[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
> It is apparent that a small group wishes to nit-pick a perfectly
> reasonable guideline for umpires of games at all levels.

It has been presented as more than a guideline; it has been presented as an all-inclusive, no exceptions, yes Regis this is my final list of instances in which a call can be changed. Your unnamed group of nit-pickers are, indeed, challenging the notion that the list of 5 is airtight.

The list is supported by RULE and by OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION in 4 of 5 cases, and by AUTHORITATIVE OPINION which you, yourself, have quoted in the last of the 5 cases. That would tend to make them pretty hard and fast, wouldn't you say? Challenge the "airtight" nature of the list all you want, but it won't change what the list is or where it came from. Ridiculing the messenger, and those who support him in his reporting the truth, does NOTHING to change the validity of the message.

> Let me go over the list one more time, individually. If anyone
> disagrees, please let us know. On the other hand, if you believe these
> five instances do represent calls that may be changed legally, stop
> denigrating the list!

Is it not possible to acknowledge the value and utility of the list, while at the same time disagreeing that it is as comprehensive and final as its more devout proponents claim?

Where did ANY of the "more devout proponents" (presumably you mean me, here) EVER claim that the list was "comprehensive and final"? Mind you, I think it IS pretty comprehensive and final, but I have never claimed that in any of my posts, at least that I can recall. Until you can come up with an ADDITION to the list that is equally supported by RULE, OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION or AUTHORITATIVE OPINION then the list should stand as comprehensive at least, isn't that so?

> If you believe there are other instances that can be legally changed,
> please post them and the authoritative opinion supporting that ruling.

OK, here's one:

> The batter squares to bunt the 1-1 pitch. The catcher rises and
> prepares to field the potential bunt. The ball is bunted, and it
> deflects off the batter's foot while he is still in the batter's box.
> The ball rolls toward the mound and the catcher fields it. The plate
> umpire points the ball "Fair" as the catcher is picking it up.
>
> RULING: The base umpire should immediately signal "Time" and kill the
> play. Even though the plate umpire has made a call, it is obvious to
> the base umpire that his partner was blocked out and could not see the
> entire play. The base umpire in this case has equal jurisdiction and
> is correct in overruling his partner and changing the call to "Foul"
> when it is obvious that the incorrect decision has been rendered.

This is from Evans Annotated; it's the situation immediately after Item # 5 in Someone's List of 5.

This is the result of BAD MECHANICS and shouldn't normally occur. However, I can accept that the circumstances are certainly very possible and decide that OBR 9.04(c) is relevant here. This is a case where two umpires have legally made different decisions on the same play. This is already in the list. This is NOT a new decision. The base umpire has joint jurisdiction over this particular call with the plate umpire and if their decisions conflict OBR 9.04(c) can be used by the UIC to decide LEGALLY. Sorry, Dave, but NO CIGAR for this one! This IS NOT a case of one umpire legally changing another umpire's judgement call. This IS, instead, a case of two umpires legally making different calls on the same play. OBR 9.04(c) dictates how this should be handled, and the OBR 9.04(c) exception is already in the list.

Finally, there's a belief among an apparently small group of alleged malcontents that the spirit and intent of the rules and authoritative opinion, while clearly preferring that calls not be reversed, still provide for a contingency exception in those rare cases when:

> "a manifestly wrong decision" must be corrected. (OBR - General
> Instructions to umpires)

> the responsible umpire is "blocked out" from seeing all the elements
> of a play or he has substantial reason to believe that his positioning
> did not afford him the proper position to render an accurate call.
> (Evans)

The only point of disagreement is that this does NOT create a new item for the list, or any leeway in dealing with what are purely judgement decisions. You are STILL trying to prove a point that changing judgement decisions is LEGAL under the rules. With the noted exceptions, that is simply NOT the case, nor will it EVER be the case while the rules and interpretations remain as they currently are. The General Instructions to Umpires are not rules and they do NOT have the force of rules. As good as they are as guidelines, they neither specify nor should they be used to specify circumstances in which the rules should NOT apply! Furthermore, in these cites there is NO admonition about WHEN the call can be reversed, either. I have always said that if the umpire was blocked he could get help BEFORE he makes a decision. If he is blocked and makes a decision anyway, except as provided by the list he should NOT change his call. These cites don't alter that perspective.

My personal conclusion is that the ultimate list would combine the specific items from Someone's List of 5, elements of the Pariseau essay posted at McGriff's the other day, and a concluding contingency along the lines of the General Instructions with respect to correcting a manifestly wrong decision.

My perspective in arguing for a more liberalized list is as an umpire of youth and amateur baseball games. Those advocating strict adherence to the pro interpretation here are succumbing to the pro-style "rat mentality" that is usually disastrous when applied in youth and amateur games. The game participants, the spectators, everybody wants umpires to confer more, not less. Even Rules Committees: "Asking umpires to confer is popular with Rules Committees these days." - Childress, 2001 BRD, page 183. I believe it behooves us to accommodate them when the situation warrants, and when a reasonable interpretation of the relevant rules and interpretations, and guided by the principle of common sense and fair play, allows for it.

Someone once used the analogy of Animal Farm with respect to positions adopted by Carl and I on certain issues. One of the great objections was that the rules apparently kept changing depending on how they allegedly affected those making or enforcing them. This request doesn't seem any different to me. Why have rules at all if that's the case? You can't shout for consistency of interpretation in one room and move to another and demand complete flexibility. If leagues want to treat matters differently, that's fine. They can make their own rules, but don't call them OBR. Under OBR the rule makers are NOT from LL, Pony, Babe Ruth or anywhere else but MLB and NAPBL leagues. The plaintive cry of "Can't we just let them do what they want" is anarchistic in the extreme, and comes from the PC mentality that says "the game is all about the kids". I can assure you, at the pro level under OBR the game is definitely NOT "all about the kids"!

> Finally: Someone is all agog that some AAA umpires in Arizona
> discussed whether they should learn how to change an erroneous call
> even during continuous action. The tone of the quote was such that a
> careless reader might think the discussion provided an answer
> different from current practice, which is "No, it cannot be changed."

The point of Peter's reference to Bob Pariseau's report about the AAA umpire discussions was to refute Warren's latest hot button issue that changing a judgment decision is "illegal." The AAA umpires know they are not allowed to change rules; therefore, if changing a judgment call was in fact "illegal," there would be no point whatsoever to discussing it, would there?

I'm sure that same point was probably made by many of the AAA officials present. They can discuss what they like. Whether or not they can act is another matter. Last time I looked, AAA did not represent the entire staff of the NAPBL PBUC. Changing the rules, at least as they apply them, is only within the purview of the entire staff of NAPBL PBUC. If the MLB goes one way, and the NAPBL PBUC goes another, the ones in the middle and possibly in a state of transition are the AAA officials. I suggest that what is likely is that MLB will change their method of handling judgment decisions but that will NOT make its way into the NAPBL official interpretations which most OBR leagues accept. Does any of this make it any less ILLEGAL to change a judgement decision under the rules and interpretations as they currently stand? NO, most definitely NOT! There is still absolutely NO QUESTION that changing a judgement decision, except as provided in the List of 5, is ILLEGAL - appeals to posts at McGriff's by Bob Pariseau notwithstanding!

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 18th, 2001 at 07:28 PM]