Check Swing Appeal...Unrequested?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
At first, I thought, "Why dredge this up again, Peter?". But it became quickly obvious: For the same reason the National Inquirer will never let Elvis die or Bill Clinton go impotent.

The devise works so well, rather than be offended, Warren will probaly do it homage by using it to his own advantage on a piece down the road.

Nah! I wouldn't give Peter or his wacky ideas that level of credibility!

Peter always starts his epics with a plausible yet false premise. In this case his flawed premise is that what people write on the Internet is somehow a true reflection of how they would actually perform in a game. If that were true, Freix would have called the plate in the last MLB All Star game!

I have a real life example of the fallacy Peter perpetrates with his assumption. A great but now deceased umpire friend of mine couldn't pass a written rules test to save his life. He became extremely nervous, and broke out in a cold sweat, any time someone put an exam paper in front of him. By Peter's reasoning he should have been equally nervous and poorly performed under pressure on the diamond. Needless to say he wasn't. In fact the reverse was true. He was unquestionably the best official we had at that time - ice cool in a crisis and able to rule correctly under the most intense pressure. He was also universally respected for his calm, almost effortless game control until the day he died in a mining accident.

Peter knows that I am angered and disgusted by officials who personally attack other officials while hiding behind the relative anonimity of the Internet. That is true whether or not they post under their own name, because most of us will never meet our fiercest Internet rivals in person. That should not be an excuse to abandon the ethic that you don't personally criticise a fellow official, especially in a public forum.

To draw the illogical conclusion that I would react in the same way on the diamond is just fantastic nonsense. The circumstances are entirely different. For one thing, when I am calling an actual game I almost never hear what is said outside the wire, regardless of who says it. I had developed an extraordinary level of elective deafness on the diamond long before I started calling NSW State League (AA-AAA Minors equivalent, at its best). If I hadn't then I certainly wouldn't have been selected for two Australian Championship series, or plated the championship final of the Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships).

Even if I did hear such abuse, I can assure Peter that I wouldn't react during the game. I've heard a darn sight more creative abuse from a lot closer quarters than that and never missed a beat! OTOH, I couldn't guarantee the offender's personal safety after the game. We Aussies have a long tradition of allowing men to settle their personal differences in the time-honoured fashion.

Of course it wouldn't go that far, assuming Peter's entirely implausible example were ever to become reality. The very idea that Aussies, who pride themselves on their tradition of mateship, would sit idly by while two idiots with American accents standing out like a pair of bullock's nuts loudly and personally criticised any Australian official is just far too preposterous to imagine.

Cheers

[His High Holiness]

Warren;

Wow, it's the pot calling the kettle black. At least you are consistent. I am regularly accused of jumping to conclusions by the big dog down under. Just for fun, let's look at all of the conclusions that you have jumped to that are incorrect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Nah! I wouldn't give Peter or his wacky ideas that level of credibility!

Peter always starts his epics with a plausible yet false premise.

ALWAYS!?. My, My, a big jump to conclusion even for you. Let's see, in the past I have concluded that most umpires are evaluated by the mechanics that the use, rather than the quality of their calls. Just try setting up behind the catcher rather than using the slot for calling balls and strikes and see what your NCAA or Minor League evaluator does to your rating. Yes, you might find one or two that will let it pass, but my "premise" is right-on for the vast majority.

One of my original "wacky ideas" was that umpires should strive for the avoidance of gross misses rather than trying to get their calls right. One approaches the game from a different point of view when his goal is to avoid obvious mistakes rather than a goal of getting it right.

I could go on and on but then I would have to write a Warren Willson length article.

In this case his flawed premise is that what people write on the Internet is somehow a true reflection of how they would actually perform in a game. If that were true, Freix would have called the plate in the last MLB All Star game!

What a giant leap to conclusion. Neither Freix nor I has even put forth the proposition that he does NCAA D1 ball much less MLB. On the contrary, I have said that an over emphasis on the rules might be an indication of a low level umpire. You and Freix over emphasize the rules to the exclusion of more important aspects of umpiring. I have never implied that good writing ability is indicative of umpiring capability. In your case, I might have added verbose writing ability.

I have a real life example of the fallacy Peter perpetrates with his assumption. A great but now deceased umpire friend of mine couldn't pass a written rules test to save his life. He became extremely nervous, and broke out in a cold sweat, any time someone put an exam paper in front of him. By Peter's reasoning he should have been equally nervous and poorly performed under pressure on the diamond. Needless to say he wasn't. In fact the reverse was true. He was unquestionably the best official we had at that time - ice cool in a crisis and able to rule correctly under the most intense pressure. He was also universally respected for his calm, almost effortless game control until the day he died in a mining accident.

