Would you have done this?

[CecilOne]

DTTB, I was with you until
"or even to get it right. As soon as you do something that no one else is asking for, or sees as a needed call, then you are standing out and are liable to catch some strong, negative reinforcement. Changing a no-call to a send-them-back call generally catches some flak also."
Are we doing this to be correct or to avoid flak and criticism?

[Dakota]

I agree with those who have expressed the view that without being sure, we should go with the first instinct on the call. Even the NFL agrees with this philosophy - for the replay to overrule the call on the field, there needs to be clear and convincing evidence.

However, I don't agree that we should just "let sleeping dogs lie" to avoid controversy. I saw nothing wrong with asking the partner about the call in the original post in this thread. The only thing possibly unwise was changing the call based on 2 umpires who were both unsure but leaning against the original call. I say "possibly unwise" because only the umpires involved know how close their uncertainty was to certainty (if that makes any sense).

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I tend to think of my role as facilitating the progress of the game. And I tend to think of "get it right" as rule enforcement. Our purpose is not to avoid flak or criticism. However, flak and criticism should be strong pointers to you that your last call may not have been beneficial to the flow of the game.... and may not have been needed. Additionally, it is recognized that criticism is included as a possibility in the job description. But is it a requirement?

This could be a very long, heated discussion. Because we all know of officials who get it right (in their opinion)but in so doing raise the ire of everyone involved.

When WestMich reversed his no-call, and we just consider it a delayed foul ball call, did he get it right? (I'm very surprised the offensive coach didn't blow up.) If he hadn't reversed the no-call, and he let the player stay at 2nd, did he get it right? Both can't physically be right.

An example: the double play ball at 2nd, F5/F6 plainly has opportunity to touch the bag but only kicks dirt within a foot of it. Do we get it right or do we call the play appropriately for the situation?

Another: catcher receives the pitch with one foot extended into the opposite batter's box. Do we get it right (FP, call illegal pitch - ball to batter and runners advance one base) or recognize that this is not important and make no call, as is likely appropriate for the situation?

I contend that there are times when getting it right is an imposition to the flow of the game. And that an umpire should not create that imposition with his only impetus being that adamant, self-satifaction of "I got it right."

I guess my statement is also based upon my experience as a basketball official where there is a tremendous amount of judgement and getting it right is rarely based upon an exacting application of the rule.

So in summary and clarification, I recommend that we all be judicious and wise in what we get right.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Apr 8th, 2003 at 01:01 PM]

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I tend to think of my role as facilitating the progress of the game. And I tend to think of "get it right" as rule enforcement. Our purpose is not to avoid flak or criticism. However, flak and criticism should be strong pointers to you that your last call may not have been beneficial to the flow of the game.... and may not have been needed. Additionally, it is recognized that criticism is included as a possibility in the job description. But is it a requirement?
This could be a very long, heated discussion. Because we all know of officials who get it right (in their opinion)but in so doing raise the ire of everyone involved.

Amen!

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I guess my statement is also based upon my experience as a basketball official where there is a tremendous amount of judgement and getting it right is rarely based upon an exacting application of the rule.

Pretty much why I quit basketball.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I recommend that we all be judicious and wise in what we get right.

A memorable quote, that is!

I agree with what I take to be your main point - there is such a thing a over officiating - applying the rules with such exactness and technical correctness that it destroys the game for all fun purposes.

However, suppose the partner DID see the bat tip the ball? Should the PU, being unsure of his no-call, not ask unless a coach appeals, just to avoid opening a can of worms?

I say, "No." Ask. Just don't change it unless one of you is sure.

[woolnojg]

West -
I did not mean to sound like I was attacking, I was just explaining.
Situation happens, make the call/no call.
Unsure of call & partner can help, go check.
Unsure of call & partner can not help, don't check.
Partner not sure, no change.
Partner sure, make change.

There is a reason, conscious/unconscious, why the call/no call was made. This reason is based on knowledge, experience, situation, phase of moon , whatever.
If I don't have a positive reason to change, I don't.

Just because a coach objects or does not object, does not mean I booted the call. It mearly means they can live with it. Some of them coaches are sneaky and can take advantage of, on the surface, mistakes.

In your situation, based on the info you gave, assuming I had made the same original call. I would not have changed the call based on 2 "I thought/guess it could be different".
If my partner had said, "Yes, it was a foul." then I would have changed the call.