Directors on the feild?

[Freak4Football]

them dudes shouldnt be on field gosh love the game. The last hundred years they havent been on the field why start now and break the tradition of the beutiful game

[RHSfan]

Why in the world should they be on the field? What function do they perform that requires that they be inside the fence? If they could perform that function from outside of the fence, they should not be on the field. Supervising umpires and being responsible for game balls doesn't seem to require being on the field of play. Heck, they're supervising the home plate umpire from down the baseline? Wouldn't that be easer to do from behind the backstop?

 

Ushers aren't on the field during play at Turner Field, as I recall. Batboys, ballboys, and security are, but their function requires it, right? I have never seen Bud Selig on the field of play during a game.

At some ballparks, such as Busch Stadium, ushers are the ones responsible for foul balls down the lines.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the game balls be thrown over a fence to the umpire?

 

They aren't supervising the strike zone, they're watching for positioning. You can't teach judgment, you can teach being in the right position to make a judgment call.

Opperman. no offense, but I would think those things would be taught and learned well before an umpire gets to officiate a state tournament game.

 

In the games I observed, these two men did nothing much more than watch the game and in one game in particular, their seating was left in the way of a player trying to make a play (dangerous in my opinion). I really can't think of anything regarding a baseball game that is so important that supervisors must sit on the field of play to do their job. There are less conspicuous places to be rather than on the field of play.

 

MHO.

 

RHSfan

[themagicrooster]

at the game i am talking about both guys were sitting on the first base side of the field.

chattin and spittin i guess......lol

Edited June 4, 2004 by themagicrooster

[LCborn]

Are you seriously suggesting that the game balls be thrown over a fence to the umpire?

 

They aren't supervising the strike zone, they're watching for positioning. You can't teach judgment, you can teach being in the right position to make a judgment call.

Well, yes, what's wrong with throwing the balls over the fence? Too undignified? Blues' hands too bad? Supervisor's arm too weak? (All this assumes, of course, that the fence doesn't have a gate in it anywhere; said gate might be opened and said balls handed to the umpire, if throwing them over the fence would hurt the integrity of the game.)

 

Are you seriously suggesting that to avoid throwing balls over a fence we need to have two guys and their chairs out on the field where they can interfere with play or even get some high school kid hurt?

 

Wait, don't the umpires routinely position themselves close to the infield? Couldn't that be supervised from behind the backstop? Actually, it seems like having supervisors down the baseline in the outfield would put the supervisors in a bad position to make a judgment call on the umpires' positioning.

 

Also, you can teach judgment, barring some perceptual abnormality (which should disqualify someone from being an umpire, anyway).

[muffin]

Are you seriously suggesting that the game balls be thrown over a fence to the umpire?

 

They aren't supervising the strike zone, they're watching for positioning.  You can't teach judgment, you can teach being in the right position to make a judgment call.

Well, yes, what's wrong with throwing the balls over the fence? Too undignified? Blues' hands too bad? Supervisor's arm too weak? (All this assumes, of course, that the fence doesn't have a gate in it anywhere; said gate might be opened and said balls handed to the umpire, if throwing them over the fence would hurt the integrity of the game.)

 

Are you seriously suggesting that to avoid throwing balls over a fence we need to have two guys and their chairs out on the field where they can interfere with play or even get some high school kid hurt?

 

Wait, don't the umpires routinely position themselves close to the infield? Couldn't that be supervised from behind the backstop? Actually, it seems like having supervisors down the baseline in the outfield would put the supervisors in a bad position to make a judgment call on the umpires' positioning.

 

Also, you can teach judgment, barring some perceptual abnormality (which should disqualify someone from being an umpire, anyway).

Good post,keep the codgers off the field.

[Opperman]

Are you seriously suggesting that the game balls be thrown over a fence to the umpire?

 

They aren't supervising the strike zone, they're watching for positioning.  You can't teach judgment, you can teach being in the right position to make a judgment call.

Well, yes, what's wrong with throwing the balls over the fence? Too undignified? Blues' hands too bad? Supervisor's arm too weak? (All this assumes, of course, that the fence doesn't have a gate in it anywhere; said gate might be opened and said balls handed to the umpire, if throwing them over the fence would hurt the integrity of the game.)

 

Are you seriously suggesting that to avoid throwing balls over a fence we need to have two guys and their chairs out on the field where they can interfere with play or even get some high school kid hurt?

