Running Lane - Whose Call?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 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...