View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 25, 2011, 04:09pm
AtlUmpSteve AtlUmpSteve is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Understood (and in my game this is moot - I'm asking my partner immediately in this sitch). However, is not the appeal to ask your partner for help just exactly the same as any other appeal to ask your partner for help? In ANY other situation, if you were asked to confer with partner and it resulted in a changed call, you would rectify the situation with ANY runners that were disadvantaged by the initial call. The clinics I'm referring to are using this same logic. In this situation, had the correct call been made (or the appeal been made immediately), the batter would have easily made 1st base on his own. But solely because of the delayed nature of the overturned call, he's screwed. And that is wrong.
Except that the very nature of an appeal is, by definition, a delayed call.

Try this one. R1 misses 2nd on the way to 3rd; ball is thrown into the dugout. R1 doesn't retrace and retouch 2nd, so umpire awards home.

Defense then appeals that R1 missed 2nd. Do you now refuse to honor the appeal because the defense waited, and the offense failed to retrace to touch? Do you accept the argument by OC that R1 WOULD have retraced had you announced what you might rule if appealed, or started the appeal before it actually was appealed, and that the delay in the appeal is now a delayed or reversed call where you must protect R1?

Tell me what the difference is, then (assuming you have the answers I expect). In both cases, the offense is in jeopardy because of an act by the offense. In both cases, the "appeal" is a delayed act. In which case do we refuse to rule?
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote