[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

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?

My goodness, the plays aren't the same, are they?

Play 1: In the November play, in a two-man crew the coach went to the partner and the partner then went to the UIC to beg for a change. Too late. He had his chance to make the call and skipped it. The UIC is under no obligation to change the call -- and shouldn't. He has NO real assurance that the umpire saw the call because everything is colored by the presence of the coach.

Play 2: In the Texas play in a four-man crew, the coach went to the UIC, then to Bible, then the crew met without the coach and discovered the discrepancy. The plate umpire then determined that U2 had seen the HBP. Remember: the coach and U2 never talked together. Consequently, the home plate umpire could be absolutely certain the coach had not put pressure on the second-base umpire.

Two different situations, all colored by the fact that the umpire in the FIRST play did not act properly -- twice.

"Carpe diem" is my advice to field umpires in a two-man crew.