I disagree and I have done, exactly as I wrote. A BR was hit in the shoulder with a throw from the catcher while running within the runner's lane. This is only piece of my argument for not having equal and joint responsibility for this play. I have stated some of the others along the winding road of this thread.

I have found that there are some things that happen out of the ordinary that a that's-nothing mechanic is very helpful and has prevented unwarranted discussions. All I am signalling and saying is "yes, I saw that ball hit the b-r, and I have ruled that there was no interference." Similarly on other calls, but YMMV.

Why? I am not going to waste time to bring someone into an opinion about a discussion here. Honestly Gordon, this is not that important. And if I find a clinician, what does that mean? Am I not going to work anymore? Are they going to write a stern letter to the state? It would be kind of silly honestly. I do not need to have this discussion to judge what I am going to do on the field. And certainly not at this point of my career.

Peace

Yes it is. SMDH!!!

Peace

I have not said you should change your opinion. Not all conversation is about changing opinions of the other person. Sometimes its about finding out my own opinion. Sometimes its about finding out whether my opinion holds water. I just made a mistake in how you were engaging me. That's my fault, that i received a noisy signal.

I never assumed otherwise. Why have you assumed otherwise of me and my experience? You have repeatedly hinted that I must not have the experience that you have or do not work at the high levels you work at. I think ideas are interesting for understanding regardless of whom they are attached to. I haven't read you my resume as you have yours to me. If you are interested send me a pm and I will read it for you.

Um...I have been a member since January 2001 and you since June of 2000. Hardly a difference I would contend.

Whatever my opinion or your opinion on this we are both in the same boat here. Neither position can be 100% supported by mechanic. In fact, no mechanics standard or non-standard can be 100% supported by mechanic.

I suggest a third alternative, seeking the truth or something approximating it. Argument need not be about wining and losing, that's just a pissing contest and what's right takes a back seat. Think competitive debate. A good debater could take the side the earth is flat and win a debate according to the rules of engagement.

It need not be a series of opinions that's what op ed pages are for.

It instead may about truth seeking. Think scientific method and experimentation. Its about figuring out what works or doesn't work. That's where I come from.

Why would your opinion hold water to me? You stated that your concern was to have opposing calls and one of those calls is something I would not be advocating on any level. I have never been an advocate for giving a safe signal until someone is actually safe. So it is not going to hold water if the only reason we should have the PU make this call is the fact that we will have opposing signals.

I have not hinted towards anything but you have not been here, at this particular place. I have no idea what your actual experience is or honestly care. I did not even talk about my experience until others felt it necessary to give how long they have been doing this too. And our experience is what shapes us and is not going to change just because someone references how long they have been doing something. It seems to me you are sensitive to what your position is and no I will not PM you because your experience is honestly irrelevant to this discussion. It is relevant to why I might do something personally, but not why others choose a different route. You know how many guys I have worked less years than and achieved more than they have? Or better yet, do you know how many umpires that do things and this has been their main goal and I do this passively and they still have not gotten to places I have? I am sure your experience has shaped your position and that is why I said, do what works for you.



This site has been around longer than 2000 and you might not be aware that a software issue made everyone registered as a member. For example I have been talking to Carl Childress and many others way before 2000. And if you have been around that long or seen this board, you know my positions on these things. I honestly have never read or remembered much of your contribution to this site until now. ;)

I would contend that my position is much more supported by mechanic because it does not say that the PU has this call always and never should the BU under any circumstances make this call. And you are right, but that does not mean that similar experienced officials do not disagree either. Remember we are a very small community that is talking about this topic, there are umpires all over the country that do a lot of things based on their teaches, trainings or experience. That is why I find it funny that people want to only look at mechanics but most of the things we talk about are philosophies. Remember I referenced the 3 legged stool which is not a unique concept.



If Christians cannot agree on what is the best way to believe in Jesus or His works, what makes you think that in these situations where people come from totally different experiences are going to always agree? Now I am just using the religious example as just an example. But if I can tolerate that those differences exist as it relates to my faith and faith or lack thereof some sort of faith are much more life changing situations than who makes a call in a baseball game, I think I can be OK that you disagree with me. Again, nothing we say here is going to change why or when I work a baseball game. That is why I use the word perspective in these discussions. I think some thing they are not going to win if someone disagrees with them on what is honestly a minor issue in umpiring.

