[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
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.

No-one EVER claimed it was "a rules misinterpretation".

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. ---[snip]---

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.

The ONLY real justification for your position here is that U2 did NOT, in your opinion, have "concurrent jurisdiction" over this call with the PU. In other words, you are chosing YOUR opinion over that of any other source of expertise. THAT IS JUST FLAT WRONG! You say you won't accept Childress' unofficial "official interpretations" (sic), but how about Jim Evans in his Official Baseball Rules Annotated? Here is what he has to say on this subject (Carl Childress has already given you this information but it appears you either didn't bother to read it or you simply chose to ignore it because it came from Childress):

"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...

This procedure would be followed when it appears to the base umpire that the plate umpire based his judgment call on something his partner obviously did not see...

PLAY: 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." {my bold and underline}

It is clear from this that, even though a ball hitting or not hitting the batter is clearly (a) a judgement decision and (b) normally reserved to the Plate Umpire, there ARE circumstances where the Base Umpire has equal or joint jurisdiction in making the call. No-one really cares whether you accept that or not, Steve, any more than they care whether or not I do - and I certainly DO!

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.

---[snip]--- 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?

It is the right to change a call where two umpires have made different calls on the same play that is the LEGAL issue, Steve. The LEGALITY of that is spelled out in OBR 9.04(c). No-one EVER claimed it was necessarily LEGAL, by the rule book definition, for the two officials to be making the call on this particular play. It was instead claimed that it was HISTORY and TRADITION, coupled with the Professional practice as outlined in JEA 9.15, that makes this call one of equal or concurrent jurisdiction for the Base Umpire. It appears in the List of 5 Legally Changable Calls because it is LEGAL to change the call under OBR 9.04(c), but the basis for making those calls of equal or concurrent jurisdiction is in JEA 9.15 and not the rule book. No-one really cares whether or not you, personally, accept that any more than they care whether or not I do. The facts remain unchanged either way.!

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. ---[snip]--- 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.

I do not recall Carl Childress saying the General Instructions to Umpires should be "ignored", as you claim. I do recall him saying they were "outdated" and needed to be viewed in the context of current professional practice and reinterpreted. I certainly remember him referring you to a Jim Evans commentary on those General Instructions, which appears as an Appendix to his Official Baseball Rules Annotated. The General Instructions were NEVER intended to take precedence over the actual rules, and clearly do NOT form a part of the rules themselves.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is NOT shared by the majority of thinking officials world wide. The undisputable FACT is that the NAPBL makes interpretations that DO "change" rather than simply "clarify" the rules, as do the MLB professionals. Most of us choose to follow those changes because IT IS THEIR RULE BOOK we are following. If you have any doubt about that, check the Forward to your inviolate Official Baseball Rules, and you will see that it was "written to cover the playing of baseball games by professional teams of the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, and the leagues which are members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues." If THEY say THEY want THEIR rules changed by making interpretations to that effect then MOST sensible, thinking officials will ACCEPT THEIR CHANGES as "official" and so a part of the actual rules themselves, and by extension LEGAL.

Again, no-one really cares what YOU personally think about official interpretations and authoritative opinion, much less what you personally think about Carl Childress as a "delivery means", any more than they really care what I think about those things. Each will make his own decision. I am of the opinion that MOST will choose, as I certainly do, to accept these sources out of simple common sense. Whether you choose to accept or reject these sources is entirely up to you.

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.

Just flat WRONG, Steve.

As Jim Porter pointed out, a call (or a no call) is a decision and vice versa. In this situation there were clearly at least 2 separate decisions. OBR 9.04(c) tells how to legally change a call when there are two separate decisions on the same play which differ. It is LEGAL to change a judgement call when there are 2 separate and different judgement decisions made on the same play by different umpires.

Like Jim, I've had way too much of this discussion over the several threads. It seems only to be Steve "Bfair" Freix, Peter "His High Holiness" Osborne and Mike "BJMoose" Branch who disagree, and all are avowed members of the same clique (EWS). If Steve, and others like him, are not convinced now then they never will be. That's too bad, but that's also life. Whether any individual chooses to believe Steve Freix, Peter Osborne and Mike Branch, OR Warren Willson, Carl Childress, Jim Porter, Jim Evans and the OBR is entirely up to each person following this discussion.

I have broken my own vow not to respond to Steve's posts, by posting this response. I made that vow and so it was mine to break, just like the NAPBL and MLB make the rules and so those rules are theirs to interpret AND change. I felt that the issues were so confused by Steve's post that they deserved to be finally reclarified and the balance redressed. I will now return to honoring my vow and not post in response to this poster. Like Jim Porter, I will not respond any more on this issue.



[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 24th, 2001 at 06:30 PM]