Running Lane - Whose Call?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all me and Carl goes back before this site was in full swing and every attended McGriff's site in the mid 90s. I have argued with him as well as others for years about stuff. Nothing new or unique. And usually he spends a lot of time telling us about a book that I have yet to see many people even reference as a training tool or as the guide for umpiring. Sorry, but true.

Are you kidding me? Carl's books are referenced frequently at this site alone.

I like how many have yet to address the issue at hand. I love you baseball guys (mostly on this site), you sure never like to give references to stuff, but share a lot of "opinions" usually based on some logic from another level that would not apply to you unless you are a pro umpire. No, let us just take your word for it, rather than any mechanic references. I gave two examples of levels I actually work.

You were given facts, not opinion and, as usual, you changed your argument to dismiss those.

Let us not even talk about the CCA Manual and not a single reference to even what the NF book says (and is not used by everyone BTW). Yep, great logic on your part.

Done and done. Everything you ask for is given, then you reword what you ask for. Discussing most anything with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Fortunately, you have no impact on the reality of umpiring, anywhere.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Are you kidding me? Carl's books are referenced frequently at this site alone.

And that is a ringing endorsement? Just for the record, the people I have worked with over the years references things from Referee Magazine than they would Carl's book. I belonged to associations that brought in people from Referee Magazine and I have never seen Carl speak or anyone buying his book and giving it away to newer or umpires wanting something to read. Actually if his book is even referenced there are people that have mixed opinions about its validity.

That being said there are two books that Carl wrote that I think were outstanding at the time and what I read early on. But even some of those things have changed over time.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You were given facts, not opinion and, as usual, you changed your argument to dismiss those.

Actually I had facts that backed up my opinion. I said what my state had as a way to cover these plays and I showed what the CCA book showed as well. This has not changed from the beginning of this discussion. I know you do not agree with this, but I am waiting for a reference that says "always" what the PU has to call. None of the books I have been talking about reference those types of statements. Only our state mechanics powerpoint gives a specific situation where the PU has coverage for this and that is on bunt coverage. Other situations it makes no reference that I could find or takes the 1st Base Umpire off the hook on these calls in a 3 or 4 person system.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Done and done. Everything you ask for is given, then you reword what you ask for. Discussing most anything with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

You have not given me any reference to what I was asking. It was stated as always, you showed something that did not say that or even say who had this specific call. Just admit you could not find that reference and that your opinion is what you were going with. I have an opinion, but I also supported my position with some facts that no such reference was so explicit that no other option was possible. And someone even admitted there was no reference in the books I was referring to.

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Fortunately, you have no impact on the reality of umpiring, anywhere.

Really? I am still the chairperson of a clinic if and when we choose to run one again. And honestly if I have no impact I have achieved what I wanted to in this game and impact is not something I would be seeking. Again, this obviously bothers you more than it bothers me. I think it is simple to give references that support claims. If it is not there, then state it is just your opinion. Nothing wrong with saying "I feel this is the way it should be done." We do this all the time in my other sports and often disagree with methods and best practices. But baseball umpires here seem to have a problem doing just that.

Peace

[MrUmpire]

"So it goes."

[MD Longhorn]

No insult intended to either of you, both of whom I normally respect here.

But this is the stupidest argument ever on the internet. Really - 2 pages arguing over essentially one misplaced use of the word "always" as opposed to "Always except in places that don't write down their mechanics"? Ridiculous.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well. So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together. But remember I said that my state does not use any published mechanics book and made that very clear as well. We have not received any mechanic book from any sport from the NF in about 8 or 9 years. This is why I referenced my state's mechanics and what we were told to do as it relates to our mechanics. Also, the CCA book does not say anything to suggest that only the PU can or should be the only one to make this call. I do not work pro ball and had no desire to so I cannot speak for what they ask for or require.

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with. It is not hard. Heck I am still waiting for one reference to any published book from your position that the PU is always the only one that makes this call. Once again, I did not say they should not call this or that they are the main person to make this call.

Peace

Excuse me. My mistake. I thought you could read.

1. I gave two citations from a "published book," the mechanics manuial used by all Texas high school umpires. Here's another, from the National Federation Umpires Manual, under General Duties and Responsibilities of the Plate Umpire, page 40 in the 2010-2011 (latest) edition: "6. With a throw from near home plate, observe the batter-runner’s position in relation to the 3-foot running lane. If the batter-runner is not in the lane and interferes with the throw, call interference and the batter- runner out."

That mechanic represents another victory for, well, he said modestly, me. From my book, The Umpire's Answer Book, published in 1988 by Referee Enterprises. (You have heard of them?) I wrote: "Let's get this point clear: What I'm about to say is not in any rulebook, but it's a 'rule' nonetheless because it has been codified via the decisions of thousands of umpires in tens of thousands of games played all over the world. The running lane should enter an umpire's decision-making process only when the throw is being fielded to from behind the runner. For example, when the third baseman throws off line to first and the first baseman goes for the ball, don't look down to see where the BR's feet are; if you do, you're on your way to blowing the call. The intent of the rule is to keep the BR from screening the fielder behind him from the first baseman in front. Keep it that way in your games and you'll never get into trouble."

