OSU/OU - stealing home (video)

[HeadHunterLA]

Oh, and by the way, I have absolutely nothing there.

[RichMSN]

First time through this thread.  Enjoyed the read, agree with MidAmUmp, not that it's worth more than the pixels on your screen.

 

To me this is the same philosophy as a player laying down a sacrifice bunt.  If he does it with a foot outside the box, am I going out of my way to make that call?  I have rulebook support, but the defense is happy with the out, the offense is giving up an out, and nobody (at the right levels of baseball) expect the call to be made.  Yes, I probably miss it more often because I'm tracking the pitch, but I also know from time to time that the batter is, technically, illegal.  And yet, how does it make the game better for me to show off my knowledge of the rules here?

 

And yet, it doesn't mean I'd NEVER make that call, either.  There are situations where I'd feel it is necessary and I'd make the call then.

 

Haven't been around much -- work and non-stop baseball here -- but I'm going to try to post more going forward as the college season is over here and the HS regular season wraps on Saturday.

[Jimurray]

I just had this last night. R3, count, outs don't matter, pitch is inbound and I hear R3 trucking in. F2 jumps up and gets about half of the back of the plate. I'm thinking CI but batter has got the bat draped over his shoulder and the ball is nowhere near the plate or F2's  glove thus it hits me in my upper thigh and I call ball and signal safe.  I was ready to call the CI  if F2 had caught a better pitch and got the out. This was  my natural response to the sit even after sharpshooting the OP. I didn't get any complaints on the call but I was asked why I didn't flinch. Body fat or muscle in front of a bone is good thing. 

[johnnyg08]

RH batter?  Bases not loaded?  It's likely F1 was trying to his the batter and missed.  

[dumbdumb]

an umpire balked in the winning run on an intentional walk in a regional championship a few years back. He was supported at the time because he was technically right but he hasn't worked post season since then either. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's reality. And while you may say that will not happen to you at your level don't be surprised when it does.

Just going back over some posts to try and learn the rules and get some understanding and insight into rules and situations on the field when I saw this line and felt sorry for the guy it happened to, regardless of the interpretation.

Did a google and the only situation that matches this came from the article below.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/11/sports/sp-fullbase11

 

Apparently in the Los Angeles Times Saturday June 11, 2005 paper it was reported that the HP umpire had made the controversial balk call. However in the Sunday June 12, 2005 paper, the 3rd paragraph under "For the record" a correction was made. It was the 3BU who made the controversial balk call and not the PU after all.

 

Now, it is hard to get the 2006 (could not find any so can't say one way or the other) records to see if the 3BU from that controversial call in 2005 was given, let's just say time off from the 2006 playoffs due to all the controversy. However, in 2007 this same umpire was working the 2007 Regionals although I could not find if that extended to the super-regionals. In 2008, this umpire worked both the Regionals and the pinnacle of D1 umpiring, the CWS. In 2009, the Regionals again and in 2010 the Regionals. In 2011 and 2012, the SEC Tournament.

 

Now, for the HP umpire in that game, nothing comes up after the year 2005 for working any Collegiate games at all, at least with a google check. It is like a retirement came after reaching the pinnacle of the NCAA game.

 

That was all that came up for this situation that occurred back in the 2005 super regionals and continuing forward.

[UMP45]

First time through this thread.  Enjoyed the read, agree with MidAmUmp, not that it's worth more than the pixels on your screen.

 

To me this is the same philosophy as a player laying down a sacrifice bunt.  If he does it with a foot outside the box, am I going out of my way to make that call?  I have rulebook support, but the defense is happy with the out, the offense is giving up an out, and nobody (at the right levels of baseball) expect the call to be made.  Yes, I probably miss it more often because I'm tracking the pitch, but I also know from time to time that the batter is, technically, illegal.  And yet, how does it make the game better for me to show off my knowledge of the rules here?

 

And yet, it doesn't mean I'd NEVER make that call, either.  There are situations where I'd feel it is necessary and I'd make the call then.

 

Haven't been around much -- work and non-stop baseball here -- but I'm going to try to post more going forward as the college season is over here and the HS regular season wraps on Saturday.

On this play the offense gained an advantage.They moved a runner into scoring position.

[MidAmUmp]

I'm not posting this as a "told you so" or anything like that.  I'm simply pointing out what a supervisor has written that can be used as a very good learning tool...

