[Dakota]

OK, you need to quit mining the rule book for ways you think your team got screwed. Instead, you need to begin to actually understand the rule book.

What happened in the first situation of your OP was not an appeal, even though players and coaches frequently call it that. What it was was asking the calling umpire to get help from his partner. If the calling umpire believes his partner may have seen something he did not, it is entirely proper for him to ask for help through a conference. When this happens, the umpire is not being reversed by his partner. He is getting additional information from his partner and based on that, reversing his own call. Sometimes this happens very publicly (e.g. a check swing "appeal" - that is also not an appeal, and the plate umpire is, by nature of his asking his partner, agreeing to go with the partner's call). Sometimes, it happens just between the umpires during the conference, with the decision being announced after the conference.

What happened in the second case of your OP is the plate umpire saw that he did not have a good view of the play, saw that his partner was in position with a good view, and gave the call up to him. Whether or not this is good practice is debatable, but it is allowed. It can work well between umpires who are very accustomed to working together.

In your final case, the BU should be ashamed of himself for how he acted, but his refusal to discuss the play was proper, since you asked the wrong umpire - you need to ask the umpire that made the call. He is correct that the umpires cannot meet and then "overturn one another" --- that is not what happens; see my explanation above.

As I said, learn the rule book instead of trying to proof text with it.