Peace

You must think some things are generalizable beyond your particular time and space. This may not be one of them, but I doubt it.

I don't think this is true. You did it in your conversation with me repeatedly. I have not yet mentioned mine or found it relevant. Though you have stated and use yours as a reason for your opinion. Of course experience helps form opinion otherwise it means nothing. We all know of the guy who has had one year of experience x number of times.

So why continue you to tell me about your high level of experience and years of work?

I am receiving this signal whether you intend to send it or not:

"Listen kid, I have been doing baseball, football, and basketball at very high levels for many, many years. I am not interested in your opinion on this because I don't perceive that you have as many years experience as I do at the high levels that I do and therefore have nothing to offer."

Here is an example of why I am receiving that signal:

and another

and another

You must think some things are generalizable beyond your particular time and space. This may not be one of them.


I'm pretty sure I never required that you agree with me about this or had the expectation that all involved would agree..

I said many times in this thread that I was not interested in winning. I am interested in moving knowledge forward at least for me. I have learned much from this thread.

tcarilli,

Why are we even having this conversation? Did I change your mind?

I don't know who you are. I honestly do not care who you are and that is if I ever go back to baseball in any serious way I you are not likely going to be there either.

It is really time to move on. I still think the BU can make a interference call in a rare situation and certainly if the PU is watching other things. And I really believe this if there are more umpires on the field. Now what do you want to talk about?

Peace

I agree why waste time when none would agree. Your position is untenable.

Gordon, I probably know more clinicians personally than you do. Do not be so sure who would disagree with me and why. My officiating life is not subjected to one part of the state remember.

Peace

In discussing this with a friend there is indeed one situation where the base umpire makes this call. It happens only if HPU falls flat on his face unconscious and the base umpire is the only one awake to call it. So I guess it's plausible.

OK.

Peace

You made me think and engage an idea. I'm sorry the only way you find this type of activity worth while is to win, ie, change my mind. I find thinking and seriously engaging ideas to be worthy endeavors.

In the end it appears to me that what you want to do is pontificate. I understand and respect that.

Again, why are we continuing this conversation again?

Are you not secure in your own experience and training to do what you feel is right? That is all that should really matter to you. But instead you are worried about what I have to say (a guy you will never work with).

Peace

No. The "I'm not going to call this in ANY situation" position is untenable.

This is a provincial way to move through life, to start with the premise that if I haven't worked with someone, he or his thoughts are unimportant prima facie. By implication, when I go to clinics taught by individuals with whom I have never worked or will never work, I shouldn't listen to them. That would make it very difficult for someone new to officiating to learn much wouldn't it?


Could the same question be asked of you?

OK man. LOL!!! You will never get it.

Peace

I won't ever get it? I get it completely.

You want to pontificate.

You are not interested in opinions other than yours and those you have worked with, the rest of the world be damned.

If someone who disagrees with doesn't immediately change is his mind due to your encyclical, then the conversation should be over.

Baseball guys will never be as enlightened as the vastly superior basketball and football guys.

If you don't know someone, what he says can't possibly be worth anything.

You have worked for many, many years at exceedingly high levels and that fact alone should be sufficient for agreement with you.

And should you ever return to high levels of baseball you won't meet me because I have no chance of being there.

I get it, loud and clear.

Here is why I said you do not get it. It you do not get it because what I say or what you say is only worth what others want to use. Have you ever heard of the term, "Picking up pennies?" That means if someone gives you a dollar of information and all you pick up is a penny or two, you have learned a lot. Not everything someone says has value to you in total or that you will agree with most of what is said. You only need to pick up pennies and take away the little that works and throw out the rest. If I said nothing you agree with I am OK with that fact. I was not honestly trying to teach you anything because I am secure in my thinking and you have to learn what works for you most of all. I thought you were smart enough to realize that what I was saying applies to me. Apparently you are not what I thought you were or I gave you more credit than I should have.

