Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
Tom, by your logic, every checked swing that is called a swing is the reversal of a call; and since it changed the count, it put the batter in jeopardy, so it must be overruled by the plate umpire.
|
You're putting words in my mouth (or out of my keyboard), and that is not remotely close to what I said.
It is not whether the correct call places either team in jeopardy, but rather did the umpire's original call place either team in jeopardy in light of the call reversal. It has nothing to do with the jeopardy that was already there due to the play of the players.
Example: Umpire calls infield fly, batter out, with a runner on 1B only. Defense misses the catch. Batter goes into the dugout. Umpires confer and reverse the call. Is the batter out for entering the dugout?
If you want to take the position in the reversed check swing call that the original call of BALL did NOT unnaturally place the BR in jeopardy due only to the umpire's call (and not the player's play), then fine.
However, that is not the position that WMB is taking. You may not agree with it, but what I don't understand is, why his position is hard to understand?