The infamous list (previously posted by Carl Childress):
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!
1. Two umpire make opposite calls on the same play. I argue that one of those calls will be legally changed to match the other. Does anyone disagree?
2. The plate umpire calls "Ball, no he didn't go!" and the catcher asks him to get help. The appropriate base umpire may legally say, "Yes, he did." (9.02c CMT) Does anyone disagree?
3. An umpire misinterprets a rule, and another umpire corrects his error. (9.02b and c) Does anyone disagree?
4. A call of foul is changed to fair or a home run becomes a double (also vice versa). Fitzpatrick interpretation, common practice in the major leagues. Does anyone disagree that it occurs? Does anyone disagree that it is done legally?
5. A ball comes loose on a tag for an out, and another umpire sees it. (9.02c; JEA) Does anyone disagree?
If you believe there are other instances that can be legally changed, please post them and the authoritative opinion supporting that ruling.
__________________________________________________ _________
Carl Childress (quoted from this thread):
Childress from here on out.- One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
- Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
- Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
- After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted.
Since it was the
right call properly arrived at, nobody was ejected. That kind of teamwork in the crew is what makes college ball so much fun.
__________________________________________________ ________
First and most importantly. Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play. That dog just don't hunt. It is ludicrous to try to sell it as anything different. Reviewing the play situation shows there were not opposing calls on the batter. Pure and simple.
Secondly, the coach came out to argue a judgement call. Whether or not a batter is hit is, indeed, a judgement call (Until you refute it) As you have argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls, yet alone have a judgement call reversed as a result of his argument
Thirdly, elsewhere in the thread it is referred to as "concurrent jurisdiction".
I will quote rule 9.04A(4):
The umpire-in-chief.....usually called the plate umpire....His duties shall be to make all decisions on the batter."
I will question the concurrent jurisdiction. Furthermore, I must question any authoritative opinion or official interpretation that states otherwise. No jurisdiction applies on this judgement call until such time as asked by UIC. Furthermore, application of authoritative opinion and official interpretation is for questions arising regarding areas not specifically defined in the rulebook. It provides opinion or interpretation on the "gray" areas left open by the rules. Now, read the above rule. What gray area needs opinion or interpretation? What don't you understand as to who the call belongs to regarding the hit batsman? Did he ask for help when the call was made? No. If we are going to
legally change this phrase, it needs to be done by revision, not opinion or interpretation. I need somewhere to believe what I read in the book.
Now, do we as BU all help in these scenerios? Yes. Are we doing it in accordance with the rules? Let's wait for Carl's answer. He likely has it prepared already I am certain. Much of this info is from thread he may already have---just no one else.
In closing please note how the wording of the original list submitted changed from 2 umpires making opposing
calls to the rephrasing of 2 umpires making concurrent
decisions. We even had one decision referred to as "announced" as opposed to an "unannounced" decision in this thread. I am afraid of this explanation, who has jurisdiction in the future on the "unannounced" decisions, and how often as an umpire I need to make the check for the unannounced decision? BTW, does the mechanics book provide a signal for that decision?
I look forward to an explanation that refers to calls, not decisions. Otherwise, I will feel like one of the animals watching the words change on the list of rules in "Animal Farm".
BTW, if the words change, how can we trust the messenger to be certain he is delivering the correct words?
Just a thought and opinion,