Running Lane - Whose Call?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am giving an opinion, but I backed my opinion with facts as well. There is nothing in the mechanics books (or my state mechanics which does not use NF) that says it is always someone's call or not someone's call. When I called people on it they changed the standard or tried to suggest that I had no idea what I was talking about. And I understand completely you can dismiss my opinion totally. I am not your supervisor or someone you will have to work with in any game. Gordon is the only person I have worked an actual game with that is on this site. And even Gordon is not in a position to tell me what I should do nor can I tell him what to do. Not all umpires agree on every single mechanic or philosophy. I work with too many people that have totally different philosophies and somehow we get through the games. I have been on this forum for so long I have perspective on what these discussions ultimately mean. I had people say all kinds of person things about me like I would never work this and I would never work that and what do you think happen? I do not have to prove anything to anyone and everything I wanted to accomplish in baseball I have. I could retire today and be totally fine with my baseball umpiring career. I am close to accomplishing something in officiating that only 3 others have in my part of the state. I am good with my positions on these things. I am not sure many people can say that. And I did not get their by listening to people here exculsively and making career decisions for those opinions. I share my knowledge, take it or leave it. I do not lose a single cent here if you hate my position unlike some people.



Good. You seem to have some perspective on what this place is to you. Just do not be upset that others might not take it that way.

Peace

I am having trouble having you focus on the point I am trying to make, that's my fault not yours. I will try, one more time. I understand what an opinion is. I offered some differing thoughts, you wrote after some time, and I am paraphrasing, that you were not interested in my opinion or others' opinions on this matter I bailed and wondered why others didn't respect your wish. You entered, again, into the fray I received noisy signal; ie, a mixed message. The signal I received was that you might be interested in dialog after saying that your were not interested in dialog. I found this message confusing. You made some ad hominem remarks toward me, I responded with my thoughts on those things. You continued to respond again reiterating that were you not interested in mine or others opinions because you did not and will not work for us. Fair enough.

Then I ask why engage us if this is the basis from which you are engaging us?

Is this true only for this thread, some threads, for all all threads?

The answer to this question seems important. If it is the first, ok we can work from the premise that you are open to opinion. If it is the second, we need to know when you enter the thread if this is the case. If it is the third, then we don't have to engage you at all. Just read what you write mark it as your opinion and move on.

And finally, please don't make conclusions about my state of mind concerning this thread. I have given you know indication that I am upset by this or any other thread. I did confess to being flabbergasted, but flabbergasted does not mean upset, instead it means overwhelmed by surprise or wonder in the context I used it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Yes, everything works great if the PU makes no call and the BU makes the call. The BU cannot know what the PU plans or planned to do until after the play.

This makes no sense to me. What call are you envisioning PU make that contradicts an interference call by BU? Are you worried that BU will call interference at the same time, that for some inexplicable reason, PU verbally calls out, "No, that's not interference!" I would hope not.

This call is not going to give us the dreaded double-call (like the fair/foul scenario you describe). If PU has nothing, he does nothing - and if BU has INT, you have only one call. You seem to be inventing an issue where none exists.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This makes no sense to me. What call are you envisioning PU make that contradicts an interference call by BU? Are you worried that BU will call interference at the same time, that for some inexplicable reason, PU verbally calls out, "No, that's not interference!" I would hope not.

This call is not going to give us the dreaded double-call (like the fair/foul scenario you describe). If PU has nothing, he does nothing - and if BU has INT, you have only one call. You seem to be inventing an issue where none exists.

There are those that believe that if something strange happens on a play, for example, a thrown ball hits the BR in the back when he is within the runner's lane, that the ruling umpire should signal safe and say "that's nothing." I have heard this called preventive officiating. It avoids the didn't-you-see-that circus. Of course there are variety of plays in which this mechanic may be employed, a ground ball goes past a runner in between bases, a potential batter's interference, etc. So, yes the possibility of a double call is possible because neither umpire is focused on the other in this play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I didn't understand that's what you were doing until you told me that's what you were doing. I then bailed out of the mechanics discussion with you.




I never wrote this.

Overall, I really am sorry, that I didn't understand your position was "I'm just stating an opinion and I'm not interested in opinions." Had I known that from jump, I would not have engaged you. If I should make this mistake with you again, please just tell me in your reply that you are not interested in my opinion and I will not address you any longer on that subject. Otherwise, I will assume that you are interested in my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks.

Thank about what you just said. Because I am having a discussion does not mean I need to hear other opinions to draw a different conclusion. Now if I was asking for opinions because I was not sure in my position or what I should do, that would be a little different. Not all conversations are had to change an opinion. As some here will know I love politics, but the simple discussion of politics is not going to change who people vote for or why they feel the way they do. If you think this place is a constant conversation to convince people they are right, then you are at the wrong place.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

There are those that believe that if something strange happens on a play, for example, a thrown ball hits the BR in the back when he is within the runner's lane, that the ruling umpire should signal safe and say "that's nothing." I have heard this called preventive officiating. It avoids the didn't-you-see-that circus. Of course there are variety of plays in which this mechanic may be employed, a ground ball goes past a runner in between bases, a potential batter's interference, etc. So, yes the possibility of a double call is possible because neither umpire is focused on the other in this play.

