making me feel like an old dog. :D

Teach me a new trick, then. Are you saying that a batted ball chopped at the plate that comes up and hits the batter unseen by the PU results in the BU calling "Time"? If so, in what levels is that being taught?

It's an interesting idea. I've never heard of not using "Dead" or "Dead Ball." What's the rationale? Is it merely to delineate a distinction between baseball and softball?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27am.
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1