Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Jim, someone emailed me and said YOU may have this confused with a thread where PBUC ruled that a "called" out and a "declared" out are the same. Not a decision and a call. The difference between a decision and a call being, in fact, the verbal announcement (declaration) of the decision. I think it is ludicrous to think a decision and a call are one in the same. If that were true, anytime my partner made a call whereby in my mind I disagreed with it, by your logic it would mean we have two calls and can take that which we elect to take.
|
Jim Porter is not saying that disagreeing with your partner's "call" means two umpires have made different "calls" or "decisions" on the same play. He is simply saying that when two umpires have concurrent jurisdiction and an announced "decision" is overturned, it MUST mean the umpires made different "calls" or "decisions" on the same play. Otherwise, what's to overturn?
Quote:
|
What I would prefer would be to see a reference to the old thread or at least to where I might go to view this unofficial "official interpretation". Is it in NAPBL or perhaps a site I can link to? How about an MLB site I can go to? I will at least go to the old thread if you will identify it. I suspect others may also care to review it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in a forum topics were duplicated---although your statement appears there may not be much worth in it.
|
The original discussion was indeed about the difference between "declare" and "call." Here's a URL where you can read the decision, independent of anyone on this Board:
http://<a href="http://web2.airmail..../index.htm</a>
Quote:
|
It is a fascinating topic that many may with to discuss who were not around a year ago. BTW, if it is, indeed, an "official interpretation" I will only think of it then as a ludicrous interpretation, as I suspect many will. Furthermore, if there is difficulty in finding it for review, it only epidomizes the method of providing unofficial "official interpretation" and requesting it to be adhered to.
|
Here is more of your typical nonsense: "It can't be official because nobody told me." Because Freix doesn't like it, it's a "ludicrous interpretation." You are simply amazing. You go farther and farther down the road toward the town called Isolation. It's a tiny spot, hardly large enough to appear even on the most gigantic Atlas. It is peopled entirely by egocentrics, skeptics, romantics, manics, and paranoiacs. Quite often, an inhabitant might exhibit two or more of the personality flaws.
Listen to the depths to which your ideas have sunk:. To continue to uphold a lost cause, you are reduced to arguing that a "decision" is different from a "call." Freix, how many angels
can sit on the head of a pin?
Quote:
|
No, Jim, we are not overboard nor is it overboard to question Regalistic statements such as a "decision" and a "call" are exactly the same thing". It is improper to think that these should be accepted as unquestioned doctrine. It should not go unquestioned since a decision and a call are logically not the same. Some justification other than "accept it because I have said it" is required, at least by me.
|
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
to call: To declare in the capacity of an umpire or referee: call a runner out; call a foul on a boxer; call a penalty for holding.
to decide: To pronounce a judgment; announce a verdict.
The verbs in one true sense are the same.
In that play from so long ago: Ford beckons the batter back to the plate. In effect: "You weren't hit by the pitch." After consultation with U2, Ford sends the batter to first. In effect: "You were hit by the pitch." Two umpires made different calls, announced separately it is true, but different calls.
If there had been no different call, the batter would have remained in the box.
What is the big, freaking deal here? We know from the mouth of the first base umpire in that game what happened. We know why it happened. All of the opposition in this thread has come from a tiny grouup of umpires, many living in Isolation, who refuse to accept my rendering of what the traditions of baseball have established as the legal situations where a "call" or "decision" may be reversed.
To borrow from The Godfather, "It's personal, Sonny, not business."
You know it, and I know it.
I will now join Warren and others; I have made my final comment on the "Texas Play" and on "The List of Five."