For Moose and others: Change the call?

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by BellevueBlue

It is apparent that you hold the minority opinion here. But that may be insignificant.
Some have suggested that you should call like your association or assignor or trainer would have you.
Do you believe that your opinion on getting help at that call at second would be the majority opinion of your association? Or of the A and D1 umpires? Or of the assignor or trainer?
If it is, fine continue on your way.
If it isn't, are you willing to change?

Good post Bell. The majority of persons in my Assoc would have said, "Eat the call" and that I should NOT have conferenced and then changed the call.

It is not a matter of continuing or not continuing. The mechanics mistake I made won't happen again, so the situation will never come up again.. THAT PARTICULAR situation.

Outside of that ONE TIME... I have a 99.995% compliance rate of telling the offended coach who asks me to "get help" to go pound sand.. in a nice way of course.

BTW: Bell... which BELLEVUE are you? I mean.. do we KNOW each other.. as in Bellevue, WA?

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
It seems clear to me (and a couple of others who have participated) that Moose was not sure of his call, went to his partner, received additional, unequivocal, salient information, and then corrected what he judged to be his initial manifestly wrong decision. That is completely in accord with the unambiguous instruction quoted.

What Moose did is not illegal.

See, Dave, here is the problem with posters who arrive at a conclusion, because it suits some ulterior motive, and then try to find support for it in the rules: They cling to the narrow view, and even there can be proven wrong.

If you would get your head out of the GENERAL Instructions to Umpires and into the SPECIFIC instructions contained in OBR 9.02(a), what Moose did clearly WAS illegal for that type of call!

Now to the broader perspective. I have said many times in this forum, and in my articles for eUmpire.com, that enforcing the rules is NOT the ONLY responsibility of the umpire. Read OBR 9.01(a) and (b) and you will see several responsibilities, only one of which is enforcing the rules. Sometimes these responsibilities compete, and then we need to find an ethical basis that lets us chose the most appropriate responsibility at the time. In the case of changing the judgement call, that is NO CONTEST. Umpire Dignity (read Game Management) wins hands down, every time!

The rules intended that the umpire's judgement decision be unquestioned. That is clearly the import of OBR 9.02ff. To argue that the GENERAL admonition to get the call right supercedes a SPECIFIC rule requiring that the judgement decision, once made, be "FINAL" is absolute twaddle! What's more, once this coach/manager presented an alternative view of events and requested Moose check with his partner, he was effectively arguing a judgement call! That, too, is illegal! Dave, perhaps you are emotionally too close to this issue. Perhaps you have allowed your feelings for, or against, the personalities involved to cloud your judgement. Next thing we know, you and Moose will be humming show tunes together! (grin) Please give up this irrational nonsense before it's too late!

Bottom line, Moose was sure enough to LIE about what he saw and, when the coach called his bluff, instead of dealing with the consequences of that LIE himself Moose looked to his partner to dig him out of the pile of crap he had created. Not only wasn't that legal, it also wasn't ethical! Get a grip, Dave!

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 8th, 2001 at 05:17 PM]

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
Get a grip
[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 8th, 2001 at 05:17 PM]

Rock Bottom??

I know this one..

Rock Bottom was the arch nemesis of Felix the Cat!

What did I win?

Mike B
MEMBER
Unethical Lying Umpire Club

Your advice, posted above, should be self directed.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose
Your advice, posted above, should be self directed.

Gee, Mike, which part of my post did you find so unrealistic that you think I'm the one who needs to "get a grip"? Was it the part where I referred to your ADMISSION in your original post that you LIED to the coach/manager about what you saw?

Maybe it was the part where I suggested that expecting your partner to help you out of the trouble your LIE created was UNETHICAL?

Or was it the part where I proved conclusively, using nothing more than the rules of baseball themselves, that what you did was ILLEGAL, despite the General Instructions to Umpires?

I think I HAVE a pretty good grip on reality here, Mike. Won't you join me?

Let me see... Mike and Dave ... Bullwinkle and Rocky ... yeah, I like it! (grin)

"Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!.. Oops! ... Wrong hat!"(BIG sheepish grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 9th, 2001 at 05:03 PM]

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

It seems clear to me (and a couple of others who have participated) that Moose was not sure of his call, went to his partner, received additional, unequivocal, salient information, and then corrected what he judged to be his initial manifestly wrong decision. That is completely in accord with the unambiguous instruction quoted.

What Moose did is not illegal.


[Edited by Dave Hensley on Feb 8th, 2001 at 11:20 AM] [/B]

This is what I read what happened:

1.) Moose wasn't sure if the ball was dropped on transfer or just muffed, and he needed to make a call right away, so he used his better judgement and called "OUT!"

2.) Moose realized he guessed wrong when the manager came out to ask about the call. Manager insisted Moose ask his partner for a "second opinion."

3.) Moose grants to manager's request and confers with his partner, who testifies to everything he saw. Based on this new evidence, Moose changes his call.


Moose would have never changed his call if either:

a) the manager never came out to argue, or;
b) the manager never begged for Moose to ask his partner, or;
c) his partner never told him what really happened after the play.


I'm sure the majority of us, if we were the PU in this situation, would not have made it a point to inform our partner on what really occurred absent of anybody else's pleading or complaining. Hell, I've seen my BU's blow many calls at 1B, but how many times have I trotted down there to tell him that the runner beat the ball? Even if we should allow the changing of calls in these situations, how many of us are going to get help after the fact if nobody complains? The ONLY time a call like this would ever get changed is when a manager or coach asks the umpire to get help after the play, and I'm pretty sure we all know better than to do that.

