|
Again, Carl Childress, I agree with much of what you say. As I stated I learn much from your statements of when to, and when not to.
However, you did not fully address the editorial reversal, which was indeed the main point of my last post. What caused this editoririal reversal?? We can see and understand what caused you to make or not make a call on the field, but I still can't understand what caused a position to change 180 degrees in 3 months.
_________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________ _____
Inquiring people want to know ???
It is not the specific play in Texas. Read the last post. It, indeed, is claiming a position one day, verifying it through rule and official interpretation, and the changing the next day. What happened to all the rule and interpretation used to make the first position stand?
Can't you see how this should cause readers to question the content or the intent? 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? Can you not understand after having read the first stance how I felt the second stance was merely to "cover your butt" based on the List of 5 Changeable Calls? One day this doesn't fit, the next day it does---by stretching it into two calls (neither call declared). Please advise, what has changed to cause this change in position??
Just a point,
Steve
Member
EWS
(BTW, perhaps I was wrong in believing your first post, but I knew I had seen it and remembered it. At least I try to remember---whether you believe that or not).
|