Not Jeffrey Maier again!!!

[Dave Hensley]

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

The irony I recognize on a more personal level is your endorsement of a citation that is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires. I can remember a time when my citations of that same section of the rulebook earned only a dismissive "that stuff is all obsolete and not part of the real rules anyway" response. I think you were on the side that held that view, weren't you?

[gsf23]

Well...Obviously, they have changed their minds and forgot to inform you.

[Rich]

I can see why an outfield umpire wouldn't have the best view on this play. He's looking up into the lights, looking way up into the upper deck, and he's simply too close to get a great angle on that.

However, there were two umpires pointing foul -- U9 AND U1.

I have no problems with getting this call right. None. But what difference would it have made had the Boston manager gone to Hernandez, Hernandez enlists the help of U1 and U2 and the PU. they talk about it, and Hernandez comes out and signals the home run?

Like I said in the other thread, how would this discussion play out today if the ball was, indeed, six inches foul?

Rich

[[email protected]]

I happened to be sitting one row behind, and one seat to the right of, Josh Mandelbaum. I can say the following things with certainty:

1) The ball hit his hand. His hand was fairly red several minutes later.

2) He reached over the rail to grab the ball. He did not, as he told reporters, stop the ball from hitting his face.

3) I thought the ball had a good chance of glancing the foul side of the pole but for Josh's attempt to catch the ball.

4) Most of the folks around me thought the ball was headed foul, but they were almost exclusively Yankees fans. I'm agnostic.

5) Josh didn't have a cell phone. He was quickly swarmed by reporters and then left his seat. It was another guy talking on the phone.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

The irony I recognize on a more personal level is your endorsement of a citation that is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires. I can remember a time when my citations of that same section of the rulebook earned only a dismissive "that stuff is all obsolete and not part of the real rules anyway" response. I think you were on the side that held that view, weren't you?

Now, now. You know better than that, Dave. Yes I was on that side, and I was right too!

The MLB instruction might have its genesis in the General Instructions to Umpires in the same way that our current rules come from the Knickerbocker Rules of 1847, but that doesn't make them any less obsolete. The General Instructions to Umpires appearing in the rule book were superceded by the Instructions to Umpires contained in Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual.

My "beef" was with people relying on the long outdated version when the current version, complete with notable changes, was readily available. It would be more accurate for you to say that the MLB statement arose from Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual than to declare that it "...is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires" that follows OBR 9.05, which version is of general historical interest only at this point.

Cheers

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
Now, now. You know better than that, Dave. Yes I was on that side, and I was right too!

No, you were wrong. You claimed a part of the General Instructions was obsolete, when it has now been quoted in the current MLB Umpires Manual. It has been a part of the rules since it was introduced, and by quoting it, the authors of the MLB Umpire Manual are validating that it remains just as relevant today as it was when it was first introduced.

The MLB instruction might have its genesis in the General Instructions to Umpires in the same way that our current rules come from the Knickerbocker Rules of 1847, but that doesn't make them any less obsolete.

Our current rules don't QUOTE the Knickerbocker Rules; the MLB Umpire Manual QUOTES the General Instructions to Umpires. That does, indeed, disprove the notion that the General Instructions are or ever were obsolete.

The General Instructions to Umpires appearing in the rule book were superceded by the Instructions to Umpires contained in Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual.

If you replace "superceded" with "supplemented," then I would agree. The entire PBUC Manual is a supplement to the Official Rules. Section 7 should be treated no differently, and there is no such statement that it "supercedes" the General Instructions.

It would be more accurate for you to say that the MLB statement arose from Section 7 of the PBUC Umpire Manual than to declare that it "...is based on a statement in the General Instructions to Umpires" that follows OBR 9.05, which version is of general historical interest only at this point.

That is an astonishing statement. The MLB Umpire Manual citation you referenced cites and attributes a direct quote to the General Instructions that follow OBR 9.05. Here it is, pasted directly from your post:

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."

