Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Peter:
I'm curious how far you would go with "getting it right." Would you go to the point of perhaps getting it wrong to get it right?
Example:
At officiating.com there is an article in which it is suggested that if one umpire feels the other made an error, say in a base award or such, he should first go to the other umpire and explain what he feels would be the appropriate award. If, given that information, the original umpire still believed he was right and did not change his call, the author recommends that the other umpire overrule him and change the call himself.
|
Garth;
I do not recall the article which you are talking about and it appears to refer to a rules issue rather than a judgment call which is a horse of a different color. Let's get back to basics.
There is an issue that most of the responders seem unable to grasp. I hate to sound like Windy here,
but I have come to the conclusion one needs to have umpired at a high level for more than 10 years to understand the transformation that baseball has undergone with regards to changed calls.
Ten years or so ago, I was umpiring a college game. I was the PU and there was a play at first where the first baseman clearly trapped the ball and quickly picked it up. I saw it, the third base coach saw it, but the BU and first base coach were blocked out. The BU called an out, the first base coach, thinking that it was the right call, said nothing. The third base coach charged across the diamond breathing fire.
When this occurred (about 1994), there was no way that I was going to go to my partner to tell him what happened. There was no way that my partner was coming to me for help. Because it was college baseball and the coaches knew the umpire protocols, the third base coach (he also was the head coach) never even asked the BU to get help. He and the BU went at it for a minute or so before he got ejected. The call never got changed and we never discussed it (until after the game.)
The evaluator met us in the parking lot, acknowledged the bad call and instructed the BU on ways to get into a better position to see dropped balls. The issue of checking with the plate man never came up. It was inconceivable to everyone (umpires and coaches) that a plate man would have an reason to insert himself into a dropped ball call at first. (Swipe tags and pulled foot were the only acceptable calls for help.)
Had that play occurred today, the third base coach would never have had to cross the diamond. I would signal my partner, wave off the third base coach, and the call would be changed before anyone had a chance to argue. Had I not done that, the evaluator would have met us in the parking lot and we both would have got an earful.
It was simply inconceivable 10 years ago that an umpire would insert himself into a play and strongly suggest that a call be changed. To quote rule 9.02c is disingenous at best. The pro rules have not undergone any major changes in 20 years, yet the interpretations and philosophy behind them have undergone radical change.
The posters here, with few exceptions, have not been working NCAA or minor league baseball for 10 years or more. They cannot appreciate the sea change in philosophy that has taken place. So, they endlessly argue semantics about who changes the call and how it is changed.
From my perspective, Reliford changed the call and initiated the change. Crawford acquiesced because he knew the consequences of sticking to his guns.
Finally, rarely are we dead sure of a call. On all close ones, there is always some doubt unless we are delusional. To raise the issue of being dead sure is another red herring. If I am dead sure, usually so is everyone else and we would not be having the argument.
Peter