[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Windy....serious question....

You went on a lengthy tirade(s) in the past re: getting the call right. Here's a case where Davidson's partner may have blundered in making the call, but his partner still had the right call after he did make it. Making the right call doesn't really seem like a "blunder" to me. Davidson then reversed the right call into an incorrect call. Now, that's seems completely at odds to me somehow with the concept of "getting the call right".

What am I missing?

JR, as oft before, we disagree. I will be polite about this since you are beginning in the same vein. 'Getting the call right' is about making sure that the call that should be made gets made. You have an umpire who admittedly made the improper appeal call (many would call that a blunder, but some are confused by the synonym). That was his mistake and he admitted as much. The appeal call should have been handled by the PU, but Knight jumped the gun in his zeal to perform. Bob Davidson who was charged with making the call and is desgignated as crew chief, saw it much differently. He was convinced that the player gained an unfair advantage and when asked, went to his partners and informed them of what he saw, then he penalized it. As proferred before, in real time this play was much more difficult.

Is it possible to actually get a call like this "right" without using replay?

Yes, you know it is. Although you are not a baseball umpire, you see split second timing calls on the basketball court all of the time. Two officials can see the same play and call it differently. (This is illustrated at numerous winter clinics.) However, in MLB a crew member is designated as chief and required to correct any improper ruling. An umpire on Davidson's crew incorrectly ruled on the appeal play. Davidson was charged with 'getting it right.'

Imagine how it would feel when you saw the same thing. You are absolute in your convictions - the runner left early and the appeal is coming. The pitcher toes the rubber...the toss to the base...AND YOUR PARTNER INTERJECTS HIMSELF WITH THE OPPOSITE CALL! Knight is lucky Davidson didn't pee himself laughing at that blunder. I'm not privy to Knight's biography, but how much four man mechanics do you have to work before you know who handles the runner on third? There are people here who knew the mechanics and work a handful of four man in their lifetimes.

As for replay, I've mentioned it before and I'll reiterate; it is a necesary evil of the future. This is a prime example and Davidson would surely have seen what all of us did in slow motion. If you insist that Davidson did this just for ego sake, he would gain as much 'glory' by interpeting the replay correctly as he did by stepping in here. Replay was designed for plays just like this - I would love to be able to read a Japanese newspaper to see the reaction.