[EsqUmp]

Well the proof is in the pudding, folks. When you make the call first, then reverse it, there are problems. Saying that you "did things as taught" doesn't make it right because it doesn't make the teaching right.

How can anyone logically argue that it is wiser to guess a call, hope it isn't argued, but if it is, go for help then? How can anyone further argue that doing that is better than simply doing something to get the call right in the first place?

Everything we do on the field is in an effort to get calls right. Why in this case do we change that?

"Well, you called what you saw so great job buckaroo!" BS - Not knowing what you saw is not calling what you saw. It's calling what you didn't see. In this case, an out is called despite not seeing the foot on the base.

I would implore people to forgot what they were taught initially. Just envision the play. Envision how it would LOGICALLY, not historically, best be handled. Come to a conclusion that creates the least controversy, doesn't look as if a coach is influencing an umpire, keeps the coaches in the dugout, gets the call right from the start and doesn't put players in jeopardy.

In what walk of life does it not make sense to use a source of information to check or confirm something, rather than screwing it up and trying to rectify it?

If you're not sure whether you have your house keys on you, do you conclude, "Yeah, I must have them," then lock the door behind you saying, "Well, if I don't, I can always call a lock smith?" Or is it more logical to just check from the start?