Peace

So if your HP partner gets hit in the head with the batter's bat, but he goes to one knee instead of flat on his face, and he remains conscious but is woozy and looking down, you won't make the call? :D:p

I' would never ever, ever and I mean never call it. Even if my partner fell flat on his face unconcious at the plate. Have a good day.:)

If I may,

This is from "Maximizing the Two Umpire System" By Jim Evans and Dick Nelson. ISBN 978-1-4243-1636-6. Chapter 2: "Defining and Understanding Resonsibilities" Pg 24.

7. RUNNERS LANE

"Regardless of the runner situation. the plate umpire is initially responsible for all interference calls involving the runner's lane. With no runner on base, the base umpire has to move into fair territory for position on the potential play at first on the batter-runner. With runner(s) on base, the base umpire is working in the infield. In neither of these two situations will the base umpire be in a position to get the proper angle for the interference call. However, if the plate umpire fails to call an interference that was obvious the the base umpire, the base umpire must step up and make the call. If there is a possibility of a runner attempting to score on the play, the plate umpire should assume a position on the first base line extended. "

I think all parties involved in the discussion should be satisfied with this authoritative interpretation of umpire responsibities involving the running lane. (But I doubt it).

Regards,

Mike C

Are you qualified to copy and paste "authoritative interpretations"?

I dont know Jim Evans and he will never work at my level, so what he has to say means nothing to me.

The last I heard this publication has not been made official by MLB, NCAA or FED and it isn't what we use at the clinics I do and you'll notice he doesn't include the word "always." :D

Well, I suggest you Google Jim Evans. He's had a hand in a few things at the highest levels of baseball.

Interestingly enough, he's been in the news in the last couple of days.

Jim Evans umpire academy files antitrust lawsuit against minor league baseball - The Washington Post

I am more than sure LMan knows that!

Sorry, I didn't see his emoticon in his post. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I didn't know I had to be so obvious ;) :D




emoticons are for the weak

The CCA has gone to this in the last year or two. The PU rotates to third even if the ball stays on the infield. I could be wrong, but I think someone said on one of the boards that the PBUC book says the same thing for 2-man.

Disagreed. I am 100 percent with dwfump and his citation from Evans. From everything I have been taught (By very good NCAA umpires), the PU is primarily responsible for RLI, but the BU had better step up and call it if the PU doesn't for some reason and it's obvious.

This is only true for one circumstance and only in 2-man. If the initial play is at 2nd base with R1 only and if R1 is safe and a throw goes to first base then the PU would have R1 at third. In this case, however, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be a RLI. I might even say impossible, but...

The reference is 2012 CCA manual pp. 65-66.

However, with a ground ball with no throw to second base the CCA manual p. 67 changes the responsibilities as follows:

Exactly my position.

Peace

If you had made that clear in your very first post, there wouldn't have been 130 others.

Actually I did make it very clear that I did not take the "never" and "always" position that many seem to love to live by here. And then I stated that there was not such reference in any mechanics or books. Then again I would have thought competent umpires would realize the rest. But I should have known better that baseball umpires tend to be very rigid in their thinking if it is not what they think it should be, even if there are reasonable examples to contradict that philosophy. Much like when we discuss the use of a counter or any other helpful device to our job.

Peace

I thought he was pretty clear. Obviously at least 2 vociferous individuals here disagree with Jim Evans. They must have more experience than him.

I guess this was not very clear.

BTW, first post of the entire thread in response to the OP.

Peace

What would have been clean, simple and clear is:

"The plate umpire has primary responsibility for running lane interference."

What a shame that this thread was simply miscommunication. I'm really going to miss it.

For you Ren and Stimpy fans in the crowd:

Must...resist...the...shiny...red...button!

Ren & Stimpy: Space Madness

Miss what? Did something just happen?

http://www.getyourfilmfix.com/wp-con...ind-eraser.jpg

Why would that have been any clearer? It is obvious that to some "primary" means "only" in this conversation. In every other sports officiating discussion it is understood that if someone has a "primary" someone else has a "secondary." And you do not get people normally saying that one person should "always" have a call and the other should just die if they even think to make a call that would be "correct."

I do not understand why I had to be so clear, when it was obvious I disagreed with a specific point. If I said what I believed you would have accepted that anyway? I doubt that seriously.

Peace

Ydgtlw.