Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
........Bfair's arguement is the age old arguement of "show me the cite, man" and that isn't ALWAYS possible.........
|
Oh,no, Tee. You got me all wrong. Just the opposite of that. Far more like you. I am not looking for boogers nor dotted "i's" or crossed "t's" (no pun intended). Certainly I need to know what the book says and what
should be done so I can make the knowledgeable decision about what
will be done.
My point I try to make here is how those who wish to use the rules
when it favors them do so, however, things change when they wish to cirmumvent the rules. Now, they don't do so necessarily by "not using the rules" , they instead start using different authorities or making their interpretations of today different than their interpretations of yesterday.
However, when someone else admits they "vary" from the book they run the risk of verbal castration if they are not an eUmpire editor. Yet we see eUmpire editors trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to justify a call reversal in Texas because they wish not to offend those involved and the situation didn't fit into the criteria they had established to change a call.
As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas"
_____________________:
(editor's quote)
".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted
______________________
Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________
(same editors's quote)
I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.
I've also taught that once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.
From your post it appears your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."
That's too late, and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.
__________________
Despite the minor differences and the outcome of the plays, the point is
the editor's position changed from November that BU missed his moment to make a call, couldn't come in after the coach appealed, and that at that time
it is too late. However, we have the call in Texas and all of a sudden we have the same editor stating that two conflicting calls were made (both no calls), it is ok to come in after a coach complains, and it's ok to change the call.
The biggest reveral we had here was in the editor. These positions aren't even close to each other. Now, what has really changed since the November post to the post concerning the Texas play. Has there been a new official interpretation we haven't heard about? Maybe it's the people who changed that were involved? Maybe it's the fact that the Texas call did not apparently fall into the List of % Changeable Calls and it had to be
searched to find a way to make it fit?
This is the inconsistency I wish to point out. Are we merely using rules and interpretations to prove what we desire and when we desire. To only prove what we wish to suit the occasion at hand?
When I read a post, now, I not only need to think of the baseball rule application and the intent of the rule, but I now must include the intent of the editor.
I hope I have made my point perfectly clear.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 03:15 PM]