[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

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.

One great difficulty in jousting with Freix is his inability to get his facts straight. Childress references Animal Farm. Proved wrong, so Freix says I've altered my posts. Childress misquoted Osborne about "idiot umpires" and so held him up to ridicule. Proved wrong: Freix revealed Osborne as the culprit, not me. Childress has "argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls...." Not so: That was Warren Willson's argument, not mine. That's 0 for 3.

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.

Despite the fact the game under discussion was played under NCAA rules, everyone seems bent on discussing OBR statutes. I supposed the JEA should be accepted then. Here's Jim Evans:

When a certain category of “obvious” errors exists, a partner is expected to move in and help rectify the mistake. These errors do not involve plays in which the umpire’s judgment is in question but rather the conditions under which the decision was made. [An example:] 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. (9:15)

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. BTW, if the words change, how can we trust the messenger to be certain he is delivering the correct words?

The principle did not change. If one member of his audience cannot make proper inference from one statement of the principles, the good writer tries a second, or a third statement.

To wit:

A non-verbal call is still a decision by the umpire. Some decisions must be announced: "Yes, he went." Some decisions are not usually announced: The ball comes very close to the batter, he hits the dirt, and the umpire says: "Ball!" Implicit in that call is the non-announced decision: "Well, whatever you think, the pitch didn't hit him."

But the ultimate bit of tomfoolery is this statement:

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.

Assume for a moment that Freix is correct here: Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play.

My first question is: How did Ontiveros get on first? Freix must say: "U2 ruled the ball hit him."

My second question is: When Ontiveros started to first the instant he ball nicked his heel, why didn't he continue? Freix must say: "???"

Ford made an unannounced call: "The ball didn't hit him." Then, he announced his call: "Come back to the plate."

Finally: What is the big deal? The purpose of my list was to help umpires identify those situations where they must or could change calls. The fact that I made that list should work in its favor with most umpires, as indeed it did. The difficulty as I have said repeatedly is that one group will turn cartwheels to avoid accepting any message when they don't like the messenger. This thread is a perfect example.