Pulled foot mechanic and timing

[Bfair]

Once again, Warren, you play word games on your speculation of what is meant rather than just reading what is there. While you list some of the examples that have been provided to us, you obviously fail to understand the concept that covers other possibilities. The rulesmakers use examples, Warren, to teach concepts.

You speculation was muddied on your ill-interpreted understanding of Type B obstruction, and you were proven wrong. You also did so you with your conjured interpretation of "missing" a base (LOL), and you were proven wrong. It's not even worth the time here, Warren. As stated, OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed all show getting the call right to be more important than protecting your ill-perceived loss dignity.

There is no dignity in maintaining an obviously poor decision,
especially when the answer is easily at hand---as it was for Jon Bible.
Somehow your inability to understand that doesn't surprise me, Warren............




Freix

[refman]

Back to your original scenerio......I disagree with the explanation of a couple posts. I think you make the out/safe call based on which arrived at the base first. If the ball beat the runner, call him/her out. You don't take the possible pulled foot into consideration at all. Now if the first base coach or even the manager sitting in the dugout thinks the 1B came off the bag and requests you ask for help, fine....ask. If the PU saw the pulled foot, do the right thing and change your call.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by refman
Back to your original scenerio......I disagree with the explanation of a couple posts. I think you make the out/safe call based on which arrived at the base first. If the ball beat the runner, call him/her out. You don't take the possible pulled foot into consideration at all. Now if the first base coach or even the manager sitting in the dugout thinks the 1B came off the bag and requests you ask for help, fine....ask. If the PU saw the pulled foot, do the right thing and change your call.

Sounds good in theory, refman, but let's see if it stands up in practice. Consider this play:

R1, 0 outs. Batter smacks a grounder deep in the hole that the F6 only just manages to get a handle on. Seeing R1 is easily safe at 2nd, he instead fires to 1st for a play on the B-R. F3 stretches toward 3rd and comes off the base very early, but as BU you didn't clearly see that even though you had your suspicions. You rule the B-R OUT, because the ball beat the runner, as F3 fires across to F5 for a very close tag out on R1 sliding into 3rd. When questioned later, your partner says F3 pulled off the base by at least 2 feet on the play at 1st. Place the runner(s).

Ask yourself these two questions before answering:

1. Would the B-R have been able to make it to 2nd on the attempted play at 3rd if you had ruled him "Safe"?

2. Would R1 have been "Out" at 3rd absent the shortened throw from F3?

My point is that once you've made a decision in continuing play, it can be virtually impossible to unravel what follows IF you allow an illegal appeal against your judgement call. There are times when changing the call IS the best option. If there had been no R1 in the above play, you could ask for help immediately F3 gloved the ball - no need to wait for an uproar, providing you already had your suspicions. Ask first, THEN decide the outcome of the play.

OTOH with R1, or any other runner advancing on the play, you don't have that luxury. You have to make a call, and if it's a bad call you often have to eat it, because the continuing play demands that. Just because you CAN change a bad call doesn't mean you always SHOULD.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
... blah, blah, blah ...


Freix

Thanks for putting my little mate in there. You saved me the trouble!

[Bfair]

It doesn't surprise me, Warren, that he is your little "mate."
He certainly has a look of contentment.

Now, while you say "blah, blah, blah"..........
are you sure you didn't mean "bah, bah, bah"........
A sound you might be far more familiar with...........LOL


Freix

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
It doesn't surprise me, Warren, that he is your little "mate."
He certainly has a look of contentment.

Now, while you say "blah, blah, blah"..........
are you sure you didn't mean "bah, bah, bah"........
A sound you might be far more familiar with...........LOL


Freix

Freix, this post just betrays the FILTHY way in which your mind works. Australian's use the word "mate" the way Americans use the word "buddy", but I'm sure you already KNEW that. I guess the absence of any true "buddy" is what makes you so bitter and twisted.

Have a nice day.

