Not Jeffrey Maier again!!!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by brumey1107
With regards to 9.02(c)"If a decision is appealed, ..." Did McClelland not change the call before it had a chance to be appealed by the Red Sox manager? Thus McCelland didn't violate this rule.

Btw - McClelland was not only the plate umpire but also crew chief? Doesn't that add any weight to his ability to change the call like he did?

Please the second sentence of 9.02(c)

No umpire shall criticize, SEEK TO REVERSE, or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

McClelland's action, by his own admission to a newspaper reporter, violated this rule.

There is no exemption to 9.02(c) afforded to the crew chief.

[David B]

I agree with Garth on what the book says, but if I'm the crew chief and I know the call is missed I'm going to do exactly what PU did and make the call.

That makes it the right call even if it might not be according to what the books say.

But then we really don't know what the books say anymore though really do we...

Thanks
David

[GarthB]

In this case, McClelland was lucky. He told reporters after the game he was absolutely certain the ball hit the pole and that is why he "overruled" Hernandez. It turns out he was wrong, the ball did not hit the pole, but the end result was the same.

What happens when he is absolutely certain again, and again is wrong, but this time it affects the result negatively?

9.02 (c) is there for excellent reasons. Exceptions not withstanding, baseball, in the long haul, will regret tinkering with it.

[BigUmpJohn]

Originally posted by GarthB
9.02(c)

If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

Could I assume that you got this from the hard copy of the MLB rule book? I didn't see this from the MLB site, and if this is the case, I retract part of my earlier post. McClelland was wrong for overruling the call, I admit. But I still stand by my thinking of getting the call correct no matter what. Again, not trying to be argumentative and I do not claim to be an MLB Umpire.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by BigUmpJohn
[
Could I assume that you got this from the hard copy of the MLB rule book? I didn't see this from the MLB site, and if this is the case, I retract part of my earlier post. McClelland was wrong for overruling the call, I admit. But I still stand by my thinking of getting the call correct no matter what. Again, not trying to be argumentative and I do not claim to be an MLB Umpire.

Yes, I quoted the rule from the Official Rules of Baseball.

My problem is the "no matter what" part of your position. No matter that the spirit and even letter of a the rule is violated? No matter that the call is inconsequential and disrupts the game? No matter that it causes other calls to be wrong? No matter that it places umpires in the position of endless debates with coaches and players? No matter that it pits umpire against umpire?

I agree that getting the call correct is important. But I also believe that getting it correct, correctly is equally important. Nothing is bigger than the game. Not even a missed call.

[Bainer]

Sorry guys, but I've done it. I've just flat-out overruled my partner and slept well afterwards.
I have a real problem with people (the rulebook) using terms like NEVER, ALWAYS, and MUST. Any number of things can happen in a game involving 12+ individuals on the field at the same time, and alot of things are beyond the realm of 'what-if's'.
In my situation, a ball hit into the night deep to right was 'clearly over the fence' according to my partner on the bases, who went out on the hit, but to the rest of us on the field, it obviously short-hopped the fence, and came to rest on the warning track.
I'm not waiting for him to formally ask me in private whether or not I feel that the ball was over the fence- rulebook-be-damned!

For the vast majority of instances where appeals to partners are required, of course it should be requested! I'm not saying that I agree with correcting a partner- " 'safe'. 'No, BOB, he was out!'". But I do believe that if a person interferes with the game, be it a batter, runner, fielder, or OFFICIAL, it is the responsibility of the officials to recify the situation.

GET IT RIGHT, not just RIGHT NOW.



Bainer.

[BigUmpJohn]

Originally posted by GarthB
My problem is the "no matter what" part of your position. No matter that the spirit and even letter of a the rule is violated? No matter that the call is inconsequential and disrupts the game? No matter that it causes other calls to be wrong? No matter that it places umpires in the position of endless debates with coaches and players? No matter that it pits umpire against umpire?

I agree that getting the call correct is important. But I also believe that getting it correct, correctly is equally important. Nothing is bigger than the game. Not even a missed call.

I can see we have some differences in opinion which is great. But, let me warn you, I am a terrible debater.

I agree that not all calls need to be overturned like "He's safe. No Jimmy, he's out." What I am saying is that in a call of that magnitude, and I believe this call was really important IMO, there needs to be a correction. The ball would've hit the pole had the glove not been there. There's no doubt in my mind.

In response to your other questions, I cannot imagine an overturned call which would affect the rest of the game in a matter that you describe. Any umpire should not be affected by a previous call. Take it one at a time. If a coach or player has a beef and argues about a previous call and creates that endless debate, then there's always the parking lot/locker room waiting for him/her. We do not have to put up with that.

I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't have handled it the way McClelland did now that I know the rule, but he got the call correct. Yes, he violated the written rule, but I do not believe the rule was written to pit umpires against each other in argument, just a checks and balances system. If I felt that I was absolutely correct, I would confer with my partner privately even if it wastes time or is inconsequential and yes, even if it may violate the rule. If he thinks I'm wrong, that's fine. That would be an agreement we would have. If I think he's wrong, I would let him know my opinion and we'll weigh what we both saw. I think every call is important--overturned or not.

So, you think the game is more important than the call. I think they both affect each other so the calls need to be made correct. But hey, I'm a softball umpire... what do I know? I don't know if that means anything. My head hurts. Nap time.

Just my opinion, don't shoot me!

