Call vs. decision !!!
It should be noted that topics regarding changing a call developed from what actually is done, to what could be done, to what should be done, and what is legal to be done. Much of the rhetoric and confusion is occurring because of mixing arguments reflecting the various positions. I will attempt to identify which of the above is being addressed throughout this post.
__________________________________________________ _________
QUESTION #1: Is this a judgement call?
ANSWER : Yes
Whether a ball struck or did not strike a batter is a judgement call. It is not a rules misinterpretation.
__________________________________________________ _
(QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter
After the ensuing conferences, the 2BU admitted that he did see the batter struck by the ball. Even though retroactively, there indeed was conlicting calls made by two umpires. (My underline emphasis)
The mistake that was made by 2BU was his failure to call the hit-by-pitch right away.
___________
QUESTION #2: Were 2 calls made on the same play to justify changing a call? Should this call have been reversed for that reason?
Answer : "NO"
Jim, to say that U2 made a "call" on the batter IS ludicrous. To say U2 may have made a decision in his mind which he did not announce is more accurate. Announcing that decision when the decision does not belong to him is, indeed, the act of making a call. Therefore, no announcement, no call. He may provide his decision to PU when PU asks for it. Furthermore, as Peter pointed out in his hypothetical situation (which WAS taken out of context by Childress) the BU doesn't belong at this level if he provides his "decision of what occurred" to the irate coach instead of PU. We should all agree on that. No?
PU did not call the HBP either. That, "no call" by the PU indeed is a call since the call belongs to PU. His "no call" is in effect stating that the ball did not contact the batter. No different than PU makes a "no call" regarding HBP on every other pitch which does not contact the batter. PU is not required or expected to state on every pitch that it did not hit the batter. His lack of stating that it hit the batter is a "call" that it did not.
__________________________________________________ ________
QUESTION #3: Does U2 have any legal right to make a call in this situation?
ANSWER : I don't know, but I don't think so.
Keep in mind, by all sets of rules (OBR, NCAA, Fed) the duty of the PU is to "make all decisions on the batter". Childress, in his later post, refused to address the issue pointed out by the wording of the rule. His response ridiculed me for addressing NCAA situation by referencing an OBR rule (which reads the same as NCAA). Now that I have addressed his nitpicking issue, I hope he will take the time to address the real issue (rather than circumvent it). Childress indicated the BU had "concurrent jurisdiction" with the PU on the HBP call. Based upon the indisputable wording of the rules of ALL rulebooks, I disagree.
Therefore, I wish to see this point refuted by anyone believing a field ump has "official or legal right and/or duty given to him by the rulebook to make the call of HBP on the batter. This is not legally "concurrent jurisdiction" as indicated so by Childress.
Now, don't get me wrong, I agree BU's coming in to help is done and should be done as we do it through history, tradition, and common practice meeting the General Instructions to Umpires. I, however, must question its legality. Perhaps legal through authoritiativie opinion or official interpretation? C'mon guys, why is opinion or official interpretation even needed. Read the rule------PU had duty to "make all decisions on the batter" Exactly what gray area needs interpreting here? What is not understood?
__________________________________________________ _________
QUESTION #4: Does authoritative opinion or official interpretation take precedence over rules "not in question?"
That is, rules that are so specific they leave no doubt as to their meaning and intent.
ANSWER : No (in my opinion)
Authoritative opinion and official interpretation needs to be used to clarify the rules, not to change them. Childress in the past stated it was his opinion that the General Instructions to Umpires should be ignored. He used statements from Jim Evans and/or NL training guide to support this opinion. As I see it, the General Instructions were put in the book for a reason and are still part of every book (to the best of my knowledge). They are still contained in new books being printed. They must have amended the book in the 60's or 70's to put in the DH rule. If the General Instructions were outdated, they could have been removed at that time were it meant to be. They chose not to. I will accept usage of the General Instructions as part of the rulebook (not part of the rules) over the "opinion" of Childress. Furthermore, I will likely not accept a rule change that does not involve a questionable area of the rules merely because it is an unofficial "official interpretation" delivered by Childress. A rule change needs to occur by amending the rulebook and not through an unofficial delivery means. (Regardless of how knowledgeable and accurate the messenger may be). I will accept unofficial "official interpretations" delivered by Childress for areas of the rules that have questions primarily because we have no better "official" means of delivery that I am aware of.
__________________________________________________ _______
In conclusion, the reversal of the call in the Texas / Stanford game does not qualify according to the list of 5 acceptable changes presented to us as unofficial "official interpretation". Therefore, to reverse the decision as was done would be not be "by the rules". Therefore, using Warren's previous logic, it would be illegal and protestable.
I should not fail to add that the situation falls into one discussed by Childress whereby one ump may add information to the decision of another ump, thereby allowing the call to be reversed. However, it ain't in the list of 5. If it ain't in the list of 5 it just can't be legal without breaking the rules. That has been the position of Warren Willson as Childress so accurately pointed out my mistake (of attributing that position to Childress). So those who follow the black & white of the rules-----don't reverse the call.
Those Neo-Romantics such as Jon Bible and myself who are not afraid to understand the intent and meaning of the rules and apply them while on the field may go against the teachings of Childress and reverse a call in that situation. We will follow the General Instructions and make it more important to do our jobs amd get the call right for the sake of the game----as opposed to protecting our dignity and egos.
I believe if Childress were to follow his own policies and writings he must admit this call should never have been reversed. Is that true? The readers truly want to know, "Would Childress have reversed the call had he been UIC and not provided the immediate, necessary assistance from his BU's? Now, will this question get answered? I hear the drum roll................. His readers, inquiring minds want to know!!!
Jim Porter (quoted to Bfair):
Well, we've certainly found the relationship between this tough call at UT and the list. Now all you have to do is open up your mind just a little bit and let the sun shine in!
Jim, the only relationship I have seen is the continued efforts to attempt to put a size 12 foot into a size 10 shoe. People keep looking for any excuse to "legalize" the action. I have already legalized through the analogy of the General Instructions. You won't find it elsewhere. That dog just won't hunt.
It is the hypocrisy of attempting to support the action for one and not looking to support it for the other that also bothers me at times. Those who have followed all the posts know what I mean. Huh, good buddy!
Certainly, we all hope these situations will be few and far between. We must acknowledge, however, they do occur and they occur even moreso with umps less trained (and less paid) than those at the Professional level---despite the fact that we wish to continue to try to maintain the professional standards. My belief is to try to get the call right wherever it is feasible based on the happenings of the game. I think that is what occurred in Texas / Stanford.
Just my opinion,
Bfair
Steve Freix
The Neo-Romantic
The Neo-Know-Nothing
[Edited by Bfair on Feb 24th, 2001 at 03:03 PM]
|