|
Warren Wilson (quoted):
The rules intended that the umpire's judgement decision be unquestioned. That is clearly the import of OBR 9.02ff. To argue that the GENERAL admonition to get the call right supercedes a SPECIFIC rule requiring that the judgement decision, once made, be "FINAL" is absolute twaddle! What's more, once this coach/manager presented an alternative view of events and requested Moose check with his partner, he was effectively arguing a judgement call! That, too, is illegal!............
Warren, I disagree. 9.02a references judgement calls and that an umpire's decision is final. Furthermore, it identifies and discusses that team members should object or argue an umpire's decision. It does not preclude questioning an umpire's decision. There is a difference. Calls are questioned and most umpires typically provide mere explanations. However, when doubt exists, the General Instructions to Umpires can aid in reaching a correct decision.
In fact, 9.02c discusses an appealed (questioned) decision and references in detail the half swing. Is not the decision on whether or not a batter actually swung a judgement decision? Why would the book allow this to change if not intended, when in fact, 2 paragraphs earlier they state "any umpire's decision which involves judgement...is final"? Under your interpretaition, they are contradicting themselves a mere 2 paragraphs later. That is a sound reason NOT TO accept your interpretation. (Not to say yours is wrong)
Now, in conjunction with the General Instructions to Umpires (emphasizing the importance of making the correct decision over that of umpire dignity), one could quite logically conclude the rulemakers felt it important enough to get the call right and realized umpires should not accept arguments from teams but may accept assistance from partners. At least that is what I would conclude. Certainly, the General Instructions quite accurately indicate this practice should not be used "to extremes".
I think that has been what these threads have all been about. That is, whether or not it is legal and how often could / should this occur. I think one could conclude it is legal, could occur, but should occur only on rare needs.
Warren Willson (quoted).....Or was it the part where I proved conclusively, using nothing more than the rules of baseball themselves, that what you did was ILLEGAL, despite the General Instructions to Umpires?.........
I respect your opinion as I hope you may respect mine. I reviewed your perspective and the support you provided, but it does not mean I agree nor does it mean you proved it "conclusively". (You may be unaware that you are beginning to "Childress" your posts by presenting opinion as fact).
.......I pointed out the illegality of the action by reference to the specific rule which made the action illegal (ie against the rules). In contrast, you proposed the legality of the action by instead refering to a set of General Instructions which are NOT a part of the actual rules (ie NOT part of the subject "law").
Warren, you will accept NAPBL, J/R, JEA, Carl's list of 5 exceptions (and most everything else he says) none of which are printed in the book by the rulemakers, yet you are willing to disallow that which is in the book that being the General Instructions ??? Something is wrong here. Warren, I have heard some say "show me a bat with hands attached to it" to prove or disprove whether or not the hands are part of the bat. I only have one OBR book (it probably could be dated 1845 but wouldn't matter as it never changes) that includes the "General Instructions to Umpires." I will gamble by asking, "Can you provide me a rulebook without the General Instructions to Umpires included?" I don't know the answer to that. If you can, I suspect you would likely have to hunt to find it. Until such time, I feel I should conclude that the rulemakers put it in the book for some reason---perhaps to teach---and perhaps because they believed in what they were writing and felt it provided a depth of knowledge into the understanding of being an umpire. Possibly even to provide umpires compassion to get the final decision right vs. arrogance of maintaining self-dignity at the expense of the game. When an obvious error is made and not discussed for possible correction, self-dignity is NOT maintained, rather arrogance is displayed.
Warren, in conclusion I present my argument as one which supports the efforts of Moose which, in my opinion, were highly respectable, dignified, and gutsy. He put the intent of the rules---making his best effort to get the call right---above and beyond his own personal need to prove infallibility. He did this on a rare occasion where certainly the call and the level of the contest dictated the need for accuracy in the final decision (which HE made). To the burgeoning Bullwinkle of baseball, you have proven your integrity.
Some posted that, as his partner, they would have sent him back to make his own call without aiding him. I believe (although I am not certain) you made concurring posts. I was taught to work as a team and support my partner. If I don't like his actions, I take it up with him after the game. However, in this rare incident, I fully support my partner rather than hanging him out to dry. I have little on field respect for those who indicated they would have left him hanging-----whether Moose's actions were legal or illegal. That is not me. I support my partners on the field.
I certainly respect your right to disagree, however, I also feel many will agree. Just my opinion.
BTW, I suspect the rulemakers, too, were neo-romantics in their decision to include the General Instructions to Umpires. Perhaps Abner was a neo-romantic---we may have a lot in common!!! I'm beginning to qualify as a neo-anything.
[Edited by Bfair on Feb 10th, 2001 at 07:23 AM]
|