Jump to content

Pulled Foot/Swipe Tag


VolUmp
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2580 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

By asking before making any call, you are 100% putting the call on the PU. Perception is they are making the call not giving information.

If the ball beats the runner and you don't see a pulled foot.....out. If they want to question if the runner arrived before the ball they are coming to you.

90% of the time non-issue...5% not 100% but no one questions...2% we're not 100% but we're right and they question...2% we're wrong but no one questions...1% we're wrong and we change the call.

You want to go to your partner 10% of the time for a 1% (at most 3%) problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of the "gm" paradigm is an enigma in that it perpetuates the figment (or some may say dogma) that one's vocabulary might be fragmented by only trying to use such a combination of letters.

In an attempt to be nonjudgmental, it would be pragmatic to avoid this quagmire, lest one might find themselves admiring their own abilities, not unlike Pygmalion. I pray this creates no stigma nor sullies my reputation as workingman's wordsmith.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2017 at 1:40 PM, maven said:

Though true in general, this apothegm doesn't work for rules such as spectator INT, where the umpire must place runners and rule outs based on what would have happened without the INT. Doesn't work for OBS either, whether the penalty specified by rule requires that we place the runner based on where he would have ended up without the OBS.

Or a ball that lodges in a player uniform. OBR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2017 at 5:39 AM, Kevin_K said:

The use of the "gm" paradigm is an enigma in that it perpetuates the figment (or some may say dogma) that one's vocabulary might be fragmented by only trying to use such a combination of letters.

In an attempt to be nonjudgmental, it would be pragmatic to avoid this quagmire, lest one might find themselves admiring their own abilities, not unlike Pygmalion. I pray this creates no stigma nor sullies my reputation as workingman's wordsmith.

Get out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2017 at 2:40 PM, maven said:

Though true in general, this apothegm doesn't work for rules such as spectator INT, where the umpire must place runners and rule outs based on what would have happened without the INT. Doesn't work for OBS either, whether the penalty specified by rule requires that we place the runner based on where he would have ended up without the OBS.

 

big brain.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Togm replygm togm thegm originalgm postgm:  Igm (asgm thegm plategm umpiregm) willgm workgm itgm thegm waygm yougm suggestgm workinggm thesegm playsgm ifgm yougm givegm megm yourgm gamegm feegm aftergm thegm gamegm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...