 

Wait, don't the umpires routinely position themselves close to the infield? Couldn't that be supervised from behind the backstop? Actually, it seems like having supervisors down the baseline in the outfield would put the supervisors in a bad position to make a judgment call on the umpires' positioning.

 

Also, you can teach judgment, barring some perceptual abnormality (which should disqualify someone from being an umpire, anyway).

Well, part of their job is to keep CLEAN baseballs there. And that's not a given.

 

As for positioning, a supervisor can tell from anywhere on the field where the ump is supposed to be...being in foul territory past the dugout doesn't detract from that a bit. And no, you can't teach judgment. You can teach how to apply it, but you can't teach it. It doesn't matter where the supervisor is observing on a judgment call, he can't have the umpire's angle to know how he saw it.

 

Besides, you guys are all acting like they were set up in the basepaths or somewhere in fair territory. It's nowhere near as big a deal as any of you are making it out to be.

[wad]

Thanks Opp,

 

I would like to know how Farragut, Milan and Goodpasture feel about them being on the field. Haven't heard much from them. Maybe it's because they were worried about playing baseball and not who was on, close or almost about to maybe be possibly in the way.

[themagicrooster]

Thanks Opp,

 

    I would like to know how Farragut, Milan and Goodpasture feel about them being on the field. Haven't heard much from them. Maybe it's because they were worried about playing baseball and not who was on, close or almost about to maybe be possibly in the way.

i'm just a fan that started this thread, and i seen where it almost caused a serious accident, where our first baseman was going for a high hit foul ball and they were in the way, no ifs ands or buts... i just feel their being there was unnecessary. i dont think it influenced the outcome of the game in the least.

Edited June 5, 2004 by themagicrooster

[LCborn]

And no, you can't teach judgment. You can teach how to apply it, but you can't teach it.

Well, seems to me the purpose of a lot of practice is to teach outfielders, for example, to judge fly balls. And hitters, for another example, to judge the strike zone and to judge the appropriate timing for a swing...I guess that's a waste of time, huh?

 

Also, the notion that judgment can't be taught goes against several decades of research and development in military and civilian training. You can teach people how to recognize patterns, you can teach people what key things to look at, etc.

 

Think about it: "judgment can't be taught"? Why not? Is it because the training methods aren't available? Hard to believe. Is it because people can't learn judgment? Harder to believe, unless you believe that the judgment that a 5-year-old (10-year-old, 15-year-old, you pick it) has is as good as it is going to get. If you don't believe that, you have to admit that people can learn to improve their judgment; and if you don't believe that, you have to admit that, conversely, that people can learn to judge better.

 

Take yourself, for example (or me, if you like): at what age was your (or my) judgment frozen, never to be improved?

[Opperman]

Well, seems to me the purpose of a lot of practice is to teach outfielders, for example, to judge fly balls. And hitters, for another example, to judge the strike zone and to judge the appropriate timing for a swing...I guess that's a waste of time, huh?

 

Also, the notion that judgment can't be taught goes against several decades of research and development in military and civilian training. You can teach people how to recognize patterns, you can teach people what key things to look at, etc.

 

Think about it: "judgment can't be taught"? Why not? Is it because the training methods aren't available? Hard to believe. Is it because people can't learn judgment? Harder to believe, unless you believe that the judgment that a 5-year-old (10-year-old, 15-year-old, you pick it) has is as good as it is going to get. If you don't believe that, you have to admit that people can learn to improve their judgment; and if you don't believe that, you have to admit that, conversely, that people can learn to judge better.

 

Take yourself, for example (or me, if you like): at what age was your (or my) judgment frozen, never to be improved?

Umpire judgment and fly ball judgment are two very, very different things. And, in essence, isn't the fly ball judgment you refer to, um, positioning?

 

Umpires don't position to catch a ball, they position to have a good angle to say fair/foul, safe/out. That kind of judgment can't be taught.

 

As for swinging and the strike zone, that's hand-eye coordination. Your military analogies of judgment don't fly either, because it's different. You're adding more to the definition of judgment than what I'm referring to. What's next, are you going to use laws against driving drunk as an example of judgment?

 

You can teach people certain things that may assist in judgment sometimes, sure, but you can't teach an ump to always see safe/out correctly. You can tell them what to look for or listen for, but that's part of positioning and mechanics IMO.