[refman]

Warren.....you're missing the point on this one. Your long, detailed explanation/rule references regarding "judgement" are not being disputed. On a pulled foot situation, the umpire making the call from the "C" position makes his out/safe call using his "judgement" at the time. From that point, if there was a pulled foot, witnessed by the plate umpire, and questioned by the 1st base coach (or other qualified offensive representative), and if the appropiate steps are taken by the offense to request the base umpire to please check with the plate umpire....then proper mechanics and common sense dictate to do do. If the foot was pulled, and the PU tells the BU in their private little discussion, then the BU changes his call to "get it right". Plain and simple.....no "judgement" .....that was used to make the out/safe call. And you make the out/safe call before asking the plate ump for any kind of help.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by refman
Warren.....you're missing the point on this one. Your long, detailed explanation/rule references regarding "judgement" are not being disputed. On a pulled foot situation, the umpire making the call from the "C" position makes his out/safe call using his "judgement" at the time. From that point, if there was a pulled foot, witnessed by the plate umpire, and questioned by the 1st base coach (or other qualified offensive representative), and if the appropiate steps are taken by the offense to request the base umpire to please check with the plate umpire....then proper mechanics and common sense dictate to do do. If the foot was pulled, and the PU tells the BU in their private little discussion, then the BU changes his call to "get it right". Plain and simple.....no "judgement" .....that was used to make the out/safe call. And you make the out/safe call before asking the plate ump for any kind of help.

Perhaps we'll have to A2D, Refman, because I understand your point perfectly but I think you're off base on several counts:

1. Allowing an appeal on a judgement decision is breach of 9.02(a)

2. Changing a judgement decision once you've made it is a breach of 9.02(a)

3. If you ignore points 1 and 2, then you leave yourself open to question on EVERY judgement decision with which the coach(s) disagree

4. If you ignore points 1 and 2 there will be occasions, like the play I presented in my last response, where you simply CANNOT unravel what has happened since your initial judgement decision - it becomes a lose-lose course to follow.

There is good reason for the rules requiring that judgement decisions are "final", and are NOT open to question. If you entertain one such objection then you are bound to entertain them ALL, or be accused of discrimination and bias. Rule 9.02(a) was intended to protect umpires from that very eventuality. It was codified in the full knowledge that adhering to the rule might mean an occasional "bad" call may go uncorrected.

Please, Refman, try to look at the BIG picture. The game is WAY bigger than simply getting an individual Safe/Out call "right". Getting one call "right" may even cost you your ability to control the whole game. Despite BFair's naive protestations, this isn't about preserving umpire dignity for its own sake. It is about the maintenance of necessary authority for the good of the game and in the best interests of all participants. It's about GAME MANAGEMENT. Umpire's make judgement calls, NOT coaches, managers, players or spectators. It takes some officials years to learn that lesson. Some NEVER learn it. I hope you do not fall in the latter category.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 16th, 2003 at 08:05 AM]

[Rich]

I was asked to work a LL Majors District tournament this weekend. I call mainly high school and college ball and haven't been on a 60' baseball small diamond in over a decade. I figured it would be fun.

It was, although this thread reminds me of a play that happened during the one game when I was working the plate.

There was a BR that came around first a bit too far with my partner in the middle. The fielder threw over and F3 was off the bag towards second and attempted a swipe tag at the runner that was heading back towards first base. My partner called SAFE and from my position it was a HECKUVA call as I saw about six inches between glove and runner on the swipe.

I am about to get in position for the next batter and the shortstop asks for time. I grant it.

He says, "We appeal."

I'm seriously confused. I said, "You're appealing what?"

He said, "That tag at first base."

I laughed. I said, "That's his call and he's made it." Then I called the batter to the plate.

The coach was not happy with me. Apparently this kinda garbage goes on all the time in the regular season here. I guess I'm not a regular season umpire, then. I did tell him that if he wanted to discuss a call with an umpire, HE needs to call time and talk with the umpire that made the call.

There is an umpire responsible for a call. He makes it to the best of his ability. Then the play is over and we move on. I don't care if it's LL or MLB.

Friex: How many times are you going to cut-and-paste your tired argument here? How many times are you going to invoke Jon Bible's name and an obvious third world play to try to generalize it to our everyday situations?

Rich

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Friex: How many times are you going to cut-and-paste your tired argument here? How many times are you going to invoke Jon Bible's name and an obvious third world play to try to generalize it to our everyday situations?