Once again, false assumption. From my assigning days, I can tell you that approximately 10% of umpires are functionally illiterate. I have mentioned this in past writings. Many good umpires are incapable of taking a written exam of any kind because of reading at less than a 5th grade level.

Peter knows that I am angered and disgusted by officials who personally attack other officials while hiding behind the relative anonimity of the Internet. That is true whether or not they post under their own name, because most of us will never meet our fiercest Internet rivals in person. That should not be an excuse to abandon the ethic that you don't personally criticise a fellow official, especially in a public forum.

Once again, false assumption. You have assumed that I have have bought into some umpire ethical code. When has anyone known me to buy into conventional wisdom without question? On the contrary, I am disagreeable and consistently challenge the hypocritical wannabe big dogs who say one thing and do another. In this case, I am talking about a certain man down under, who loudly proclaims that "you don't personally criticize a fellow official" and then proceeds to criticize and insult. Would you like me to do a search of this forum, just like I did for Jim Porter when he made an equally ridiculous statement, to show you how much of a hypocrite that you are on this issue?

To draw the illogical conclusion that I would react in the same way on the diamond is just fantastic nonsense. The circumstances are entirely different. For one thing, when I am calling an actual game I almost never hear what is said outside the wire, regardless of who says it. I had developed an extraordinary level of elective deafness on the diamond long before I started calling NSW State League (AA-AAA Minors equivalent, at its best). If I hadn't then I certainly wouldn't have been selected for two Australian Championship series, or plated the championship final of the Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships).

Since I have never seen you umpire, I cannot say for certain that you are wrong, but based on my observations of hundreds of other umpires, there is a very strong possibility that you are delusional or lying. It is therefore not an "illogical conclusion" as you say, but a conclusion based on extensive observation. I elaborate in detail on this very point in my 11 part article. Thanks for another opportunity to plug my article which starts on August 12.

With regards to Internet umpiring, in the past I have said that those who have trouble controlling their emotions on the Internet would have trouble controlling them elsewhere. Notice that I did not say anything about writing style or illiteracy impacting your umpiring (which were two of your false conclusions above), only a lack of emotional self control.

I have seen numerous umpires loudly proclaim that what goes on outside the fence does not affect them. Then I watch their games and an entirely different reality emerges. They might not be lying, for lying assumes that one knows the real truth. They might truly believe their statements. In that case, they are only delusional. So which is it Warren, are you a liar or a candidate for the Jim Porter "reality" award? Does anyone believe Jim's statement that the Internet is the only place that he has these emotional problems? Is it an "illogical conclusion" (your words, Warren) to assume that Jim has emotional problems in several areas of his life, not just umpire boards.

Even if I did hear such abuse, I can assure Peter that I wouldn't react during the game. I've heard a darn sight more creative abuse from a lot closer quarters than that and never missed a beat! OTOH, I couldn't guarantee the offender's personal safety after the game. We Aussies have a long tradition of allowing men to settle their personal differences in the time-honoured fashion.

With all due respect, Warren, you are not the person that can evaluate whether or not you "missed a beat." The umpire is usually in the worst position to evaluate his own performance. Outside neutral raters are needed to determine the accuaracy of your statement. Good umpires, just like athletes of any kind, have outside mentors to evaluate and correct their shortcomings. We are often unable to see our own failings. But then again, this is one of the "wacky" ideas that I have put forward for years. In this case, it is backed up by all reputable psychologists in other areas, except the one down under. Maybe you could wrote an article on why umpires are different from other people and can self correct without any outside help.

With your last statement in the above quote, are you suggesting that umpires engage fans in a fight after the game to "settle" things?

Of course it wouldn't go that far, assuming Peter's entirely implausible example were ever to become reality. The very idea that Aussies, who pride themselves on their tradition of mateship, would sit idly by while two idiots with American accents standing out like a pair of bullock's nuts loudly and personally criticised any Australian official is just far too preposterous to imagine.

"Mateship" !!!!!! I don't even want to know what this means. It is rumored that you have an issue with sheep, but mateship is way to far out for me.

Peter

[Bainer]

Okay-

NOW I'm sorry guys....



Bainer.

[SC Ump]

Very interesting thread. Some observations from a "sort-of" outsider.

1. The ability or lack of ability to ignore contemptible, meaningless fans is quite a bit different than being defensive when someone questions your integrity or knowledge when having a discussion among your compañeros.

