Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Justme
Actually, when you read the "NCAA baseball" umpire instructions (my 2nd long post) you'll see the pulled foot addressed in (f).
|
Justme,
I assume you are referring to (my
emphasis):
Quote:
|
F) Judgment calls, which have traditionally not been subject to reversal include: steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire’s knowledge as discussed above); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and foot is not pulled); balls and strikes (other than check swings). This practice shall continue. Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems. An example is a “catch/no catch” with multiple runners.
|
Yes?
What this passage actually says is that the call in the situations discussed in this thread (i.e. erroneous out call on a pulled foot, erroneous safe call on an "unobserved" but successful swipe tag) should NOT be reversed.
Because they are both judgement calls...
which have traditionally not been subject to reversal...
and
this practice shall continue.
While I would not argue against the position that the good of the game is more important than the umpire's ego, I might be willing to engage in a debate on the question of whether or not the good of the game is best served by reversing a judgement call - even if said judgement call was incorrect.
Two different questions in my mind.
I've observed the trend you mention in MLB. I'm not so sure it's a good thing.
In a related vein, my opinion is that the use of instant replay as an element of officiating in football (both the NFL and NCAA) is detrimental to the good of the game and has resulted in a mild deterioration of the quality of officiating.
JM