Rich, as long as the question keeps arising, I see no reason not to continue to post my answer. Others seem to answer......

As for your situation of the player asking you for an appeal, I wouldn't necessarily believe it's an everyday occurrene---as you seem to imply---simply because someone asked an umpire for an appeal. I think your response was good, but I also feel the defense should have followed up with your partner if they were serious about their appeal. They apparently chose not to or didn't know any better. That's their problem.

Still, I wouldn't feel annoyed. Would you have thought differently or reacted differently to their appeal if he had called the runner out while you saw the same 6" gap that was obvious from your angle? You might if you were the among the players on the short end of a bad call and the result could seriously effect being knocked out of this year's tourney. So much of it, Rich, may be perspective. Are you there to serve the umpire's dignity, or are you there to serve the players?

Even if they had asked your partner in that situation, it's still HIS decision to check you, and he shouldn't check his partner unless he had doubts regarding his call. But if he did have those doubts, what is so wrong in getting the call right? Would you have thought so poorly of him for getting the call right by seeking your help as opposed to blowing the call? Or would you be in the bar the next day talking about the ump you worked with yesterday that blew an obvious call during a big game? That happens also, Rich. While some mention names in such discussions, others do not. But pure and simple......umpires talk.

Some officials may argue that honoring an appeal will lead to further, repeated requests for appeal. Do YOU think you could have handled that situation of repeated requests? I have confidence you could....so where is there a problem? The problem would be if you couldn't handle the repeated requests. I don't fear repeated, frivolous appeals, Rich, because I know I can handle them. Do you fear them, Rich?

I've addressed this issue in generality this summer with several HS coaches and a college coach. All agreed that they'd much rather have an umpire willing to seek help on an obviously blown call than one who won't---one who is from the old school of appearing as an arrogant a$$ and caring less about whether a call is correct or not. They agreed they'd rather see the official seek help on such blown calls even when it means they are on the short end of the call. They know they then have an official concerned about trying to get the calls right moreso than his perception of his personal godliness. They know that personal godliness may come back to haunt them later. They can live with playing the game fairly---including fair and accurate judgments.

While many officials on the net may advocate against it, we've seen calls reversed in the pros, we've seen it on our own fields (even if we were not the responsible official), and we can easily locate the rules and examples provided us by OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed (and Jon Bible) that provide their position that when in certain instances of doubt that help should be sought. IMO, it seems the officials not seeking that help---when it could truly be useful---are a significant minority.

There is no dignity in maintaining an obviously blown call.
If you feel certain of the call, merely state that, state you feel no need to get help on something you feel certain of, and get on with the game. But when you are in doubt, why not attempt to assure the call is correct? A discussion with your partner may serve to confirm that you, indeed, got it right to begin with......


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rich]

I would tell my partner what I saw if he asked, Steve, but I would expect that he not put OUR CREW in that situation.

See, I don't always think that the correct call is the right call. I would rather eat a bad call once in a while than have the coaches come out and make those frivolous requests that you speak of. I'd rather send the message that each of us has responsibilities and that not liking a call isn't an invitation to try to find an umpire that will provide a call he DOES like.

Missed calls are part of sports and part of life. I'm sure the kids will survive such tragedy.

Rich

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
... See, I don't always think that the correct call is the right call. I would rather eat a bad call once in a while than have the coaches come out and make those frivolous requests that you speak of. I'd rather send the message that each of us has responsibilities and that not liking a call isn't an invitation to try to find an umpire that will provide a call he DOES like.

Missed calls are part of sports and part of life. I'm sure the kids will survive such tragedy....

Hallelujah!

Furthermore, umpiring by your preference, Rich, is actually also the way the RULES REQUIRE - ie. no appeals of judgement decisions! [9.02(a)].

Cheers

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Furthermore, umpiring by your preference, Rich, is actually also the way the RULES REQUIRE - ie. no appeals of judgement decisions! [9.02(a)].

From JEA Rule 9.02(a) [the rule you choose to reference] :

Customs and Usage: One of the most distinguishing features of the game of Baseball is its proliferation of arguments. Through the years, umpires have taken a more lenient position than that promulgated by the league officials of the 19th century.

