Quote:
Originally posted by LDUB
But this part does not make sense to me, if Reliford did not see the play, then whey did he call the ball fair? If I am unsure about a call, I would ask my partners for help before I made the call. I think it would have looked a whole lot better if the umpires could have just gotten together and made one call and stuck with it. It would also have save Reliford a lot of grief that he got from Guillen.
|
I disagree. Reliford called what he saw (even if it was "wrong"). His call becomes the "default" decision -- overturned only with clear evidence. If he didn't make a call, what would have happened if no one else saw it? That would be a worse situation.
As far as the word "override" is concerned, I prefer "provided additional information and the call was changed." Sure -- "override" describes that, but it is too often heard as "unilaterally changed another umpire's call."
The problem with using it is that too many coaches, players, umpires buy into the belief that the plate umpire can "override"
any decision the base umpire makes. So, in a youth game, BU Young Reliford makes a call on a play at first, and the coach screams, "Hey PU -- you've got to override that call. The MLB umpires overrode the BU's call in teh Sox-Cubs game last week."
(It's like the term "reach" in basketball -- "reach" is a good layman's description of a kind of foul, but not all reaches are fouls.)