One of the first called third strikes with the Computer Umpire

[Thunderheads]

Think of the reason for the development of the emphatic called strike 3 mechanic. It was to sell the call! Same reason for coming up big on a banger.

A strike 3 call isnt always or necessarily
'emphatic' but it does signify the batter is out.

How about this, let's reverse the roles. Let's say there was a computer making a really close call for you at first base? If you're U1, and you hear that 'ding',.... you're telling me you're going to stand there with a standard hammer out call?

Come on......

Caveat: the above situation is totally hypothetical and I know would never happen.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

A strike 3 call isnt always or necessarily
'emphatic' but it does signify the batter is out.

How about this, let's reverse the roles. Let's say there was a computer making a really close call for you at first base? If you're U1, and you hear that 'ding',.... you're telling me you're going to stand there with a standard hammer out call?

Come on......

Caveat: the above situation is totally hypothetical and I know would never happen.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Yes, I absolutely would.  I don't need to convince anyone of anything.  Everyone knows the computer is making the call.  All I am doing is relaying that information.  Why would I do anything else?

[Thunderheads]

Yes, I absolutely would.  I don't need to convince anyone of anything.  Everyone knows the computer is making the call.  All I am doing is relaying that information.  Why would I do anything else?

Ok Steve, you win

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok Steve, you win

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I don't see this as a competition.  If you ever find yourself having balls and strikes called by a computer in a game, feel free to give the chainsaw or any other mechanic you want.  I'm just saying what I would do.

[Thunderheads]

I don't see this as a competition.  If you ever find yourself having balls and strikes called by a computer in a game, feel free to give the chainsaw or any other mechanic you want.  I'm just saying what I would do.

No it's not a competition, I agree with you, but what you're saying is that you would change the way you umpire because you're getting some assistance, that's what I really don't buy but then again that's me

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[The Man in Blue]

On 7/11/2019 at 8:15 PM, Thunderheads said:

No it's not a competition, I agree with you, but what you're saying is that you would change the way you umpire because you're getting some assistance, that's what I really don't buy but then again that's me

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

I’m with grayhawk on this ... you’re not umpiring in that scenario.  You’ve become a digital interpreter.  Interpret, don’t embellish.

[Thunderheads]

I’m with grayhawk on this ... you’re not umpiring in that scenario.  You’ve become a digital interpreter.  Interpret, don’t embellish.

In the overall concept I believe I understand what you and Steve are referring to but I think in reality, on the field you will probably still umpire just like you do any other day, again that's how I visualize it though.

Maybe over time one would just interpret the call and report it on the field . I think it will take awhile however, because that's a big change.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Richvee]

I’m in the no embellishments camp here. I’m not making any decisions. I’m reporting an outcome. 

I think perhaps an umpire’s opinion on the use of this technology may play a part in how he might signal the play. If you embrace the technology and see uit as a welcome enhancement to the game, you may still chainsaw a strike three or give the big punch out on a banger at 1b. 

If you’re anti- robots- ump you may consider yourself no more than the messenger of the computer call and no matter how close the play may be, I’m just relaying a computer call. A simple robot softball umpire hammer will suffice. 

[grayhawk]

I guess for me it comes down to computers calling balls and strikes fundamentally changing the duties of the plate umpire, so it would also fundamentally change my mechanics related to calling balls and strikes.

[The Man in Blue]

My new strike 3 call ...

 

[Thunderheads]

So ... your strike 3 call is now just a standard strike call, as in strike 1, or strike 2?   Remember, I'm not talking "embellishments" ...  you guys are talking as if a 'chainsaw' is some big theatrical moment?   IT CAN BE I guess, .....   BUT ....it doesn't HAVE TO BE.   Why can't it just by the strike 3 mechanic?

[beerguy55]

On 7/13/2019 at 8:01 PM, Richvee said:

I’m in the no embellishments camp here. I’m not making any decisions. I’m reporting an outcome. 

I think perhaps an umpire’s opinion on the use of this technology may play a part in how he might signal the play. If you embrace the technology and see uit as a welcome enhancement to the game, you may still chainsaw a strike three or give the big punch out on a banger at 1b. 

If you’re anti- robots- ump you may consider yourself no more than the messenger of the computer call and no matter how close the play may be, I’m just relaying a computer call. A simple robot softball umpire hammer will suffice. 

 

On 7/13/2019 at 8:36 PM, grayhawk said:

I guess for me it comes down to computers calling balls and strikes fundamentally changing the duties of the plate umpire, so it would also fundamentally change my mechanics related to calling balls and strikes.

I guess it comes down to whether your strike three mechanic is to sell the out or the strike.

If you're selling the strike, why aren't you doing the chainsaw or the Frank Drebin on a close strike two?

The strike three mechanic is about the out, not the strike (or it should be).  Unless you like being the center of attention, your strike three mechanic is the same whether it caught the corner, or went right down the heart of the plate.   To that extent, it doesn't really matter who decided it was a strike, the batter is out, and the mechanic indicates that.

[Thunderheads]

5 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The strike three mechanic is about the out, not the strike (or it should be).  Unless you like being the center of attention, your strike three mechanic is the same whether it caught the corner, or went right down the heart of the plate.   To that extent, it doesn't really matter who decided it was a strike, the batter is out, and the mechanic indicates that.

Thank GOD someone finally understands what I'm trying to say!  

[grayhawk]

32 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

I guess it comes down to whether your strike three mechanic is to sell the out or the strike.

If you're selling the strike, why aren't you doing the chainsaw or the Frank Drebin on a close strike two?

