BillB1960

Cool, I got pretty well taken to task on a call at third by some folks here for making virtually the same call with the same mechanics on a play at third last season. In fact some here claimed that they'd "never heard of a no tag mechanic". Good to know I got it right. Thanks.

So just out of curiosity we're all OK with the "Safe/No Tag" mechanic followed by the punch out right?

I will not debate this any further. I have supported the call both because of letter of the law and spirit. You have disagreed, neither of us will change so the is no debate. You do not believe you would call it in your game, and that's fine but do it using the rules to explain it. I wouldn't have a problem calling, I actually already have so I know I would. Again no debate. Nobody addressed your strike analogy because it is irrelevant to the discussion, as well as being uncomparable. I will answer it simply by saying that calling a strike zone is as much art as science and completely personalized. Everybody has their sense of perception. That is a completely different thread. Thanks for at least a semblance of an answer. I agree with the rest and think this thread just needs to be allowed to sink to the bottom. Maybe I'll go start a thread titled: "When is it OK to ignore the rulebook?" or... maybe not. <_<

Look I'm sorry if I'm belaboring a point but no umpire on any forum or in person has answered my question. I'd like someone to step up and answer it. I figured since this forum has the most experienced umpires of any that I frequent I might be able to get a legitimate answer here.

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion. Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria. Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call. Of course you're going to dismiss it because you don't have an answer for it. I'm going to say this one last time: If you've ever balled a pitch in the strike zone because the catcher didn't glove it or called a strike on a pitch that you knew was off the plate then you've got no room to talk about how technically right this call was. Fact is if you've ever made a judgement call that was not "technically" 100% by the book then stop with the "It met all of the criteria therefore it was the right call". It was just another judgement call and that's why the protest was denied. In my opinion Holbrook made a piss poor judgement call just like we all have at 1 point or another since we've been umpires. Just because they're pros doesn't make them perfect as we all know. I didn't address it because it doesn't have a damn thing to do with this discussion. I have tried to very reasonably explain that on this play it was a good judgment call that met all the conditions. If you are presented with the exact same conditions and you don't call IFF, that's your judgment so not protestable. This discussion was about did it meet the IFF conditions,yes. Was the play called correctly and were the mechanics correct? In both, yes. In your opinion the second two are no. That's fine, however nothing in your multible posts have furthered that claim. We do make tough calls, unexpected calls and make participants mad, that is part of our job, this is what happened here. I don't get the statement about picking the rules we wish to enforce. Calling an IFF or not should be based on judgment. My point is that judgement not only includes what call to make but also whether or not to make a call. Just because a pitch meets all of the conditions of a strike doesn't mean we always call it a strike. Where in the definition of a strike does it say, "if caught by the catcher"? Just because a pitch meets the conditions of a ball doesn't mean we call it one. Where in the rulebook does it say, "unless judged as 'hittable' by the umpire"? If we can ignore the rulebook for those calls then why not for a questionable IFF as well?

Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule". So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not? Not worth an answer either way. I call my zone as I see fit and how I see it. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on point. This has no point related. So regardless of the book you call your zone. That's what I thought. Thanks.

You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill. You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive. Again, never said the call wasn't correct. You are the one saying it could've been changed with consensus and arguing it was incorrect. Not a reversible call even if it was completely blown, which it wasn't and completely within the "spirit of the rule". So do you call strikes off the plate and dropped strikes balls or not?

If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read. As you said, wow...just wow. You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it? Again, reading skill? Doesn't seem hard to lose you in this thread. You seem lost from the beginning. I see, when you can no longer find a reasonable argument you resort to personal insults. Reminds me of some coaches.

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully. So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it? You love putting words in someone's mouth. Again, how is that reading skill. You said, "Can't reverse this regardless of concensus". How am I putting words in your mouth? If this call is irreversible as you said then the 5 other umpires including the crew chief might've disagreed with Holbrook and the conference might've consisted of nothing more than a plan on how to get out of Atlanta alive.

Did I say I did any of that? OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go? I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow. If I call it off the plate, I am not setting myself up to do so. I call it as I see it. And, I never said never. Just how long have you learned to read. As you said, wow...just wow. You lost me. Are you setting yourself up so you can't see off the plate? Are you calling it even though you can't see it?

Ok. If the runners did not advance, then what? Can't reverse this regardless of the consensus. If they did, Matheny would have been tossed or protested. And, that would have been upheld hopefully. So what you're saying is that the call could've been wrong and they couldn't reverse it on the field? Wow...that sure strengthens your argument now doesn't it?

I actually get what you're saying here. You make some good points. Thanks, I appreciate that. And for what it's worth the fact that the call wasn't reversed on the field certainly indicates that the other umpires supported Holbrook. I don't know what kind of a crew chief Kellogg is but I think that if he didn't have a concensus he wouldn't hesitate to tell Holbrook to change the call and put the BR on 1B.

Did I say I did any of that? OK...so every strike you call catches the plate and you've never called a ball when the catcher dropped it. Just how long do your games go? I realize the internet isn't the real world but...wow...just wow.

