Quote:
Originally posted by BJ Moose
I only ask one simple question. IS IT LEGAL to make the call (judgment call, OUT)... then, based on information beamed into my brain from an alien intelligence (aka, the other umpire).. then CHANGE the call to SAFE.. and MAKE THAT MY FINAL ANSWER!
I content that the book clearly says this is OK.. i.e. LEGAL. If it was not.. then (almost) every changed judgment call would result in a protest! As in my orig case..
Would WW and RF like to reconsider their positions? Again.. I emphasize, this is not a case of SHOULDA... I only mean legally.
CC's list is a good list for reference.. for MECHANICS PROPRIETY... it is NOT all inclusive.
|
Mike,
I draw your attention to OBR 9.02(a) and quote it's first sentence here to save you looking it up for yourself:
"
Any umpire's decision which involves judgement, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final."
Now there is a school of thought which says that only means "final" in the sense intended by the following sentence which spells out that players, managers, coaches or substitutes may not object to such decisions. I don't take that narrow view of this provision. It is my contention that this rule makes such decisions "final", and so not subject to change by ANYONE (including the umpire himself who makes the decision) in the interest of preventative officiating. If such a call is NOT changeable
by rule then there is no point in testing the waters and asking the question or demanding the official get help, is there? THAT is the whole point of this provision, IMHO.
Like so many of the rules of this great game, I believe this rule was intended to teach the participants a valuable lesson; in this case self-discipline in handling decisions which may be demonstrably wrong and go against you or your team. The umpire should NOT seek to minimise or negate that lesson by choosing to believe that the rule doesn't apply to him! That's arrogant. If it is a judgement decision, and a call has been made, it is FINAL. No-one, not even the umpire making the call, is legally entitled to change it without the specific permission of the rules themselves.
Moose, reading the words "for everyone except the umpire making the call" onto the end of this sentence is NOT good practice for the serious official. The word "final" is usually followed by a "period" (full stop). That's because if, as we are so often admonished these days, "No means NO" then "Final also means FINAL". The End. Finito. Fin. If you are allowed to change one so-called "final" judgement call to give a FINAL "final" judgement call, was the first judgement call ever really "final", no matter who makes the change?
"Wriggling" will NOT get you out of your judgemental error in the original thread, Moose. The judgement calls in Carl's list that can LEGALLY be changed are very unique and specific exceptions to the general rule. They are supported by their own specific rules that modify the general rule which is that judgement decisions are final. There are NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS, at least not in the OBR. This is NOT, as you have claimed elsewhere, a matter of OPINION. This is black letter law! Let's look at Carl's list again, and I will put the citation against each.
1. Two umpires make opposite calls on the same play (judgement call) - see OBR 9.04(c) for authority to change.
2. A rule is misapplied (rule misapplication not judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(b) and (c)
3. A call of "Ball" on a half swing is appealed (judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(c)Comment for authority to change.
4. A call of fair/foul or home run/double on balls hit over the fence is questioned (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 7.05(a) and (f) and OBR 2.00 Definition of Fair/Foul
5. A fielder drops the ball on a tag called out and the calling umpire does not see the drop. (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 2.00 Definition of A Tag
Now only points 4 and 5 above are properly subject to some conjecture as to whether they are really judgement calls rather than rule misapplications. The salient point for BOTH of these is that the calling official does NOT have access to ALL of the relevant information before making his call. If the official DID have all the relevant information, and made the demonstrably wrong call anyway, it clearly becomes a judgement call and so "final". That's why in such cases you only tell the calling official what you've seen and let him decide, rather than reversing the call yourself.
You may argue that you didn't have ALL of the necessary information either, when you made your blunder of a call at 2nd base, but I'd argue otherwise. You admitted that you SAW that ball on the ground and yet you STILL called OUT and attempted to bluff your way out of trouble. That is not the same as if you had NOT seen the ball on the ground in the first place, in which case your PU would have been legally entitled to help you out and you would have been legally entitled to change the call.
To answer your specific question, Mike, NO - I do NOT want to reconsider my position on this question. Do you?
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 7th, 2001 at 11:14 PM]