[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

Steve, the moment any coach/manager/player/substitute goes beyond asking "What did you see" and says "Well I saw this - check with your partner" they ARE arguing/objecting to a judgement decision. THAT is what happened in Moose's case. See my recent response to Dave Hensley for a quote from the original rule makers on the subject of judgement decisions and whether umpires should allow "questions" on such decisions. The import is clearly NO QUESTIONING - NO OBJECTING - NO ARGUING - NOTHING! A judgement decision is FINAL!

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)

Context, Steve, context. The 1976 NOTE appended to OBR 9.02(c) which allows an appeal on this specific judgement decision is clearly an exception to the rule, as is OBR 9.04(c). Both of these were in Carl's list of five(5) calls which can LEGALLY be changed. Did you miss that debate? I have written a long 3-part exposition of the Half Swing Appeal wherein I contend that it is based on a wrong premise, and is placed out of context in OBR 9.02(c). It is also something else, Steve ... "The exception that proves the rule"! See, Steve, if it was normally expected that such judgement decisions COULD be questioned in this manner, WHY would the 1976 Note even be necessary? Any ideas on that, Steve?

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.

I'm sorry, Steve, but you are WRONG on all counts here. Let me explain why.

1. No-one argued that getting the call right wasn't important. It is important.

2. Accepting assistance from partners is one thing, but getting help when questioned on a judgement decision by a manager/coach/player/substitute is ILLEGAL, and another thing entirely.

3. OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL is "contrary to these rules". OBR 9.02(a) is part of "these rules" and changing a decision declared "final" is "contrary to these rules" in that provision. The General Instructions to Umpires are NOT part of the rules. Neither are the Casebook Comments, such as the 1976 NOTE appended to OBR 9.02(c) on appealing the half swing. HOWEVER, unlike the General Instructions to Umpires, the Casebook Comments are to be read in conjunction with the rules and have the same force as the rules. I repeat, the General Instructions to Umpires are NOT part of the rules. Therefore, whatever is in those General Instructions is not LEGAL. That doesn't mean it isn't laudible, valuable, important, helpful or a whole host of other things. It just isn't a part of "these rules".

.......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.

Who says I won't "accept" the General Instructions? Of course I accept them, in their proper context. They are NOT official interpretations, like the NAPBL. They are NOT Authoritative opinion like the J/R and JEA. They aren't a compilation from legal or official sources, as is Carl's list of 5 reversible calls. They are just General Instructions. LEGAL means in accordance with the rules of baseball. If the General Instructions are not a part of the rules of baseball, they aren't strictly legal. What's more, if they are at least 50 years out of date, they may not even be relevant. That is the substance of Evans' reappraisal of those General Instructions. I am also not a Fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible. So sue me!

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.

You are missing the whole point of the admonition to "get the call right" from the General Instructions. It needs to be read in conjunction with the rules it supports. By all means go to the book, or your partner, on a rule misapplication. Get the call right. However, on a judgement decision only go to your partner BEFORE you make your call if and when it is unavoidable. AFTER the call is made, by rule (which supercedes the General Instructions) the decision so made is FINAL.

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.

Whoa, Steve, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? Let's see what those facts were:

1. Moose SAW the ball on the ground and STILL made the OUT decision.

2. Moose LIED about what he saw to the coach/manager, hoping to avoid being questioned about an obviously wrong call.

3. When the coach called his bluff, instead of wearing the consequences of his LIE, Moose sought to involve his innocent partner to help him out ILLEGALLY.

Now, I accept that the end result was that Moose got the call "right". In the process he LIED to a coach, lost his dignity as a result, and made his partner complicit in his error. Moose originally asked for a review of his actions. Almost without exception his actions were adjudged to be wrong and in at least some senses ILLEGAL. Moose was also given a lot of good advice about how to do it better in future. What did Moose do with that advice? He IGNORED IT! He chose instead to post a justification of his own actions. In short, he not only crapped on his partner he crapped on all of us who thought he was genuinely asking for help. And THIS is the Moose you want us to applaud? No thanks!

Having said that, if Moose HAD accepted the reviews and the constructive criticism of his colleagues, I would be the FIRST to applaud him. Not now, Steve. Not now.

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.

There was a veritable MOUNTAIN of advice for Moose that would help avoid putting his partner in such a position. Had he been prepared to accept it, this would be a non-issue. Moose is apparently one of those who only learn the hard way. You do him, or anyone like him, no favours to let him get away with this sort of rubbish! It is a choice between two evils, the lesser of which is to cause your partner a small hurt now to avoid a lot of bigger hurts later. Sometimes, Steve, you have to be a little bit cruel now in order to be a LOT kind in the long run. NEVER suggest that I would NOT support my partner. In this case, supporting my partner means telling him to fix his own mess. You may not agree. So be it. At least see the logic.

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.

Finally, let me disabuse you of your misapprehension that "Abner" had ANYTHING to do with the rules of baseball. He didn't. That furphy was started by one A.G. Spalding who, as a fiercely patriotic commissioner and despite a wealth of evidence, refused to acknowledge that the great American game was in fact invented from a combination of rounders and cricket; both English games. The fact is that the rules of the modern game were given to us by one Alexander Joy Cartwright and the membership of the New York Knickerbocker Base Ball club, in 1845.

When the General Instructions to Umpires were included in the rule book, shortly after 1950, good ol' Abner was LONG DEAD. There was nothing remotely "neo-romantic" about their inclusion. The truly sad thing is that, like much of the rule book, they haven't been amended since and they now bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the instructions issued to umpires these days. If you want to view the modern equivalent, look at Section 7 of the NAPBL Umpire's Manual. If you want a contemporary redefinition of the General Instructions currently in the rule book, look to Evans' "General Instructions: A Commentary" which is appended to his Official Baseball Rules Annotated.

Steve, I NEVER deal in suspicions when I have facts instead. I don't speculate or opine when there are facts to the contrary view plainly in evidence. If you are going to discuss rules, official interpretations and mechanics with any credibility it is important that you do likewise. Otherwise you will have more in common with Mr Spalding than you would like to believe.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 11th, 2001 at 03:26 AM]