My assertion is not yet in a rule book, but it is in the rules lexicon of the NFHS. See on-line case book play #7, 2010, where Hopkins says the BR may interfere by being out of the lane and hit by "a ball fielded and thrown from behind him." And the mechanics manual, 1995-96, says running-lane interference is possible "with a throw from near home plate."

A note is in order: That "mechanic" has been in every FED manual since 1995.


2. I carefully explained, in words almost of two syllables or fewer, that to a vetern, trained umpire, "always" means that it is the assigned umpire's call. He will make it unless he asks for help. Typical pregame at the upper levels: "Smitty, I've got BR interference in the lane." That umpire will ALWAYS have that play except when he passes it off to U1.

3. The point of the Wendelstedt stories should be obvious. Lots of beginning umpires lurk around the Message Boards. Whom are they to believe? I've always taught that posts written by recognized authorities should carry some weight. I always included my qualifications. I don't remember you from the old days. Apparently, you arguments were not of sufficient weight to plant them as a permanent part of my memory bank. That's just a guess, but it's based on your performance in this thread.

4. I said you could have the last word. I lied.

4, NOW you can have the last word. And you cannot trap me into replying by misrepresenting what I've said. I stand by my posts in this thread. You can be like the Affirmative side in the old system of debate: They always spoke last.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

4. I said you could have the last word. I lied.

No you didn't. Jeff WILL have the last word. Jeff ALWAYS has the last word. Even when the debate is well settled and the positions proven, Jeff will have the last word.

Just wait.

(And so I don't have to wait and read that last word, let me say now, "told you so.")

[tcarilli]

Fellas recall that Mr. Rutledge wrote this in post 28

..honestly I was not looking for opinions on this.

Why continue?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Excuse me. My mistake. I thought you could read.

Isn't this exactly the type of thing the new moderator system is supposed to prevent? Yeah, Jeff's being difficult. But I don't believe he personally insulted you. This was uncalled for, especially from someone in your position. Sir.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Isn't this exactly the type of thing the new moderator system is supposed to prevent? Yeah, Jeff's being difficult. But I don't believe he personally insulted you. This was uncalled for, especially from someone in your position. Sir.

Really? The new moderator system will kick in at this level of post? Really?

Talk about over reacting.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Really? The new moderator system will kick in at this level of post? Really?

Talk about over reacting.

Let me ask this --- is there any possible way that one of us saying to another "I thought you could read" has ANY positive effect on the conversation? If that's what you're looking for, you can find plenty by chatting on Facebook or Twitter. There is no planet where "I thought you could read" is going to help anyone learn about umpiring baseball. It's not going to make the person reading your post take in or accept ANY of the positive instructional stuff that followed that comment.

Even worse coming from someone with Carl's position on this board.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Let me ask this --- is there any possible way that one of us saying to another "I thought you could read" has ANY positive effect on the conversation? If that's what you're looking for, you can find plenty by chatting on Facebook or Twitter. There is no planet where "I thought you could read" is going to help anyone learn about umpiring baseball. It's not going to make the person reading your post take in or accept ANY of the positive instructional stuff that followed that comment.

Even worse coming from someone with Carl's position on this board.

Let me ask this---Are you saying that a comment lacking in a positive effect on a conversation is grounds for censorship?

Really?

Then get ready to delete half the posts made here, including several of yours.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Let me ask this---Are you saying that a comment lacking in a positive effect on a conversation is grounds for censorship?

Really?

Then get ready to delete half the posts made here, including several of yours.

I'm not interested in getting to an argument simply for the sake of arguing. Have a good afternoon.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Fellas recall that Mr. Rutledge wrote this in post 28

Why continue?

It is called having a conversation. I did not ask the original question. I know what I would do or talk about in pre-game or at meetings. I do not need this conversation to shape my previous experience or understanding of mechanics. Guys like you really surprise me when you do not seem to realize that someone asking a question and giving their opinion with facts of what is written are two different things.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Let me ask this --- is there any possible way that one of us saying to another "I thought you could read" has ANY positive effect on the conversation? If that's what you're looking for, you can find plenty by chatting on Facebook or Twitter. There is no planet where "I thought you could read" is going to help anyone learn about umpiring baseball. It's not going to make the person reading your post take in or accept ANY of the positive instructional stuff that followed that comment.

Even worse coming from someone with Carl's position on this board.

Carl has always gotten upset when people challenge his positions or state something that is not in his books (As I said I have had conversations with him since the mid-90s). That is nothing new here. Actually I did not even get upset by the comment because that is where he is at in his life. The problem is he does not want to realize that not everyone is using his books as the law of any sport. As I said we talk more about Referee Magazine literature in these parts and get people from that magazine to come and talk to people. In one association I belong to they have had more than one person from Referee Magazine to speak. Carl's books are great reference tool, but that is what it is to most that I know or work personally with.

Peace

[Manny A]

I go away from this board for over four years, and now that I'm back, I see that some things have not changed...