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports. What a crock argument. Is that how you defend your position? Talk about someone who has some interesting EJ reports. Making things up as you go. I haven't made anything up. I'm discussing the fact that umpires make judgement calls every game they do. Some are based on the book and some aren't. What's your excuse for balling a pitch because the catcher doesn't glove it? What's your excuse for calling a strike off the plate?

Is that how you explain your rulings to a coach when he comes out to question a call? By ignoring the facts? You must have some interesting EJ reports.

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion. Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria. Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call. I'm going to say this one last time Good. I for 1 am tired of the broken record Nice argument there Jocko.

I am only addressing the third paragraph, the rest of the quote is just senseless rant. If he doesn't call it he simply says, "Not ordinary effort." The depth is not a consideration in no shape or form. The depth may cause there not to be ordinary effort, here is not a case of it, but it would not be said to a manager because that is not what you are judging. This is part you don't seem to be grasping. Ten feet in the grass or fifty, the distance is not a consideration. The infielder's ability to get to it is and should be the only thing brought up in the discussion. Years of service means jack about knowledge, it is a argument I will not consider. I have been doing this for 37 yrs, have attended many clinics taught by some excellent pros, have spent years on the internet discussing rules and mechanics. None of that has squat to do with this discussion. We are discussing if Holbrook called an IFF properly. This is simply answered, yes. This has been confirmed by one of the pro schools, so in the long run that's the answer. I have made a similar call but normally we won't see that in our games because of lack of ability. If you think you won't, go for it, that's your judgement. What the guys here are trying to tell you is base that judgement on the correct criteria. Judging from most of your comments, it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems you are stuck on the depth of the ball which is irrelevant information, and the length of time it took to call it, again not relevant. Did he get there with ordinary effort, in this case yes, so how far out or how late has no place in the call. Of course you're going to dismiss it because you don't have an answer for it. I'm going to say this one last time: If you've ever balled a pitch in the strike zone because the catcher didn't glove it or called a strike on a pitch that you knew was off the plate then you've got no room to talk about how technically right this call was. Fact is if you've ever made a judgement call that was not "technically" 100% by the book then stop with the "It met all of the criteria therefore it was the right call". It was just another judgement call and that's why the protest was denied. In my opinion Holbrook made a piss poor judgement call just like we all have at 1 point or another since we've been umpires. Just because they're pros doesn't make them perfect as we all know.

You do that if I'm evaluating you and you will get dinged. You can call IFF too early. It's hard to call it too late. You're wrong.

Well we certainly have lots of 'by the book' blues here. Tell y'all what, from now on you better start calling your strike zone by the book. No more one ball out or in that ball better get a piece of the plate or else. Any umpire who has been doing upper level ball knows that effective game management has a lot to do with making 'the expected call'. Sure sometimes we have to make unpopular calls and then have to explain them to the coaches but that's part of being an umpire. You want to argue that we can't pick & choose what rules we enforce? Fine, go back to that strike zone again. Every pitch better catch some dish or you better ball it. In the case of this IFF if Holbrook doesn't call it and the Cards manager comes out all he has to say is, "Too deep coach" and it's over. Chances are he wouldn't have to explain it at all. Everyone in the ballpark saw it was too deep , everyone except Holbrook who started a ****storm with his "technically correct" call. Good idea Sam!

That's funny because I've been to school and multiple pro taught clinics most by Jim Evans. I go pretty much every year and the association I belong to has minimum mandatory training requirements. I always learn something. What I've learned here so far is there are quite a few Monday mornings quarterbacks who like to pile on the "new guy" or maybe it's just anyone who dares to stand up for their position. I've been on enough Internet forums to know that post count doesn't mean jack but I also understand that one has to pay ones dues in order to gain credibility. So fine, that's how you boys want to play it so be it. Im still sticking with my judgement.

I've never been a Harold Reynolds fan and I've seen and heard him make some real bonehead comments. Regardless of all the whiz bang bells and whistles and arrows and circles and cutesy graphics the fact is that the ball was deep and the call was late. In fact the ball was so deep that Sam Holbrook now has the distinction of calling the longest infield fly in the history of modern baseball. Good thing to have on your resume dontcha think? Depth has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing so why bring it up. The call was correct and that is the bottom line. The mechanics were correct so why bring that up. 14 years experience or 1 year experience 14 times? Sounds like the latter. Really? That old saw? You don't know me, you've never worked a game with me. You're just going to sit at your PC and take pot shots at me? So mature.

Yes, I will. And, I think if this same play developed and the umpire saw "ordinary effort", most, especially the ones saying the call was correct, WILL call IFR. Ah yes...20/20 hindsight, always valuable.

Don't let your "14 years of experience" get in the way of learning! Nothing to learn on this one. OK wise one. Please impart some of your wisdom and explain to me exactly what I should be learning from an IFF called so deep and so late that the LF had a better angle on it than the SS who bailed on the ball because he was afraid the LF was going to cream him? I'm all ears...

I've never been a Harold Reynolds fan and I've seen and heard him make some real bonehead comments. Regardless of all the whiz bang bells and whistles and arrows and circles and cutesy graphics the fact is that the ball was deep and the call was late. In fact the ball was so deep that Sam Holbrook now has the distinction of calling the longest infield fly in the history of modern baseball. Good thing to have on your resume dontcha think?

Don't let your "14 years of experience" get in the way of learning! Nothing to learn on this one.