This was clunky...

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Well the proof is in the pudding, folks. When you make the call first, then reverse it, there are problems. Saying that you "did things as taught" doesn't make it right because it doesn't make the teaching right.

How can anyone logically argue that it is wiser to guess a call, hope it isn't argued, but if it is, go for help then? How can anyone further argue that doing that is better than simply doing something to get the call right in the first place?

Everything we do on the field is in an effort to get calls right. Why in this case do we change that?

"Well, you called what you saw so great job buckaroo!" BS - Not knowing what you saw is not calling what you saw. It's calling what you didn't see. In this case, an out is called despite not seeing the foot on the base.

I would implore people to forgot what they were taught initially. Just envision the play. Envision how it would LOGICALLY, not historically, best be handled. Come to a conclusion that creates the least controversy, doesn't look as if a coach is influencing an umpire, keeps the coaches in the dugout, gets the call right from the start and doesn't put players in jeopardy.

In what walk of life does it not make sense to use a source of information to check or confirm something, rather than screwing it up and trying to rectify it?

If you're not sure whether you have your house keys on you, do you conclude, "Yeah, I must have them," then lock the door behind you saying, "Well, if I don't, I can always call a lock smith?" Or is it more logical to just check from the start?

Everything I have ever been told is that you make the call the way you see it, then if needed go for help from your partner. Sometimes you can immediately go for help on the call, and sometimes you need to wait until all playing action is completed. If you have any question on the call I do suggest going for help with the call at your earliest opportunity rather than wait for the coach to start arguing the call and then go for help. If you don't have any question about a call but the coach insists you go for help you can always got for help and quietly tell your partner you were 100% sure of the call and won't change it. This will appease the coach a little, while at the same time allow you and your partner to look like you are working together.

I always believe it is best to get together to make a call and make sure it is correct rather than blow a call.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

If you don't have any question about a call but the coach insists you go for help you can always got for help and quietly tell your partner you were 100% sure of the call and won't change it. This will appease the coach a little, while at the same time allow you and your partner to look like you are working together.

If the bolded part is true.....the advice that followed is the absolute wrong thing to do.

If you have no question about the call you simply quietly, calmly, confidently, tell the the coach that you saw all the elements of the play that you needed to see to make the call.

It's one of the reasons that proper timing is so important to not only getting calls correct but also 'selling' the fact that you did.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Well the proof is in the pudding, folks. When you make the call first, then reverse it, there are problems. Saying that you "did things as taught" doesn't make it right because it doesn't make the teaching right.

Have never had a problem, whether on the local field or ASA HOF Stadium or Plant City Stadium when the need arised to ask for help and possibly correct a call. Never anything other than a note of appreciation for checking even from the folks who didn't get what they want. Don't know why you seem to have a problem.

How can anyone logically argue that it is wiser to guess a call, hope it isn't argued, but if it is, go for help then? How can anyone further argue that doing that is better than simply doing something to get the call right in the first place?

You may guess, a good umpire will make a decision based on all the information available to them at the time.

Everything we do on the field is in an effort to get calls right. Why in this case do we change that?

You may change it, I don't. I strive to get the call right every time.

"Well, you called what you saw so great job buckaroo!" BS - Not knowing what you saw is not calling what you saw. It's calling what you didn't see. In this case, an out is called despite not seeing the foot on the base.

Speaking of bullshit. So, you are telling me that if you hear F3 slap a BR on the back, you know, the side you cannot see from your position, you are not going to make a call because you did not SEE the tag?

I would implore people to forgot what they were taught initially. Just envision the play. Envision how it would LOGICALLY, not historically, best be handled. Come to a conclusion that creates the least controversy, doesn't look as if a coach is influencing an umpire, keeps the coaches in the dugout, gets the call right from the start and doesn't put players in jeopardy.

So you officiate a game in a manner to placate the coaches and avoid controversy?

In what walk of life does it not make sense to use a source of information to check or confirm something, rather than screwing it up and trying to rectify it?

Ever have a gun pointed at you in an attempted armed robbery? Do you wait to hear the round leave the barrel to confirm the shot before you react? I've known people who have hesitated on the job or didn't get the chance. They are in the ground.

If you're not sure whether you have your house keys on you, do you conclude, "Yeah, I must have them," then lock the door behind you saying, "Well, if I don't, I can always call a lock smith?" Or is it more logical to just check from the start?

Wow, you are really stretching, but let's play the game. Here's a thought, don't lock the door. If someone wants to get in, the lock isn't going to stop them and the attempt to deter them will only instigate the cause of damage to the house that can be expensive, but not enough to make it worth filing a claim.