 

I received my Referee magazine yesterday and was reading the article Gene McArtor wrote concerning the controversial play at the plate during this year's CWS.  As I was reading it, Gene wrote a paragraph that supports what I wrote in this post (and took a lot of heat for).  As I read it, it reminded me of this topic and video, and thought I'd re-address it with what the NCAA National Coordinator wrote...

 

"The 'right' call is the one technically correct by the rules but none of our top officials got there by always adhering to the 'right' call.  I am not talking about ball/strike, safe/out, catch/no catch, but the dozens of decisions in every game in which an umpire makes a judgment on whether to be technically correct or to make the 'best' call by ignoring the action or handling a situation in a different manner.  That umpire uses fair/unfair, advantage/disadvantage or justifiable/not justifiable to assist in interpreting the rules.  That is what the umpire did and it is part of the skill of high-level umpiring."

 

This really sums up the common sense approach that makes upper-echelon umpires very successful and why they advance vs. those who see the umpiring world as black and white and enforce everything exactly as written who do not advance as quickly, if ever.

[RichMSN]

I'm not posting this as a "told you so" or anything like that.  I'm simply pointing out what a supervisor has written that can be used as a very good learning tool...

 

I received my Referee magazine yesterday and was reading the article Gene McArtor wrote concerning the controversial play at the plate during this year's CWS.  As I was reading it, Gene wrote a paragraph that supports what I wrote in this post (and took a lot of heat for).  As I read it, it reminded me of this topic and video, and thought I'd re-address it with what the NCAA National Coordinator wrote...

 

"The 'right' call is the one technically correct by the rules but none of our top officials got there by always adhering to the 'right' call.  I am not talking about ball/strike, safe/out, catch/no catch, but the dozens of decisions in every game in which an umpire makes a judgment on whether to be technically correct or to make the 'best' call by ignoring the action or handling a situation in a different manner.  That umpire uses fair/unfair, advantage/disadvantage or justifiable/not justifiable to assist in interpreting the rules.  That is what the umpire did and it is part of the skill of high-level umpiring."

 

This really sums up the common sense approach that makes upper-echelon umpires very successful and why they advance vs. those who see the umpiring world as black and white and enforce everything exactly as written who do not advance as quickly, if ever.

 

I'm in no way disagreeing with you.  

 

But I think that no matter what Burleson decided, he would've been supported.  Some dogs are so big that whatever they do in a weird situation will be seen as right -- and Burleson's certainly that big of a dog.

[MidAmUmp]

 

I'm not posting this as a "told you so" or anything like that.  I'm simply pointing out what a supervisor has written that can be used as a very good learning tool...

 

I received my Referee magazine yesterday and was reading the article Gene McArtor wrote concerning the controversial play at the plate during this year's CWS.  As I was reading it, Gene wrote a paragraph that supports what I wrote in this post (and took a lot of heat for).  As I read it, it reminded me of this topic and video, and thought I'd re-address it with what the NCAA National Coordinator wrote...

 

"The 'right' call is the one technically correct by the rules but none of our top officials got there by always adhering to the 'right' call.  I am not talking about ball/strike, safe/out, catch/no catch, but the dozens of decisions in every game in which an umpire makes a judgment on whether to be technically correct or to make the 'best' call by ignoring the action or handling a situation in a different manner.  That umpire uses fair/unfair, advantage/disadvantage or justifiable/not justifiable to assist in interpreting the rules.  That is what the umpire did and it is part of the skill of high-level umpiring."

 

This really sums up the common sense approach that makes upper-echelon umpires very successful and why they advance vs. those who see the umpiring world as black and white and enforce everything exactly as written who do not advance as quickly, if ever.

 

I'm in no way disagreeing with you.  

 

But I think that no matter what Burleson decided, he would've been supported.  Some dogs are so big that whatever they do in a weird situation will be seen as right -- and Burleson's certainly that big of a dog.

 

This has nothing to do with Burly's call. 

 

I'm simply bringing up a quote from McArtor pertaining to common sense umpiring and his views on it vs. by the book umpiring as many on this topic have advocated.

[Birdieseeker]

I'm glad this got brought back to life.  MidAm's comments on common sense on the field are something I have worked all year on. Reading  that article today in Referee just drove home the point, to me anyway, that is what separates good umpires from exceptional umpires