2. The level of ball one umpires is not indicaitive of the level of umpire one is. Except for a body that is design for my corporate executive position, there's not a umpire in this county that I would be concerned about holding my own with... and I just do LL and high school.

3. Oy Vey! What is this kvetching that I am hearing? Did I ask that I be sent back to McGriff's?

[Warren Willson]

A line by line rebuttal, Peter? Wow! I really must have struck a nerve ending or two!

As usual you are the Master of Misdirection. Any magician would be proud of your prowess! I find it entirely ironic that following every manufactured claim of my making a "false assumption" you immediately proceed to demonstrate that very failing in spades!

I trust the good readers here can now gauge the depth of your emotion and, using your very own "right-on" premise, will be moved to call into question your ability to maintain control in the College D1 baseball you claim to officiate.

What an OPUS! Between that reply and the 11-part, 9000+ word series you have just posted at Officiating.com, it is truly a wonder you didn't choke when accusing ME of verbosity and hypocrisy!

Have a nice day!

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
A line by line rebuttal, Peter? Wow! I really must have struck a nerve ending or two!

...What an OPUS! Between that reply and the 11-part, 9000+ word series you have just posted at Officiating.com, it is truly a wonder you didn't choke when accusing ME of verbosity and hypocrisy!

Have a nice day!

NOTE THE ABOVE QUOTE HAS BEEN CONDENSED WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION

Sometimes the only thing that separates this site from McGriff's appears to be that we have more experienced umpires who have a well-identified command of the English language. I think that we should consider taxing any post that is beyond a certain length or is a flame.

Nevertheless, there are still pieces of advice I draw upon. I liked Warren's suggestion that on a steal of the plate if the PU is set we should assume the batter is ready as pertains to a Quick Pitch. I also took the advice on becoming set when the pitcher is set. I had been coming set later i.e. just before the release. Although I had little trouble nor complaints about my strike zone I am going to try this earlier set for my remaining games.

If it ends up improving my umpire skills then being here (although not necessarily this thread) was worth the visit. Maybe that's what we should each ask before we press that POST button. Does this add any value Jim/NYC

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I say "Ball. No, he didn't go" on EVERY checked swing. To not do so is equivalent to what umpires used to do back when I started in the 80s -- have secret signals designed to tell your partner that you don't want your call of "Ball" reversed.

We disagree on the appropriate-ness of that, so there's no sense bringing that up.

BTW, I don't see a gray area. At face value, I either see a swing or see a no swing. Strike or ball. But if that bat moves off the shoulder and I determine that the batter hasn't offered, I say "Ball. No, he didn't go."

That doesn't mean I made the correct call by any means. And it doesn't remove the responsibility of me quickly appealing that pitch when the outcome of that appeal and the timeliness of it could affect the game.

Then again, I've never been bothered with base umpires reversing the ball call to a strike call. To me, it's always just been part of the game.

Rich

I am jumping into the middle of this topic so I am sorry if I am repeating something that was already voiced. I don't see the problem with Rich's mechanic on a checked swing. All he is doing is vocalizing what he thought happened. We do the same thing when we don't call strike, we are telling the players that we don't think he offered and therfore we are calling it a ball. Now if you are 100% sure that you are correct and they ask for an appeal you do not need to grant it, you are the final authority. If i wasn't 100% and I vocalized my opinion and they asked for an appeal I might go with the appeal. I know this will bring a coach out of the dugout if the call is changed, but I would explaine to him the exact same thing, "Coach, I wasn't 100%, so I went to my partner for help." But, just for the sake of argument, I don't vocalize unless I am 100%.

[Rich]

If the game is played under the OBR, you must appeal when requested regardless of whether you are sure.

Rich

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_sohl

Rich

I am jumping into the middle of this topic so I am sorry if I am repeating something that was already voiced. I don't see the problem with Rich's mechanic on a checked swing. All he is doing is vocalizing what he thought happened. We do the same thing when we don't call strike, we are telling the players that we don't think he offered and therfore we are calling it a ball. Now if you are 100% sure that you are correct and they ask for an appeal you do not need to grant it, you are the final authority. If i wasn't 100% and I vocalized my opinion and they asked for an appeal I might go with the appeal. I know this will bring a coach out of the dugout if the call is changed, but I would explaine to him the exact same thing, "Coach, I wasn't 100%, so I went to my partner for help." But, just for the sake of argument, I don't vocalize unless I am 100%.

