Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Despite your habit of presenting and co-mingling your opinions and interpretations with the unofficial "official interpretations", I do admire your rules knowledge. However, please remember my preference is to think and understand rather than to merely accept doctrine. It is not wrong to question that which you do not understand and that which is illogical. I do not stand alone.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
[/B]
|
First, the difference between EWS and the rest of us is that we leave our opinions outside the gate when we step onto the field. I may feel that we should "get it right at all costs," but I won't compromise my philosophy with the illegality of changing a call. And who are we to argue what is legal and what is not? If Carl says that "such and such" is an official ruling, I'd bet money he's right. The man is a distinguished author of many articles and books related to umpiring, so why would he tarnish his reputation by stating something he knows to be false? Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on. When I first arrived on the umpire boards, I had no idea who Carl Childress was. I remember one of my first arguments with him involved charging conferences between innings; after comparing Carl's resume to mine, I realized I had no chance of winning. When are the EWS members going to realize this?
Second, I'm having a difficult time accepting the EWS rationale for the legality (or illegality) of the Texas and Moose plays. You claim that Moose's changed call was legal since Moose received more information from his partner after the play, and then changed his call based on that information. BU rules out, manager comes out to argue, wants BU to ask for help, PU says safe, BU changes call.
How is this different from the Texas play? PU rules no HBP, manager comes out to argue, wants PU to ask for help, U2 says HBP, PU changes call. Carl has given his reasons why the two situations are different (sole vs. concurrent jurisdiction), and I would assume that if there were concurrent jurisdiction on Moose's play, we could make the same justifucation for changing the call. So what's the EWS's stance on this? On Steve's post dated 2/24/01, he states:
"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.". Well, using EWS logic, the Texas crew did it "by the [EWS] book." So, which is it?
Dennis