Running Lane - Whose Call?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...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.

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by briancurtin

Is this really happening?

Agreed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Steven Tyler]

It's just the nature of the beast. It will die, and become extinct in a few days, or until it mutants into something more vial.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.

I will put it this way. If you want to do what you do or believe what you believe, go right ahead. At the end of the day I really could give a damn. This sport is my least favorite to work and often discussions like this are the reason that is the case most of the time. You cannot have a discussion with people like you because someone told you to do something years ago. Well I was told a lot of things to do and I do not do those things anymore because clinicians or trainers decided what once was advocated does not work. Just like the "Get it right philosophy." People take a lot of things in baseball too far. I just was stating that the BU in rare situations should make this call. If that is a sin that call me a sinner, because I really did not think that would be that controversial. This is my 18th year of officiating and I worked a State Final in this sport not doing things that the powers that be do not approve of. Again, I just said it was rare and I said there is no support that only the PU makes this call or always makes this call.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the rest.

Peace

[Steve Meyer]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

It's just the nature of the beast. It will die, and become extinct in a few days, or until it mutants into something more vial.

Agreed, kind sir.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have a discussion with people like you because someone told you to do something years ago.

I am really flabbergasted by this. I won't read you my resume as you have done for me. I don't like appeals to authority (logical fallacy) self referential or not. I do not umpire the same way I did, 5 years ago let alone 10 or 15 years ago.

I have not attacked you personally or claimed to know anything about you in any of my posts. I don't understand why you haven't accorded me the same courtesy.

In argument the principal of charity means basically that you view the ideas and thoughts of others in an argument within the best possible light assuming the best possible intentions. That is, one gives others' ideas the most charitable reading. I try to do that all of the time. I seriously considered your points in the most charitable way, that is why I asked questions, I did not make definitive statements.

Learning and changing cannot happen during pissing contests, I was not attempting to engage in a pissing contest. There is a Latin aphorism that says Qui docet discit, he who teaches learns. I view conversation like that. Sometimes articulating a belief or theory we hold, or otherwise exposing it to the light of day, demonstrates that the idea doesn't hold water. If I see the holes in the bucket, I plug the holes or I get a new bucket.

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Please bring this up at your next clinic. This is wrong on many levels.

No need to. I screwed the pooch on this one. I was clearly thinking wrong on this one. Glad it's cleared up now (unlike the rest of this thread).

[gordon30307]

Jeff, you're the only person in the world who believes a running lane violation can be called by U1. How many authoritative sources do you need? You're flat out wrong. Sure you could call it but it would be indefensible to any assigner worth his salt and you would be left twisting in the wind.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Jeff, you're the only person in the world who believes a running lane violation can be called by U1. How many authoritative sources do you need? You're flat out wrong. Sure you could call it but it would be indefensible to any assigner worth his salt and you would be left twisting in the wind.

Bases loaded, infield in, and the batter hits the ball to F6. F6 throws home just slightly too late to get R3, and the PU makes an emphatic Safe call. Then F2 throws to first to make the play on the BR. BR is a few steps from first base, with his left foot outside the lane. U1 clearly sees that F3 couldn't find the throw until it gets past the BR, and F3 reacts too late to make the catch.

U1 is supposed to be silent here?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Bases loaded, infield in, and the batter hits the ball to F6. F6 throws home just slightly too late to get R3, and the PU makes an emphatic Safe call. Then F2 throws to first to make the play on the BR. BR is a few steps from first base, with his left foot outside the lane. U1 clearly sees that F3 couldn't find the throw until it gets past the BR, and F3 reacts too late to make the catch.

U1 is supposed to be silent here?

So, why can't the PU also see the RLI in this circumstance?

[gordon30307]

Two person game my lips are sealed. Three person game I'll answer it like this. I've had hundreds of plays involving bunts, swinging bunts and the play you described. I'm too busy watching the ball, the feet, the catch etc. the last thing I'm going to make note of is where BR feet are in relation to the running lane. Besides in the play you described BR MUST leave the running lane to attain first base since first base is in fair territory. No violation. No ****ing way I will ever make that call as U1. If you choose to make that call do so at your own peril.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

So, why can't the PU also see the RLI in this circumstance?

There could be plenty of reasons why the PU misses it. Just look at the play that took place in the White Sox/Angels game, where the PU made the call at home from 3BLX. He wasn't in an ideal position to see it. Heck, this could be a college- or high school-level game with a four-man crew and he's watching for a FPSR violation as F2's throwing to first. Who knows?

Again, I'm just trying to understand why a RLI violation cannot be called by U1, as gordon30307 states.

[mbyron]

There are 2 plausible positions being defended here:

1. PU will ALWAYS take a RLI call.

2. PU has PRIMARY responsibility for a RLI call and will make it 99.9% of the time.

These positions are practically indistinguishable for nearly all umpires for nearly all of their umpiring careers. Chances are, if PU doesn't make this call, it doesn't (and shouldn't) get made.

Not much point arguing over the 0.1% of cases, IMO.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Manny A

There could be plenty of reasons why the PU misses it. Just look at the play that took place in the White Sox/Angels game, where the PU made the call at home from 3BLX. He wasn't in an ideal position to see it. Heck, this could be a college- or high school-level game with a four-man crew and he's watching for a FPSR violation as F2's throwing to first. Who knows?

Again, I'm just trying to understand why a RLI violation cannot be called by U1, as gordon30307 states.

Manny,

If you're working a 3 or even 4 man game UIC has no reason to look or call FPSR since there will be an umpire at 2nd. I gather your new at this gig the way your question is posed. Suffice it say if you're U1 NEVER make that call because it's not yours to make.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Two person game my lips are sealed. Three person game I'll answer it like this. I've had hundreds of plays involving bunts, swinging bunts and the play you described. I'm too busy watching the ball, the feet, the catch etc. the last thing I'm going to make note of is where BR feet are in relation to the running lane. Besides in the play you described BR MUST leave the running lane to attain first base since first base is in fair territory. No violation. No ****ing way I will ever make that call as U1. If you choose to make that call do so at your own peril.

Who said BR LEFT the lane to attain first base - who said he was ever in the lane in the first place?

Make this sitch clearer - BR is CLEARLY inside the line, was never in the lane, and the ball hits him in the back. And PU is not looking as he's dealing with something at home plate (for example, R3 hurt, F2 arguing with ump, play was close so he decided to point at home plate several times like in the other thread, etc.)

To say U1 can NEVER make this call is mistaken. Rare? Yeah, probably. But NEVER??? No way.