Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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?
|
Then you don't understand my position. My position is simply that doing our job, making a call that is, by its very nature, subject to an appeal, isn't putting the BR in jeopardy. The batter either swung, or not; we are directed to call it a nonswing and appeal if we are unsure. The result of that appeal is the result of the batter's actions.
What I don't understand is why an umpire I respect thinks that we shouldn't allow that appeal, that doing our job as prescribed should be ignored. Why he would take a position that supercedes what I consider the prime directive; to get it right, within the rules and mechanics for softball umpires. I hear his argument; since it is clear to me, at least, that allowing the appeal is appropriate, and that the batter's actions are the basis of jeopardy, or not, not the umpire doing his job, I don't get how he is stuck on that. Or that doing the job as expected is expected, not stopping to worry about how doing it right might contribute to one team winning or losing. That isn't jeopardy, or 10-3-C; we do our job.
At least, that seems clear to me.