Unlike football which has the "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalty, basketball which has the "technical" foul, or hockey which provides the "penalty box", Baseball has no intermediate penalty to control misconduct toward its officials. The more serious penalty of "ejection" is the only control the Baseball umpire is provided by rule. Therefore, it has become necessary for the umpire to tolerate limited objections to his decisions and to allow discussion on controversial plays.

Welcome to the 21st century, Warren---if you care to join most of the other officials who have left the 19th century. Today's officials accept discussions and appeals. It has been proven that an official's decision is not final until the official says it is final. Even your support of the infamous "List of Five" is proof that calls can be changed after the original decision. The list of 5 includes examples, but in reality there may be more that follow the concept of correcting a call when the responsible official is aware of his error and has opportunity to correct it.

Since you accept Evans' writings elsewhere, why is it that you don't accept it here?
Are you merely picking and choosing that which you wish to accept?
That is what it seems......

And while Rich seems adverse to gaining help when necessary due to his fear of frivolous appeals that may resultantly ensue, in actuality that fear is not a reality that becomes a problem. Most officials easily handle those situations if they occur.

It remains the choice of the official, however, as to whether he personally wishes to drive the 19th century vehicle or accept the newer, better vehicle of the 21st century that has evolved through the trial and error of rulemaking and rule interpretation. Certainly the directions provided by OBR, PBUC, NCAA, and Fed wish us to drive today's model vs. that of yesteryear. However, some still prefer to drive the old Model T...........


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Rich]

Fear? I have no fear. Rather I have confidence in my partner and confidence in the system. The mechanics system put in place gives judgement calls to one and only one umpire. That umpire gets into the best position he can and makes his call the best he can. IMO, THAT is what's best for the game.

I have been officiating HS sports since I turned 18 (I'm 34). I have enough confidence and experience that I could get away with "appealing" to my partner. I have no fear of doing so; however, I don't feel it is in the best interest of the game.

Getting each call individually correct is not necessarily doing what is right for the game. Or the game.

Rich

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
From JEA Rule 9.02(a) [the rule you choose to reference] :

Customs and Usage: One of the most distinguishing features of the game of Baseball is its proliferation of arguments. Through the years, umpires have taken a more lenient position than that promulgated by the league officials of the 19th century.

Unlike football which has the "unsportsmanlike conduct" penalty, basketball which has the "technical" foul, or hockey which provides the "penalty box", Baseball has no intermediate penalty to control misconduct toward its officials. The more serious penalty of "ejection" is the only control the Baseball umpire is provided by rule. Therefore, it has become necessary for the umpire to tolerate limited objections to his decisions and to allow discussion on controversial plays.{WW's underlines}

Welcome to the 21st century, Warren---if you care to join most of the other officials who have left the 19th century. Today's officials accept discussions and appeals. It has been proven that an official's decision is not final until the official says it is final.

I have underlined the operative words, from JEA, in your own quote above. None of those words equates with your often used and abused "appeals" in relation to judgement decisions. Final means exactly what it says. Once a judgement decision has been made it may not legally be altered, even by the official who made that decision.

I, too, am happy to hear "limited objections" and to entertain reasonable "discussion on controversial plays". That doesn't mean that I will accede to ANY demand to "get help" on a judgement call OR change that call AFTER such "limited objections" and "discussions" have been heard. To do so would be ILLEGAL.

Of course, we umpires frequently do things that are ILLEGAL according to the letter of the rules in the name of historical interpretation, traditional practice or GAME MANAGEMENT. That has been my position all along. You have continued to ignore that position purely because you have long had an issue with Carl Childress, the author of that "infamous List of Five" as you call it, and because I dared to challenge the contemporary value of your precious 19th Century General Instructions to Umpires. Another case of the Freix pot calling the kettle "black". Please do us all a favor and get over your long held personal prejudices and for pity's sake GROW UP, both as an official and as a poster to this forum!

BTW, I am still waiting for your apology for those earlier stupid, gratuitous and disgusting personal remarks implying I might have sexual proclivities toward animals! I'll have nothing further to say to you on any subject before then! Of couse I'm NOT holding my breath!

Have a nice day.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 17th, 2003 at 10:35 AM]