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by GarthB
I agree that getting the call correct is important. But I also believe that getting it correct, correctly is equally important. Nothing is bigger than the game. Not even a missed call.

I agree with Garth on this point, and so does the PBUC. Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual, entitled Instructions to Umpires, says in part:

Cooperate with your partners. Help each other. Don't hesitate to ask for assistance if you are blocked out on a play. The main objective is to have all decisions ultimately correct

That tells me two things about making the right call

1. You don't have to get it correct straight away - getting it "ulitimately correct" is what is important

2. There is a process to be followed for dealing with questionable calls - the initiative is with the umpire making the call to "ask for help"

I didn't see the decision in question. I have no opinion on the relative abilities of either McClelland or Hernandez. What I do have is a great belief in the crew system as it is outlined in the rules of the game.

IMHO the ONLY way McClelland should have become involved in this call was if Hernandez asked him OR if another official other than Hernandez OR McClelland made a different call on that same play bringing OBR 9.04(c) into effect.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[brian43]

im sorry i even have to ask this, but who the hell is Jeffrey Maier? his name is in the thread title, cant think of who he is.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by brian43
im sorry i even have to ask this, but who the hell is Jeffrey Maier? his name is in the thread title, cant think of who he is.

He was the 12 year old NY fan who reached over the fence and into the field to snare a Derek Jeeter fly ball that could have been caught, and the umpires ruled it a home run because they thought the ball was going to go over the fence when interferred with.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by brumey1107
With regards to 9.02(c)"If a decision is appealed, ..." Did McClelland not change the call before it had a chance to be appealed by the Red Sox manager? Thus McCelland didn't violate this rule.

Btw - McClelland was not only the plate umpire but also crew chief? Doesn't that add any weight to his ability to change the call like he did?

McClelland violated the part of 9.02(c) that Garth already quoted, but I'll repeat:

No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

McClelland flat out overruled Hernandez's call, and there is simply no basis in rule or professional custom and practice for what he did.

The great irony is that McClelland was almost surely WRONG about what he saw - he has been quoted today as saying that he was certain the ball hit the foul pole, but most observers who have studied the replays are convinced the ball never hit the foul pole; it hit the fan instead.

So as the other thread's title states, McClelland saw it wrong but got it right, for no reason other than luck. He acknowledges that he didn't handle the situation "technically" correctly; I would argue that he didn't handle the situation correctly in substance.

There is precedent for changing a foul call to a homerun; it's even one of Carl's "Fab Five." But you don't change it the way McClelland did. And as can be seen already by the discussion on this and other boards, McClelland's handling of the matter is being lauded by many who subscribe to the "get it right at all costs" philosophy. This play is a bad, bad example of that doctrine, because in this case they got it right for all the wrong reasons.

[gsf23]

If you guys didn't see it, they talked with steve Pailermo (sp?) in the stands. They had said he was in charge of the umpires or something to that affect. He had said that the umpires have been told that if they are absolutely certain that a wrong call was made, they are to correct it immediately. The reason given was so that it doesn't look as if a manager is influencing the decison if it is changed after an argument. Steve also said that if McClelland was positve about what he saw, then he did the right thing in over-ruling Hernandez immediately.

[SC Ump]

9.02(c) is the rule.

But even if that is ignore, how does any one umpire "know" that his view of a play situation is any better than someone else's?

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...437#post106437

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by SC Ump
9.02(c) is the rule.

But even if that is ignore, how does any one umpire "know" that his view of a play situation is any better than someone else's?

He doesn't - not really - but you already knew that. That's why the rules also offer 9.04(c), so the UIC can arbitrate.

The fact is that as UIC, if that is what McClelland was at the time, he shouldn't overrule in favor of his own point of view without first having the benefit of a conference with the other umpires in the crew. By his action he has just said that he and ONLY he had the perfect view. He ignored the process, and there was simply NO NEED to do so. Either way the ball was dead!

I think he suffered a rush of blood ... either that OR he also believed Hernandez had no place on that diamond. Neither reason is any excuse for an experienced MLB crew chief to ignore one of the fundamental tenets of the game, at least as far as officials are concerned.

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by gsf23
If you guys didn't see it, they talked with steve Pailermo (sp?) in the stands. They had said he was in charge of the umpires or something to that affect. He had said that the umpires have been told that if they are absolutely certain that a wrong call was made, they are to correct it immediately. The reason given was so that it doesn't look as if a manager is influencing the decison if it is changed after an argument. Steve also said that if McClelland was positve about what he saw, then he did the right thing in over-ruling Hernandez immediately.

I'm sorry but either you or Palermo have it WRONG. Here is why I can say that; an extract from the MLB umpire's manual:

(3) In a limited number of situations, a partner may have critical information that is unknown to
the umpire making the call. When the partner is certain that the umpire making the call could
benefit from such additional information, the partner should alert the other umpire that there
is additional, important information that should be shared. While the mechanics of bringing
this information to the attention of the umpire who made the call is left to the crews (walking
towards the partner, inconspicuous signal, etc.), crucial, potential call-changing information
should not be withheld on a play that has clearly been missed. As noted in the Official
Baseball Rules, "Each umpire team should work out a simple set of signals, so the proper
umpire can always right a manifestly wrong decision when convinced he has made an error."
Nevertheless, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the umpire who made the call.

The irony is that BOTH Steve Palermo and Tim McClelland were members of the Umpire Training Committee that drafted the manual.

Hope this helps

Cheers