|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
"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.
.....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.
.....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?
....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
Warren, acceptance of Carl's list isn't unanimous. Pehaps among those who accept gospel, but not among all. Your support of his points #4 and #5 is weak. Using same logic I could conclude it appropriate for BU to advise PU that he might wish to change his call on a pitch because his call didn't agree with the strike zone as defined in rule 2. WEAK. Upon review your quotes show me how YOU waiver in your posts not to prove a point, but rather to prove YOUR point. First you state the finality required of the decision, then falter to allowing them changed "per Carl's list". Which thought will be your final decision? You may discuss this with your partner before making the call. Or, we might even let you make your call and then correct your decision---but I guess that would only be allowable depending upon whatever your FINAL decision actually is........ Catch 22, I guess.
As Carl references Orwelle's Animal Farm on occasion, I cannot help but think I am looking at the rules posted and amended by Snowball and Napoleon. The rest of us, like the poor working horse (I can't remember his name) are expected to sit back and accept the dictates. Perhaps this will be another case where we will support a position by saying these "amendments" are the official interpretations passed on by MLB. Of course, somewhere in the next thread will be statements about things that DON'T apply to us because "that's Pro, and we shouldn't compare ourselves to Pro." In other words, some tend to pick and choose what they want to apply and when to apply it not necessarily for the sake of the game, but for the sake of winning their argument. Actually, I am beginning to question whether or not I may be in Pleasantville.
Warren Willson (quoted):
That 3 strikes will always be an OUT is something many people have come to depend on for solid stability, when everything else in their lives appears at best as jellow.
Warren, I don't mean to add instability to your life, it's good to see you back on the boards. I merely wish to show you what it is like when someone wants to nitpcik your writings despite the fact they KNOW what is meant. Your above statement is obviously wrong. Even you know, I hope, that strike three has to be caught to be an out. Even this, of course, has a few exceptions put in by the book, not by Carl. Strike three is not always an out.
Just my opinion,
BTW, Columbus and I are still in agreement---the world is round, and it took someone to discover that fact.
|