ok, Ill ask the Jury..

[Dakota]

Maybe we should cut mcrowder some slack... he bounces back and forth between here and the baseball board... maybe he forgot which board he was on!

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Are you suggesting following the "who made it close" theory? I read this theory argued with some conviction by a baseball umpire. If memory serves, it goes something like this:

1) If one side muffed things and thereby made what would not have been close into a close play, call for the other side.

2) If one side made a brilliant play and thereby made close what should not have been close, call for that side.

The theory had to do with it being the call people would expect, etc.

This application of common sense (as I see it) was taught to me a long time ago. It was also given to us at the pro camp I went to way back when I did that little ball thing.

It is good advice, and of all the times I used that idea I rarely had any arguement from the coaches.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by scottk_61

This application of common sense (as I see it) was taught to me a long time ago. It was also given to us at the pro camp I went to way back when I did that little ball thing.

It is good advice, and of all the times I used that idea I rarely had any arguement from the coaches.

It sounds to me that this theory is based on reducing the "arguments" we get from coaches when calls don't go their way. If we see an out, no matter how close and no matter if the defense turned what should have been an easy play into a close one, we should call the out. Its not our job to make the coaches happy. We're paid to enforce the rules and ensure a level playing field. This theory does neither.

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by rwest

It sounds to me that this theory is based on reducing the "arguments" we get from coaches when calls don't go their way. If we see an out, no matter how close and no matter if the defense turned what should have been an easy play into a close one, we should call the out. Its not our job to make the coaches happy. We're paid to enforce the rules and ensure a level playing field. This theory does neither.

You are right of course when we see an out, you have to call it.
I was refering to that really close one that can give you pause as to what you have. One of those that you just have to say, "D**m, that was close, what do I have."
I don't advocate applying my previous idea on anything but that rare play that does occur from time to time.
Neither do I care about making coaches happy. That just makes you a homer thus unreliable.

Personally, I like to have an appropriate smart A$$ retort for coachs. Even if I don't say it, it is nice to be able to say it in your head

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by rwest

It sounds to me that this theory is based on reducing the "arguments" we get from coaches when calls don't go their way. If we see an out, no matter how close and no matter if the defense turned what should have been an easy play into a close one, we should call the out. Its not our job to make the coaches happy. We're paid to enforce the rules and ensure a level playing field. This theory does neither.

While I don't subscribe to the above theory, I think I can safely say that they are not telling you to rule a safe baserunner out because of a great play or an out baserunner safe because of a poor one. They are saying that if it's so close that you don't know, give the benefit of doubt to the team making the great play or against the team making a poor one.

I don't do such a thing, but what they are suggesting is not nearly so egregious as you imply it is.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

While I don't subscribe to the above theory, I think I can safely say that they are not telling you to rule a safe baserunner out because of a great play or an out baserunner safe because of a poor one. They are saying that if it's so close that you don't know, give the benefit of doubt to the team making the great play or against the team making a poor one.

I don't do such a thing, but what they are suggesting is not nearly so egregious as you imply it is.

Maybe, but I do remember the thread that Scott originally refered to. The thread was started maybe a year or two ago and I distinctly remember the author indicating that you call the play according to what the crowd and coaches expect even if you knew different. My apologizes if I erroneously inferred that Scott was advocating calling a runner safe when he knew the runner was out. I agree we should give the benefit of the doubt. However, shouldn't that always be to the offense? I'm thinking of the old adage "Don't guess an out". If you aren't sure if the ball beat the runner then the runner is safe. If you aren't sure the runner beat the ball there, is the runner still safe? Don't we have to be sure of an out to call an out, otherwise the call is safe.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

That insinuation was not my intent.

What?!?! Wait a minute, they changed that rule this year. "Intent" is not in the definition and has been removed from most of the insinuation rules this year. You don't need intent to insinuate if, in your judgment, insinuation occured. Come on, folks, how many times do we have to go over these interference......er, insinuation.....DAMN!

NEV-R-MIIINNNDD!

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

OK - I apologize. That insinuation was not my intent.

accepted... I may be a dumbass..but Im not a troll, and my umpiring skills are coming around :-)