Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
The rule concerned says that "the manager may elect to take the play". It does NOT say "the umpire shall offer the manager an option to take the play". Do you see the subtle difference here, Pete? For professional leagues at least, the wording of the rule makes it the manager's responsibility to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" unsolicited, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.
[/b]
|
Warren:
Oop! I think you guys are focusing on the wrong word in the rule. The operative word is "
elect." An "election" implies at least TWO possibilities. In this case it's "play" or "penalty." I don't believe the manager is required to vote until he has been informed who the candidates are.
I am researching the issue, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts this mechanics "suggestion" by Evans is a recent change, made simply to get the major league umpires away from the manager and the dugout.
You can argue all you want about the manager's responsibility. But where the rules makers want him or his representative to take full responsibility, they say so:
Check out --
3.06: The manager
shall....
3.10: The manager
shall....
6.07 CMT 1: The umpire shall not....
8.02(c): The manager of the offense
may advise....
In 8.02(c), if you are right, why didn't the language read: "The manager of the offense may elect the..."?
Sorry: There's just not enough "language" in the book to decide what the proper course is. Further, it's not a RULE; it's a mechanics suggestion. Look it: If any major league umpire called catcher's interference, you and I both know he would immediately be surrounded by both managers, and the blue
would explain what could happen.
Q.E.D.