The sentence in quotes is NOT from PBUC Section 7, it is from the OBR's General Instructions to Umpires. For you to say, with a straight face, that it would be more accurate to attribute the MLB Umpire Manual reference you cited to PBUC Section 7 rather than OBR General Instructions to Umpires is, as I said, astonishing. It makes me wonder if you've been taking lessons on citations and attributions from some of your eumpire.com colleagues.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
No, you were wrong. You claimed a part of the General Instructions was obsolete, when it has now been quoted in the current MLB Umpires Manual. It has been a part of the rules since it was introduced, and by quoting it, the authors of the MLB Umpire Manual are validating that it remains just as relevant today as it was when it was first introduced.

I have NEVER claimed that the specific part of General Instructions requiring a "simple set of signals" was obsolete. On the contrary, I advocated that very thing myself. Do your searches. Produce evidence for that contrary claim. Your memory on this subject is obviously faulty.

What I DID claim was that the admonition that "The first requisite is to get decisions correctly" was clearly superceded by the instruction from the PBUC Umpire Manual that "The main objective is to have all decisions ultimately correct". The two are demonstrably NOT the same.

The question arose over the General Instructions suggestion on doubtful calls that "If not sure, ask one of your associates" was almost carte blanche approval for umpires to ask for help anytime they felt it necessary. Not so. That, too, was clarified in the updated Instructions to Umpires from the PBUC Umpire Manual. The newer admonition was to "...ask for assistance if blocked out on a play."{my emphasis}

Our current rules don't QUOTE the Knickerbocker Rules; the MLB Umpire Manual QUOTES the General Instructions to Umpires. That does, indeed, disprove the notion that the General Instructions are or ever were obsolete.

It may prove that particular part is no longer obsolete. It does NOT disprove, logically, that the General Instructions "are or ever were obsolete". There has been much water pass under the bridge in the meantime. Perhaps MLB has now rediscovered that, at least in that respect, the old way was the best. Good for them. That doesn't mean the old General Instructions are to be reinstated in their entirety.

If you replace "superceded" with "supplemented," then I would agree. The entire PBUC Manual is a supplement to the Official Rules. Section 7 should be treated no differently, and there is no such statement that it "supercedes" the General Instructions.

Actually the PBUC Manual is an Official Interpretation of those rules and instructions, and as such it takes precedence over the original in our understanding. That means it supercedes the original in our understanding of its meaning and intent. The Official Rules have been changed by interpretation for decades. Notice I said "changed" and not "supplemented" or even slightly modified. You know that to be true.

The MLB Umpire Manual citation you referenced cites and attributes a direct quote to the General Instructions that follow OBR 9.05.

Yes it does. But that was NOT the issue under debate in our previous discussions on those General Instructions, and I believe you know it! The question was when and how to obtain help.

I endorsed Childress' "Fab Five" reasons for umpires to go outside of the process and offer help before it was requested - the same "limited number of cases" to which the MLB manual refers. What I objected to was the suggestion that the General Instructions made getting the call right more important than the process for achieving that. I have been entirely consistent on that point. That was also the reason for my citation of the MLB manual in this thread.

Cheers

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
But what difference would it have made had the Boston manager gone to Hernandez, Hernandez enlists the help of U1 and U2 and the PU. they talk about it, and Hernandez comes out and signals the home run?

Rich

Red Sox Manager Grady Little was out on the field immediately when it was called foul. I believe McClelland was reacting to Grady's presence when he "overruled" Hernandez.

You are right, though, Rich. There wouldn't have been a difference. I think if McClelland had it to do all over again, I think he would've met as a crew before making his ultimate decision at the very least.

[JJ]

This whole discussion points out just how difficult it is to be a baseball umpire on any level, and that being a "people person" is just as important as being technically right on certain calls. We've all heard a coach yell, "Get help on that pulled foot", but after years of umpiring we've also learned that, if we did everything else right in making the call, we don't NEED to go for help if we are convinced we got it right. We've also had partners after a game say, "I think you missed that whacker in the third inning" - which NOBODY else questioned or argued. Boy, I'm glad my partners don't step up and volunteer their opinion on every call they think I've missed. There's ongoing discussion on the NCAA level among umpires and supervisors about which calls we should be "huddling up" on. Our ultimate goal is to get the call right, but even multiple TV replays from different angles are inconclusive - which leads us back to the beginning - let the umpire responsible for the call MAKE the call, and if he has any doubt in his own mind let HIM ask for help. God help us all if we're allowed to volunteer our own decisions on every judgement call - they think the games are long now - wait until the crew huddles up on every close one. The Supreme Court is way too busy now

[razzell2]

The kid could be seen, on film, in replay's, describing how the ball hit his hand. In a later interview the kid said the ball hit his hand. But the ball was directly in line with the fair pole, and it didnt make any difference. It would have hit the fair pole directly in the middle.