And you realize that everyone does not suggest that method of umpiring? If you have nothing you do nothing is another position on this situation. Because if you have an out you will be adamant you have an out. If you have nothing you let the play go. I think this is what got the plate umpire in trouble in the White Sox/Angels playoff game years ago. He gave a signal that was assumed to be one thing and he was really signifying something else. I for one do not like signals just to give a signal.

BTW, I am capable to explain what I saw. I do not need to signal something to let people know what I saw. I think umpires worry too much about what others are going to say. As a basketball official if I do not have a foul I do not call the foul. If I am a football official and I do not have a DPI call, I do not signal something special to let everyone know I do not have a penalty. I simply do not pull the flag out of my waist.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

There are those that believe that if something strange happens on a play, for example, a thrown ball hits the BR in the back when he is within the runner's lane, that the ruling umpire should signal safe and say "that's nothing." I have heard this called preventive officiating. It avoids the didn't-you-see-that circus. Of course there are variety of plays in which this mechanic may be employed, a ground ball goes past a runner in between bases, a potential batter's interference, etc. So, yes the possibility of a double call is possible because neither umpire is focused on the other in this play.

Yes, we've all seen / done this. Honestly, this is an extremely thin straw to be building the rest of your argument on. I can say truthfully that I don't recall a single case, in my 18+ years of officiating, where it was necessarily to give the "that's nothing" on runners lane interference. I doubt you have either - the play is just not as conducive to the need to tell everyone, "I saw that, and I'm ruling that as nothing", as other plays might be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Then I ask why engage us if this is the basis from which you are engaging us?

Is this true only for this thread, some threads, for all all threads?

The answer to this question seems important. If it is the first, ok we can work from the premise that you are open to opinion. If it is the second, we need to know when you enter the thread if this is the case. If it is the third, then we don't have to engage you at all. Just read what you write mark it as your opinion and move on.

And finally, please don't make conclusions about my state of mind concerning this thread. I have given you know indication that I am upset by this or any other thread. I did confess to being flabbergasted, but flabbergasted does not mean upset, instead it means overwhelmed by surprise or wonder in the context I used it.

If you do not want to have a conversation with me, then don't. You honestly will not have much to worry about because other than the rare topic, I will not be talking a lot of baseball. Just look around on this board and see how little I even discuss any baseball topic. I love football and basketball officiating much more than baseball umpiring. I talk baseball when something happens that I might see that might spark some interest. I watched more NFL football than I have a single baseball game on Sunday. I am just telling you honestly my approach. Do not think I am alone. And it should not surprise you that people that have been doing something for a long time and been through the fires do not go around changing their positions because someone has a different idea. My opinions are not just based on some opinion; I have done this quite a lot and done it at a high level with many other high level people. Experience has told me what is important, not what we say here is more important than my experience. In my opinion it is silly to have a position that something must always be some way when there are a lot of exceptions to what we do. The story I told you I would have never told anyone to do what I suggested until it happened to me in a game and a high profile game. I am amazed to that day that worked out the way it did. And long before you were here and long before you knew this place existed I was told by folks here to stay away from the "always" and "never" wording when it comes to situation that certainly could have dual or multiple officials watching the same area. Again, I said it would be rare for the BU to call this, but I do not want to take lazy people off the hook because people gave an opinion and no such published mechanic supports that position. It would be better if your position was 100% supported by mechanic, but it is not.

Peace

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Gordon with all due respect, people on this site are not in an authoritative position in my officiating world. They are just some people on the site that talks about what they think or why we all should do something. I do not work for any of them and never will. Considering that I have watched the post season games and seen a lot of things done that were not "taught" by the state or organizations, somehow those individuals still keep working.

I will put it this way, when I worked the state finals a few years ago I had a play there it was my call all the way but I got screened. This was a shot fly ball in short center and the SS made a great play to dive at the ball. I had no idea if the SS caught the ball or not and immediately looked to my partner at first base (3 person game) and he gave me a signal of "out" without me using my voice or asking any other way but giving him a look of "help." My partner knew what I wanted instinctively and we made the call and it took probably a second to complete. When we got into the locker room, the UIC praised us for getting this play right. This was not a stated mechanic; this was not what we talked about the day before the tournament started or the meeting that is required or in any situation. When you get to that point where every play is being evaluated (and you may get there relatively soon), then talk to me then about these authoritative people and what they think then? I know where my bread is buttered and it is not with some guy that has a name I have no idea who they are. I cannot go to Craig or Brad and tell them, "We had this discussion on an officiating board and this is what they told me to do." They would start laughing before I finished that sentence. And that does not even include what happen with me in the State Finals in football this past year which at least a very well-known play. Of course there were people that disagreed, but the powers that be did not say a word or complain. We all have to choose why we do this and who we do this for. I am secure in the fact that what I believe is right for me. It might not be right for you. Do what works for you and let the chips fall where they may.

Peace

No question there are times to improvise but concerning Running Lane Violations it's the plate guy all the way. Carl Childress he's an authority to me. The mere fact that he's written BRD and numerous other books is good enough for me. I don't think you can find an assignor or a clincian in Illinois that would agree with you. If you're working a college game or even a high school varsity with a veteran coach who knows what's going on sure you can make that call and I gurantee you'll have an ejection. I can also gurantee you that your assignor will throw you right under the bus because it runs counter to how that play is expected to be handled and who is to make that call. It is absolutely positively Plate Umpires call. I'll positively never call it if I'm working the A position. You can blaze that trail if you like.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

No question there are times to improvise but concerning Running Lane Violations it's the plate guy all the way. Carl Childress he's an authority to me. The mere fact that he's written BRD and numerous other books is good enough for me. I don't think you can find an assignor or a clincian in Illinois that would agree with you. If you're working a college game or even a high school varsity with a veteran coach who knows what's going on sure you can make that call and I gurantee you'll have an ejection. I can also gurantee you that your assignor will throw you right under the bus because it runs counter to how that play is expected to be handled and who is to make that call. It is absolutely positively Plate Umpires call. I'll positively never call it if I'm working the A position. You can blaze that trail if you like.

Actually Gordon I have had clinicians in our state take similar positions. Where do you think I got this idea from? I ran a camp for several years that was one of the biggest until recently, these issues came up with campers or myself in discussions. And you should know if you do not have something in writing that people will justify a lot of different opinions. Now there are not many clinicians, but you would be wrong that I could not find one if I gave them a couple of situations. And I have never heard one say always or never in those conversations, just like I am not advocating here. Just stating that there are situations where the PU is not in the best position to cover such a play and if the call is obvious, who should make the call. Remember I am a basketball clinicians and there are differing opinions all the time about specific positions in that sport as well. Some of those opinions are based off of more than what the mechanics says, but what are best practices and reasoning for those best practices.

And I can guarantee that I do not have an assignor as I do not work for one person. You work for an organization that I do not work for, so not sure you can make that claim. And if they did throw me under the bus, that would be a first. It is not like they are going to see me work in person very often if ever. It is not like it is going to change the status I have in the state. So if they disagree with a call I make or a way I handle a situation, it will not be the first time. But baseball is a sport in our state that most coaches want two umpires on the field, not always the best of the best when they are not available.

Peace

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually Gordon I have had clinicians in our state take similar positions. Where do you think I got this idea from? I ran a camp for several years that was one of the biggest until recently, these issues came up with campers or myself in discussions. And you should know if you do not have something in writing that people will justify a lot of different opinions. Now there are not many clinicians, but you would be wrong that I could not find one if I gave them a couple of situations. And I have never heard one say always or never in those conversations, just like I am not advocating here. Just stating that there are situations where the PU is not in the best position to cover such a play and if the call is obvious, who should make the call. Remember I am a basketball clinicians and there are differing opinions all the time about specific positions in that sport as well. Some of those opinions are based off of more than what the mechanics says, but what are best practices and reasoning for those best practices.

And I can guarantee that I do not have an assignor as I do not work for one person. You work for an organization that I do not work for, so not sure you can make that claim. And if they did throw me under the bus, that would be a first. It is not like they are going to see me work in person very often if ever. It is not like it is going to change the status I have in the state. So if they disagree with a call I make or a way I handle a situation, it will not be the first time. But baseball is a sport in our state that most coaches want two umpires on the field, not always the best of the best when they are not available.

Peace

OK here's your challenge. Find a clinician that would agree with you that it's OK for the field guy to make that call.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Yes, we've all seen / done this. Honestly, this is an extremely thin straw to be building the rest of your argument on. I can say truthfully that I don't recall a single case, in my 18+ years of officiating, where it was necessarily to give the "that's nothing" on runners lane interference. I doubt you have either - the play is just not as conducive to the need to tell everyone, "I saw that, and I'm ruling that as nothing", as other plays might be.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

OK here's your challenge. Find a clinician that would agree with you that it's OK for the field guy to make that call.

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

[Manny A]

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yes it is. SMDH!!!

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...And it should not surprise you that people that have been doing something for a long time and been through the fires do not go around changing their positions because someone has a different idea...

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My opinions are not just based on some opinion; I have done this quite a lot and done it at a high level with many other high level people.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And long before you were here and long before you knew this place existed

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It would be better if your position was 100% supported by mechanic, but it is not.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not all conversations are had to change an opinion...If you think this place is a constant conversation to convince people they are right, then you are at the wrong place

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.