Calling what you don't see

[Comp]

So you are advocating umpires basing their calls on coaches whining?

 

[riseball]

So you are advocating umpires basing their calls on coaches whining?

Not at all. I wish they would refrain from such conduct. If they would actually do what they have been instructed, based on what they actually see that would be awesome. Unfortunately what some say they do and what shows up in a game are quite different.

 

[MTR]

PU admits he didn't see the bat hit the player, and so when our coach asked whether it was on the backswing, the umpire said it didn't matter. According to the umpire, the batter is entitled to swing whenever and wherever she wants so long as she's still in the box.

Question 1: I concede that it was most likely the right call, but given that the umpire didn't actually see it happen, was he right to overrule himself after that play was already over?

Not in the manner you describe, but I don't care if you put 20 umpires on the field, still not everything is going to be seen. There is no problem with an umpire responsibly using sound and indisputable evidence to come to a certain conclusion.

Question 2: Is the batter is entitled to swing "whenever and wherever she wants so long as she's still in the box"?

Sure, but that doesn't mean it is always OBS or anything else. If the umpire determines the batter's swing was intended to not hit the ball, but hinder the catcher, s/he can rule INT if the game situation called for it.

 

[PlayPerfect]

How is this example any different than a catcher telling the ump after a tag out at the plate that she actually missed the tag and the runner should be safe? The claim of injury shouldn't be the deciding factor that she must've interfered with the swing. Logic points to catcher interference. And logic also would imply that a runner was safe when the catcher claims she missed the tag. If you didn't see it, can you really call it?

 

[Umpire]

One of the problems is the broad nature of the title of this thread. It is quite possible to call things that you don't see. Umpires have more than one sense. They also have the ability to use game experience and common sense when making rulings. Though typically not verbally, players often help umpires make calls. For instance, it may be difficult for an umpire, particularly in the 2-umpire system, to see a tag applied to a runner if the umpire is straight-lined (e.g., R1 on 1st base and a ball hit to F4). The base umpire is positioned near F4 but cannot go into the baseline to see the tag clearly. If he did and there wasn't a tag, that would mean that he would be standing in the direct path of both the runner and the throw. Now, if F4 swipes a tag, R1 keeps running and F4 throws to 2nd base, that's relevant evidence that the tag was missed. Contrary to what some may think, "no calls" are in fact calls. On the other hand, if R1 stops upon the perceived tag and F4 throws to F3 at 1st base, that's relevant evidence that there was an initial tag for an out.

That may not always be the case. But it shows that the title is too general and the point that may be made is lost because of it.

 

[Cowdogz]

Now, if F4 swipes a tag, R1 keeps running and F4 throws to 2nd base, that's relevant evidence that the tag was missed.

Or, it's relevant evidence that they have both been coached well.

 

[RetiredCoach]

This is probably apropos of nothing, but I feel like sharing it. I remember watching a NHL game on TV and saw a referee, with his back totally turned to the play, call a tripping penalty. The broadcasters were astonished as well. They kept replaying the incident until they were totally satisfied that there was no way the referee could have seen the play. However, the call was indisputably correct. Maybe these umps/refs develop a sixth sense about things?

 

[RichK]

re: umpires calling what you see: the only time I ever went "crazy" on an ump was in a (18U) game where we were getting our brains beat in already, just not having a good game, and the opposition hit a ball to the fence, our CF went for it, it glanced off her glove, she crashed into a snow fence, pushing it down and I saw the ball *roll* over the flattened snow fence. The umps called it a home run. I asked them, did you see it go over the fence? They said no, they didn't see it go over, but they saw where it ended up....and I lost it : )

I also lost the argument -- but managed not to get kicked out and an inning later apologized (I hate being a crazy coach) but they still wouldn't admit they were wrong...

 

[Umpire]

Or, it's relevant evidence that they have both been coached well.

I addressed this. But thank you.