Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I may or may not like his call, but the temerity he displayed befuddles those who can't accept the MLB mechanic he used. He was the crew chief and over ruled his partner's blunder. Now, you may think that the replay showed otherwise, but he is charged with getting the call right to the best of his ability. It was his call to make and Knight foolishly offered his opinion, rather than wait for the correct umpire to call it. Knight later acknowledged that he erred in ruling on the initial appeal.
First his partner did NOT Blunder. He demonstrated BAD mechanics but his call was CORRECT. The MAIN POINT IMO, (read Garth's response) is that we have had many a Debate on "Getting the Call Right" AT ALL COST and the aforementioned play CLEARLY demonstrats that umpires need to make their OWN Calls PERIOD, RIGHT or WRONG.
Whose to say one umpire had a better view of the play than another, yet we have had responses concerning getting the call right which stated otherwise and they would interject to get the call right.
It might be Outdated, but I still follow Papa C's infamous FAB V of when calls can be changed. Papa C posted it about 4-5 yrs ago and when he posted it, many of a debate followed, but more often then not as we have seen STICK to your OWN calls and Learn.
Knight later acknowledged that he erred in ruling on the initial appeal.
You are not that naive are you? Of Course Knight is going to back his partner. You remember last years ACLS on the imfamous dropped not dropped third strike in the Angels/White-Sox series. The Crew Chief backed the call. What do you think he was going to say so your statement about Knight is absurd. He wouldn't say anything different.
Bottom Line: The theme of the thread IMO was in response to the many threads we have had on those in favor of "Getting the call Right" which has been talked about ad nausem many a time in this Forum.
Pete Booth
|
Good Lord, you just can't help it; of course, Knight blundered. He never should have made the appeal call. Davidson would simply have called the runner out for leaving early. It was his call to make after all - that is elementary four-man mechanics. HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE HIS OWN CALL - PERIOD!
There would have been less controversy if the other umpire had just read the book. You are trying to give him a pass, but Davidson is charged with correcting the mistakes of his crew. When his partner messed up, the controversy was compounded. Stop pretending that Knight wasn't at fault. He didn't have a choice but to acknowledge his mistake. Anyone with a basic knowledge of four man mechanics knows he f-ed up. Equating it to the Championship or World Series' is profoundly absurd. The wrong umpire made an erroneous call versus a blown strike out or running out of the baseline call.
Papa C. had a great mechanic for amateur umpires - if you screw up, who cares? Most of us realize that the most important person on the field isn't the grey haired guy behind the catcher. If you see a player miss home plate, a ball land inches foul or a player tag a runner with the mitt but the ball is in his hand and ignore them, you are inept. If you take the money to do the job, you should take some pride in getting the correct call made. Eating the bad ones just makes you look bad, especially when just about every governing body allows some sort of conferencing of officials. Suggesting that you adhere to an archaic princple out of loyalty is silly. But then again, I've never been accused of being a kiss *** here. The rule and mechanics books change every year for a reason. They help older umpires shed their misconceptions.