Jim Palmer trying to match Tim McCarver

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by jicecone

In your opinion!

Well, DUH.

My opinion is what you claimed was missing. Glad to see you figured it out this time.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is once again that stupid old mechanic if you ask me where for some reason umpires want to be what used to be called 90 degrees to the throw. I thought MLB or most of the umpires would get rid of that thinking years ago. Especially in a 4 man mechanic where there is no need to be there. I think it is possible he guessed and was screened from a better angle.

Peace

PBUC is teaching their umpires on the AA level (the first time professional umpires work 3-man crews) that they want their umpires going at least to a 90-degree angle and, if time allows, a step beyond that point.

Not posting this to argue with you JRut...just putting "it out there" what is being taught to tomorrow's major league umpires the first time they are working on the professional level with more than a 2-umpire crew.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

1) He was obviously not safe. If you think so in spite of video evidence, I don't think we can help you here.

2) You're missing the point. You don't overturn a call because you THINK it was wrong - you can only tell your partner he missed a pulled foot if you KNOW it. If you can be certain of something that didn't happen, again, I question whether you should be out there at all. If you are not POSITIVE, you don't change the call.

As an attorney, I have seen numerous law journal articles about eyewitness testimony. There are numerous studies addressing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Without going into all the details, the general gist is that there are numerous studies that have shown that eyewitnesses can be "certain" as to what they saw, and as they are questioned more and more about what they saw their mind makes them "more certain" as to what they saw. The problem? In these studies what these eyewitnesses saw was also video recorded and what these eyewitnesses were "certain" they saw simply did not happen as shown on the video tape.

People can be "certain" as to what they saw all the time and the idea that they may be "guessing" never enters their mind. Yet, they are still wrong. I've even heard persons say "I don't care what the videotape shows, that's not what I saw!"

I am "certain" (LOL) that the home plate umpire was "certain" that F3 had pulled his foot. I'm sure as the argument escalated on the field, he became more and more certain in his mind as to what he saw. The only problem is that the video tape does not corroborate what PU was certain he saw.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by lawump

I am "certain" (LOL) that the home plate umpire was "certain" that F3 had pulled his foot. I'm sure as the argument escalated on the field, he became more and more certain in his mind as to what he saw. The only problem is that the video tape does not corroborate what PU was certain he saw.

Huh? F3 definitely came off the bag. PU definitely saw that. The question is whether he controlled the ball prior to that time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Huh? F3 definitely came off the bag. PU definitely saw that. The question is whether he controlled the ball prior to that time.

You know dog gone well that he was not talking about the foot just coming off the bag, but coming off the bag without the ball and making the catch.

Either way it was not clear that he was right, it was very very close and that is not a play you come in and save IMO.

Peace

[lawump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You know dog gone well that he was not talking about the foot just coming off the bag, but coming off the bag without the ball and making the catch.

Exactly