|
Carl Childress (quoted):
"First, they always refer to it as "Carl's list of 5" as if that automatically makes it worthless or wrong. In this country most umpires who have heard of me would believe that gives the list status"
First, Carl, to say it is your list is only because best of my recollection you were first to post it. I am not trying to demean the list. You have earned respect for your rules knowledge and, as you so rightly put, calling it your list DOES add credibility to it. I am not attempting to avoid that due credit.
What I am interested in (and which I learned as a result of the Dave Hensley's recent post) is that you and Jim Porter are indeed "messengers" of the PBUC. I was unaware of that. Is that an "official" responsibility? If so, I will certainly take that which is provided as "official". If not, I am not wrong in questioning whether what you report is or is not official. Certainly I will agree with Dave that it seems better than anything we apparently had earlier---although I don't know what we had earlier. This is not meant to question your knowledge or authority---but to question "official" as we must and should accept and are improper in not accepting. This is not unrealistic. I am interested in knowing if "officially" the General Instructions to Umpires should be disregarded. This seems poor if, in fact, new umpires purchasing rulebooks still have these instructions included. Can you see how we are only a small minority of the officials in the baseball world?
If we are to take that which you convey as "official", how are we to distinguish that which is official and that which is opinion (authoritative as it may be)? (Good example might be your past acceptance of Brinkman's ruling over JEA regarding a runner hit by batted ball). Is it not important for us to know what is meant to be official and what is opinion? I would think YOU would not want us out on the field enforcing "The World According to Carl". This is a legitimate point unless you expect all to accept that which you print merely because it comes from you.
Carl Childress (quoted):
"If you believe there are other instances that can be legally changed, please post them and the authoritative opinion supporting that ruling."
I understand THE LIST OF 5 EXCEPTIONS as compiled by you from several sources. Is this correct or were these to be passed through you as official interpretation from PBUC? Could there be more? Are these meant to be the only "legal" items that can be changed, or are they (as I first felt) a list limiting items that "should" be changed. It was presented the partner should approach the official "to add information" to his decisionmaking process whereby a call could be reversed. Does this mean legal vs illegal? Certainly Moose pointed out in Fed Casebook play 10.2.3n whereby a call is reversed. It is obvious the best mechanics were not used here, however, does it not prove the legality of such a reversal. Obvious, as officials we do not want situations such as this. However, a manifestly wrong decision was reversed (following much the philosophy of the General Instructions--making the call more important than the umpire's ego--and thereby getting the play right). Since OBR does not address this issue specifically and Fed does, cannot the philosophy be transferred. I recall you once writing a thought similar to:
when a question is not specifically addressed by one set of rules, one may logically transfer a finding that specifically addresses that issue through a different set of rules.
Is that not what could be considered here in determining whether changing a call like this legal or illegal? Is not what Moose presented in his argument that which you in the past have stated as appropriate? Can you not see the importance in our knowing what is "official" and what is opinion? It allows us to know what rigidity and flexibility we have in our decisionmaking.
There seems to much question about the legality of such rare actions (that, BTW, are occurring more and more certainly at the amateur level). Would it not seem logical that, indeed, this specific ruling would apply mor3e to amateurs since most leagues are working with youmger, less trained umpires versus the players and trained officials in the Pros? BTW, I do consider the Fed casebook as authoritative opinion but fully realize it is not official for OBR.
I apologize for questioning your "official" status and suspect you won't like that. I hope, however, you will respond so we may all have better understanding of what is "official" and what is opinion and how all your readers may differentiate such within your posts.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
|