Quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
At the risk of appearing to change my position on the entire "changable calls" issue, I wish to take issu with the above assertion. Of course, it sounds quite reasonable at first. After all, final means final. However, upon further examination, it is not true.
Let us take an analagous example in that of the Supreme Court of the United States....
---[snip]---
In baseball, then, the conclusion is obvious. A coach/team member may not influence a change a "final" judgement decision, but the one who made it certainly may.
However, that doesn't mean they SHOULD--an important distinction.
|
Why go to the US Supreme Court, Patrick? There is an analogy in the very rules under discussion! Look at OBR 9.04(c) and you can read the following:
"
After consultation, the umpire-in-chief ... shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made" {my emphasis}
The point you are making is valid, but your conclusion drawn from that point is quite wrong. Look at it this way:
1. A judgement decision of the umpire is final [OBR 9.02(a)]
2. Therefore changing such a judgement decision is ILLEGAL viz "contrary to these rules" [OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL]
3. In accordance with the principles you put forward, only the rule makers can change the rules, not the people enforcing them.
4. Therefore, the umpire cannot change his OWN judgement decision, once made, unless the rules ALLOW him to do so.
5. OBR 9.02(c) Note, OBR 9.04(c), PBUC interpretations and JEA 9.15 all provide LEGAL occasions when the rules, and decisions made under them, may be changed.
It is important to note that an umpire
immediately changing his mind while in the midst of making his decision is NOT considered changing a judgement decision. That is the rationale for not protesting the "Out - Safe - OUT!" call. Carl calls that "correcting a call". It's a fine distinction but it makes the point. That is entirely different to declaring a runner OUT, despite having seen the ball on the ground, lying to the coach about how the ball got to be on the ground, having that explanation disputed by the coach, going to your partner for help and THEN changing your judgement decision on the initial Safe/Out call! The latter is
clearly ILLEGAL under OBR 9.02(a), and because it is ILLEGAL to change such a judgement decision, doing so anyway becomes legally protestable as a misapplication of the rules of baseball!
"Final" certainly does mean FINAL, unless you are the body making the rules! Individual umpires do NOT make the rules of baseball, even if the US Supreme Court DOES make the rules for your nation. The US Supreme Court notwithstanding, espousing the principle that an official charged with enforcing statutes can decide to read or interpret the rules in any way he sees fit is an anethema. Only those who make the statutes can decide to do that. Where would your great nation be if the people charged with enforcing its decisions in law could look at a Supreme Court decision and say, "
Who cares? I'm going to do it this way because I think the law says something different!" In the case of the rules of baseball there are only 5 acknowledged cases where the "Supreme Court" has allowed for their law, or at least decisions made under that law, to be changed. As for the rest, "FINAL" means FINAL and that, my friend
IS FINAL!
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 09:27 PM]