In my previous blog post, The Third Dimension, I talked about how some umpires will move the
strike zone depending on where the batter stands in the box, supposedly because
this could result in the perception, among the bench jockeys, of more accurate
calls. I don't buy it, but it does lead
to the question of whether we should let the perception of others affect our
calls.
We've all done it to some extent, I believe. For example, at the youngest levels we know
to expand the strike zone horizontally, not vertically. Why? Because
the coaches, the players on the bench, and the parents in the stands can all
see that a pitch is too high or too low, but rarely can tell if it's four
inches off the plate outside. We take
the "path of least resistance."
From the clinics and training sessions I've attended, this
is not an uncommon notion. But there may
only be a fine line between trying to get the call right and trying to avoid an
argument. In most cases, these are one
in the same – the right call gets the least grief. But that's not always the case. As the senior umpire leading my latest clinic
said, "If you look for trouble, trouble will find you." And he isn't wrong.
I have two examples that have happened to me, and incidentally,
both of them were on plays at the plate in two different games among middle school
boys.
In the first play, a throw to the plate beat the runner and
the catcher was properly positioned in front of the plate, but as he turned to
make the tag about waist high, the runner dipsy-doodled his body and somehow
managed to avoid the tag as he slid. I
was right on top of it and could clearly see that he missed the tag, so I
called the runner safe. Immediately, the
manager of the defensive team jumped onto the field to argue. I knew that there was no way he could see
that the tag was missed, and almost everyone else at the field probably thought
the runner was out. Thankfully, the
catcher's father had a great view from behind the backstop and later told the
manager that I got the call right.
In the second play, a throw to the plate beat the runner by
an even greater margin. But in this
case, the runner was ready to give himself up and slowed to a jog, expecting to
be tagged out easily. Meanwhile, the
catcher stood behind the plate and held the ball in his mitt directly above the
plate, about chest high, and just waited for the runner. Everyone on the field expected an out call at
any moment. But, as the runner continued
to slowly approach the plate, and the catcher never reached for him with the
glove, the runner realized he could probably avoid the glove and he reached with
his foot to touch the plate. Only a
split second later, his momentum carried his torso into the tag, and I called
him safe. Again, I heard an earful from
the defensive manager.
Assuming my eyesight didn't trick me in either case, I was
right, by the rules, to call both runners safe.
In both cases, I was in the best position to see the plays, and so I
could see something that hardly anyone else at the field could see. But in hindsight, I don't view these two
plays the same way; I feel comfortable with my call in the first example, but
not in the second. In the second play, I
should probably have just accepted that the ball beat the runner by a large
margin, the runner was giving himself up (until the very last second), and so I
should have just called the runner out.
If I had, there would have been no complaints, I'm sure.
It wouldn't be the first time an umpire didn't call
everything he saw. In the old days,
before video replay, umpires were expected to ignore when a middle infielder
failed to touch second base on a DP attempt, even when they could clearly see
it. This was the "neighborhood
play," which protected the safety of the infielder to some extent. Maybe, when a runner coming home is clearly
giving himself up, and both he and the catcher are just trying to stay safe, I
should just call the "neighborly play" and call the runner out. I was probably "looking for trouble"
when I should have just traveled along the "path of least resistance."
What are your thoughts?
I like your rationale for making the "path of least resistance"call. I had similar play with a force at home plate. Bses loaded. hot shot to third base who quickly threw home. however, the catcher was clearly not standing on the plate and made no attempt to find it. well, by clearly I mean to me...when I indicated Safe, the catcher went ballistic, the coach came out for an up close and personal conversation. I convinced him I was right, thankfully the other coach validated what that I was correct. my thought is, I was really the only person to see that the catcher did not receive the ball while standing on the plate. Offense is not gonna argue as they scored the run. Defense argued, but was backed off by my explanation and subsequently the other coach's validation...In retrospect, I could have gone the way of the path of least resistance as well...hmmm...always makes me wonder, what if....
ReplyDeleteYou made the right call. The comments I've heard from everyone who has read this article (even though they may not have posted them here) is that we should just make the right call and be prepared to take grief for it. I can't disagree with that approach. It's our job.
Delete