The strike three mechanic is about the out, not the strike (or it should be).  Unless you like being the center of attention, your strike three mechanic is the same whether it caught the corner, or went right down the heart of the plate.   To that extent, it doesn't really matter who decided it was a strike, the batter is out, and the mechanic indicates that.

Umm, what exactly led to the out?  That's right, it was the decision by the umpire that the pitch was in the zone.  We are selling the strike, because it's the one that's sending the batter back to the dugout (which strike one and strike two DON'T do).  And no, my strike 3 mechanic isn't the same for one that is down the middle where the batter is already walking back to the dugout versus the one that caught the corner.  One is more emphatic than the other and it has absolutely nothing to do with being the center of attention.

[grayhawk]

31 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Thank GOD someone finally understands what I'm trying to say!  

Yeah, and it's one of the coaches among us.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

[Thunderheads]

1 minute ago, grayhawk said:

Yeah, and it's one of the coaches among us.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

as good and educated as you are, ....  is what I'm thinking when I'm reading your opinion on all of this

You even supported what I've been saying in your post to Beerguy ....

And no, my strike 3 mechanic isn't the same for one that is down the middle where the batter is already walking back to the dugout versus the one that caught the corner.

^^^^^^^^ this is basically my point ..... it's STILL a strike 3 mechanic, batter is out.  Over emphatic, no, ...but different because the batter is out, yes.

SEE, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

as good and educated as you are, ....  is what I'm thinking when I'm reading your opinion on all of this

You even supported what I've been saying in your post to Beerguy ....

And no, my strike 3 mechanic isn't the same for one that is down the middle where the batter is already walking back to the dugout versus the one that caught the corner.

^^^^^^^^ this is basically my point ..... it's STILL a strike 3 mechanic, batter is out.  Over emphatic, no, ...but different because the batter is out, yes.

SEE, that wasn't so hard, was it?

But it's still ME calling it.  When an ear piece is calling it for me, it has fundamentally changed the role of the plate umpire from a decision maker to a messenger.  If you feel otherwise, then more power to you.  I suspect that neither you, nor I, will ever have to worry about it.

[Thunderheads]

Just now, grayhawk said:

But it's still ME calling it.  When an ear piece is calling it for me, it has fundamentally changed the role of the plate umpire from a decision maker to a messenger.  If you feel otherwise, then more power to you.  I suspect that neither you, nor I, will ever have to worry about it.

Ok, last and final clarification:   So, you're saying in a computer called strike 3, you will stand and give you standard strike call? You won't use any 'out' mechanic?

AND YES, ...we probably won't have to worry about it for sure, and that's a good thing!

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

Ok, last and final clarification:   So, you're saying in a computer called strike 3, you will stand and give you standard strike call? You won't use any 'out' mechanic?

AND YES, ...we probably won't have to worry about it for sure, and that's a good thing!

Simple out mechanic, just like on a swinging strike 3.

On another note, I knew a guy back in my LL days that did a chainsaw on a swinging strike 3.  God was it goofy.

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Simple out mechanic, just like on a swinging strike 3.

On another note, I knew a guy back in my LL days that did a chainsaw on a swinging strike 3.  God was it goofy.

Ahh, ok ... I guess, ... I wasn't thinking about the swinging strike 3 mechanic.  

OH YES ... that would be very goofy

[beerguy55]

6 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Yeah, and it's one of the coaches among us.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

Hey...wait a minute...I don't think that was a compliment.        

 

[Richvee]

I was going to reply but @grayhawk and I are lock, stock, and barrel in agreement   I have nothing to add that he hasn't already said.  

[Mudisfun]

On 7/11/2019 at 5:15 PM, Thunderheads said:

No it's not a competition, I agree with you, but what you're saying is that you would change the way you umpire because you're getting some assistance, that's what I really don't buy but then again that's me

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Having the computer calling the game fundamentally changes the way you umpire... you not longer are umpiring, you are just the flesh and bone version of a light up board. If/when they figure out how to have the computer call all of the other things we do at the plate, I will bet they find an excuse to remove us from behind the plate, all in the name of being perfect. It would be funny to see how many F2's get scored on because the umpire back stop is no longer standing there blocking many could be past balls. 

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:44 AM, Mudisfun said:

Having the computer calling the game fundamentally changes the way you umpire... you not longer are umpiring, you are just the flesh and bone version of a light up board. If/when they figure out how to have the computer call all of the other things we do at the plate, I will bet they find an excuse to remove us from behind the plate, all in the name of being perfect. It would be funny to see how many F2's get scored on because the umpire back stop is no longer standing there blocking many could be past balls. 

 

 

 

So ... if the plate umpire is only there to correct “obvious” mistakes by the computer (I actually loved the Frank Viola ejection, BTW) why does he even need to be behind the plate?  Why not put U1 up the middle and then have U2 working outside the bases.  Develop a new 2-man inside/outside set of mechanics.

New strike/strike out mechanics:

On strike 1, the PU should stand upright, make a visible strike call to the side, and loudly make a high-pitched “BING” sound.

On strike 2, the PU should stand upright, make a visible strike call to the side, and loudly make a high-pitched double “BING” sound “BING BING!”  The umpire should then begin flailing both arms around and declaring “Danger!  Danger!” so the batter is aware he only has one strike left (unless he bunts foul).

On strike 3, the PU should stand upright, make a visible strike call to the side, and loudly make a high-pitched “BING” sound three times (“BING, BING, BING.”) and declare “The batter does not compute!”

 

Final question ... Do Android Umpires Dream Of Electric Balks?

 

[The Man in Blue]

Perhaps we need to change the “pull start”/“rip cord” to just pressing an electric ignition or on/off button?

Probably more politically correct anyway since it is environmentally friendly.