In OBR the PU is required to "go for help" on an appeal from the catcher or manager. I understand that in FED it is optional but sound advice is to treat it the same as OBR. There has been some debate here and elsewhere how much the BU sees when he is out of position i.e. in "B" with a left-handed batter or "C" with a right-handed hitter. I have suggested to my partners that in those cases as BU I'll likely agree with the BALL call 99% of the time unless the PU say's something to the effect "I was screened (by the catcher) - Did he go?" I am even starting to buy-in to the idea to call the checked-swing no matter where you are.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Ump20

There has been some debate here and elsewhere how much the BU sees when he is out of position i.e. in "B" with a left-handed batter or "C" with a right-handed hitter.

Not to start the debate, Jim, but I don't think an official is "out of position" when in either B or C to make that call. I'd agree that being at the open corner is better, but still the call can easily be made from B or C. I don't agree with officials who say they can't make the call from there. They can, and they must (when required).

I'd also agree that from ANY position in the infield that if you are not certain of the swing you should agree with your partner that he did not swing. Yet, if you are certain of the swing, then call it from ANY position in the infield.


Freix

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Bfair

Not to start the debate, Jim, but I don't think an official is "out of position" when in either B or C to make that call. I'd agree that being at the open corner is better, but still the call can easily be made from B or C. I don't agree with officials who say they can't make the call from there. They can, and they must (when required)...

Freix

Perhaps the thinking has changed over the years however, I think there are two schools of thought on this. From the PBUC (Professional Baseball Umpire Corp.) manual copyright 2000 page 4 covers such an appeal.

Plate umpire...must appeal to the appropriate base umpire if requested by the defensive manager or catcher. The plate umpire may --on his own volition--ask for help from the appropriate base umpire if in doubt on a checked swing.

If the crew is working with three umpires, the plate umpire shall always ask for help from the first-base umpire with a right-handed batter at bat and shall ask for help from the third base umpire with a left-handed batter at bat

I think this dispels the notion that BU in either B or C is equally equipped to render assistance on the checked swing. Of course I can understand some of the thinking that it doesn’t matter if we are not looking for the barrel of the bat but more did he offer at the pitch.

Nevertheless, if there are two schools PU and BU should determine in the pre-game what school it will be for that game. Personally, I don’t have a problem with an added strike but I imagine some umpires, and not necessarily Smittys might.

[GarthB]

There has been some experimentation with 3-man that, with runners on, PU will never go to the BU on the grass. Instead he will always go to the man on the rail, regardless of the "handedness" of the batter. I see this as some acknowledgment that umpires in B and C do not have a real good view of the play.

[David B]

there surely is different schools of thought from the past how many years, but as we know from MLB "times are quickly changing."

I have seen MLB umpires this year appeal to whoever, not always necessarily the ump opposite as NAPBL suggests.

And this is with the 4 man crews or 3 man crews etc.,

The bottomline IMO is that if the BU sees a swing call it a swing. If in doubt as Steve suggested call it a ball.

I'm as PU not going to give information such as I didn't see it or I got blocked.

If I'm in doubt, I'll ask.

If a coach or F2 wants help then usually I'll ask, and my partner can call it as he sees.

I know that there are a lot more strikes out there than are usually called by most umpires, especially in the younger age groups.

thanks
David

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB

There has been some experimentation with 3-man that, with runners on, PU will never go to the BU on the grass. Instead he will always go to the man on the rail, regardless of the "handedness" of the batter. I see this as some acknowledgment that umpires in B and C do not have a real good view of the play.

I see it more as an acknowledgment that the official on the wing has a better view than someone in the infield. I doubt if many would argue that fact.

It still doesn't mean that they feel from B or C you
"do not have a real good view of the play."
IMO, if they felt that way they could have an interpretation NOT to check partners in the inner infield positions. Such an "interpretation" would be easy to write into the PBUC Manual if they so desired.
They haven't done that yet.
The call can easily be made from B or C.
Hell, the teams make the call from the dugouts all day long......
If in doubt, agree with the PU. That's pretty simple.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Bfair

IMO, if they felt that way they could have an interpretation NOT to check partners in the inner infield positions. Such an "interpretation" would be easy to write into the PBUC Manual if they so desired.
They haven't done that yet.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[/QUOTE]

I believe I said it was an experiment, so it should come as no surprise that it isn't written into the PBUC yet. They don't usually write things into manual until they decide if the experiement is successful.

Personally, I believe it is a better way to go, whether you look at it as a statement that the rail men have a better view or the grass men don't have as good a view. Tomato, tomahto.

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 8th, 2003 at 12:29 AM]