So what are the chances of the same type of thing happening twice, in the same playoff series, over in the NLCS, a couple of days later?
Last night, with 5 outs to go, a foul ball that in my opinion drifted back into fair territory, was grabbed out of Moises Alou's glove, which would have been the second out, and was not called fan interference. This cost the Cubs the series winning game, and it was "Jeffery Maier all over again".
Whats funny is that ESPN, just two days ago, did an interview with Jeffery Maire, who is all grown up and a pretty good college ball player, of all things, and he says that he knew, he knew, as soon as the controversy insued, his name would be mentioned again. He has had to live this down for years now. Being a Yankee fan, he says the first two or three days were great. He was 12, and he loved the attention, but had no idea how hated he would be everywhere else in the country, and that everytime a fan interfered with a ball, his name would be mentioned.
And sure enough, in the Cub game last night, his name was mentioned again......"another Jeffery Maire incident"!
If the Cubs should go on to loose their chance to go to the world series, this poor guy, (who did what anyone would do at a ball game...try and grab a souvenier)and who asked to be un-named, will be absolutely hated by the Cubbie faithful. He will be reviled by his own friends, divorced by his wife, fired from his job, beat up on the streets of Chicago....and the tragedy is that he is a "hope to die" Cub fan! Too sad and too bad. I know the guy just reacted and wanted a foul ball, but when your at your teams home field, and theres a chance your team can make an out, and its the WORLD SERIES were talking about, you get the heck outta the way, give your team a chance to make the out.
Poor dude. You gotta hope that the cubs win tonight, just so that this guy can live out the rest of his life without having to hide his face, and being interviewed every year at playoff time for the next 30 years.
RLM

[gsf23]

If anyone should be hated it should be Alex Gonzales for booting that sunday hop double-play ball.

[MD Longhorn]

I feel for the guy too. Yeah - if he'd had his wits completely about him, or had it to do again, he'd get out of the way... but look at the rest of the fans. They were trying to get it to. No one was pulling him back or anything.

Also - first off - the ball was nowhere near "heading back fair", but I'll assume you meant heading back into play. Even if that's what you meant, a ball just doesn't tail that way - it was tailing foul if it was tailing at all. Plus, look at both the fan and Alou when the ball hit. The fan was standing in the stands, not reaching over the railing. Alou's wrist was CLEARLY bent over the railing. There's really no question it was out of play. The only real question is whether Alou could have caught it if the fan hadn't interfered --- but I don't believe he could have. I don't think he timed it right - his wrist had already come down on the top of the fence, and was bending forward when it hit (if you have the ability - frame by frame it and you'll see). I doubt he'd have caught it anyway.

And no - I'm not a Marlins fan. I have no affiliation on this particular series whatsoever, and don't care who wins. If I have any inclinations, it's to see a Cubs-Red Sox errorfest to see who can try the hardest to lose the Series.

[razzell2]

Well, Mike... what i meant was it looked like the ball was drifting back into the direction of fair, maybe blown back in from the spin and the wind.
And I think absolutely Alou timed that jump right and that out would/could have changed the outcome of the whole game.........
But, its all academic now isnt it??
I heard they had to escort that guy out of the park that particular day, he had to call in sick from work the next day, had to change his phone number, had helicoptors buzzing his home both game days, all day, all night. press lined up and down his street.
He released a sincere, tear filled statement,(which i believe)..something to the effect that "everyone was reaching..if i had any idea it Alou had a play i would have backed off. Im sorry to all cubs fans everywhere".
His only chance was if the Cubbies won last night and we all know how that went....PHHHHHHT!
Im a Dodger fan, but I was caught up in the idea of a Cubs/ Soxs world series. The Cubs had more than their chance to pull it off, they blew it, the man in the stands will be blamed foreever. a new curse for the cubs to worry about, every time october rolls around.
what a shame! really!
russell