Dennis

[JJ]

Like I tell a coach now and then, in response to his, "Can I ask you a question?" -- I say, "Sure, if I don't know the answer I'll be glad to lie to you!"

Rocky and Bullwinkle are the best...

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I'm not defending the action; I'm defending the legality of the action.

So how do you feel about the definition of the word "the"?

I pointed out the illegality of the action by reference to the specific rule which made the action illegal (ie against the rules). In contrast, you proposed the legality of the action by instead refering to a set of General Instructions which are NOT a part of the actual rules (ie NOT part of the subject "law").

I suggest you re-read OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL, to find where you went wrong, Dave.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 11th, 2001 at 03:08 AM]

[Bfair]

Warren Wilson (quoted):
The rules intended that the umpire's judgement decision be unquestioned. That is clearly the import of OBR 9.02ff. To argue that the GENERAL admonition to get the call right supercedes a SPECIFIC rule requiring that the judgement decision, once made, be "FINAL" is absolute twaddle! What's more, once this coach/manager presented an alternative view of events and requested Moose check with his partner, he was effectively arguing a judgement call! That, too, is illegal!............


Warren, I disagree. 9.02a references judgement calls and that an umpire's decision is final. Furthermore, it identifies and discusses that team members should object or argue an umpire's decision. It does not preclude questioning an umpire's decision. There is a difference. Calls are questioned and most umpires typically provide mere explanations. However, when doubt exists, the General Instructions to Umpires can aid in reaching a correct decision.

In fact, 9.02c discusses an appealed (questioned) decision and references in detail the half swing. Is not the decision on whether or not a batter actually swung a judgement decision? Why would the book allow this to change if not intended, when in fact, 2 paragraphs earlier they state "any umpire's decision which involves judgement...is final"? Under your interpretaition, they are contradicting themselves a mere 2 paragraphs later. That is a sound reason NOT TO accept your interpretation. (Not to say yours is wrong)

Now, in conjunction with the General Instructions to Umpires (emphasizing the importance of making the correct decision over that of umpire dignity), one could quite logically conclude the rulemakers felt it important enough to get the call right and realized umpires should not accept arguments from teams but may accept assistance from partners. At least that is what I would conclude. Certainly, the General Instructions quite accurately indicate this practice should not be used "to extremes".

I think that has been what these threads have all been about. That is, whether or not it is legal and how often could / should this occur. I think one could conclude it is legal, could occur, but should occur only on rare needs.

Warren Willson (quoted).....Or was it the part where I proved conclusively, using nothing more than the rules of baseball themselves, that what you did was ILLEGAL, despite the General Instructions to Umpires?.........

I respect your opinion as I hope you may respect mine. I reviewed your perspective and the support you provided, but it does not mean I agree nor does it mean you proved it "conclusively". (You may be unaware that you are beginning to "Childress" your posts by presenting opinion as fact).

.......I pointed out the illegality of the action by reference to the specific rule which made the action illegal (ie against the rules). In contrast, you proposed the legality of the action by instead refering to a set of General Instructions which are NOT a part of the actual rules (ie NOT part of the subject "law").

Warren, you will accept NAPBL, J/R, JEA, Carl's list of 5 exceptions (and most everything else he says) none of which are printed in the book by the rulemakers, yet you are willing to disallow that which is in the book that being the General Instructions ??? Something is wrong here. Warren, I have heard some say "show me a bat with hands attached to it" to prove or disprove whether or not the hands are part of the bat. I only have one OBR book (it probably could be dated 1845 but wouldn't matter as it never changes) that includes the "General Instructions to Umpires." I will gamble by asking, "Can you provide me a rulebook without the General Instructions to Umpires included?" I don't know the answer to that. If you can, I suspect you would likely have to hunt to find it. Until such time, I feel I should conclude that the rulemakers put it in the book for some reason---perhaps to teach---and perhaps because they believed in what they were writing and felt it provided a depth of knowledge into the understanding of being an umpire. Possibly even to provide umpires compassion to get the final decision right vs. arrogance of maintaining self-dignity at the expense of the game. When an obvious error is made and not discussed for possible correction, self-dignity is NOT maintained, rather arrogance is displayed.


Warren, in conclusion I present my argument as one which supports the efforts of Moose which, in my opinion, were highly respectable, dignified, and gutsy. He put the intent of the rules---making his best effort to get the call right---above and beyond his own personal need to prove infallibility. He did this on a rare occasion where certainly the call and the level of the contest dictated the need for accuracy in the final decision (which HE made). To the burgeoning Bullwinkle of baseball, you have proven your integrity.

Some posted that, as his partner, they would have sent him back to make his own call without aiding him. I believe (although I am not certain) you made concurring posts. I was taught to work as a team and support my partner. If I don't like his actions, I take it up with him after the game. However, in this rare incident, I fully support my partner rather than hanging him out to dry. I have little on field respect for those who indicated they would have left him hanging-----whether Moose's actions were legal or illegal. That is not me. I support my partners on the field.

I certainly respect your right to disagree, however, I also feel many will agree. Just my opinion.

BTW, I suspect the rulemakers, too, were neo-romantics in their decision to include the General Instructions to Umpires. Perhaps Abner was a neo-romantic---we may have a lot in common!!! I'm beginning to qualify as a neo-anything.

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 10th, 2001 at 07:23 AM]

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Bfair


I respect your opinion as I hope you may respect mine. I reviewed your perspective and the support you provided, but it does not mean I agree nor does it mean you proved it "conclusively"...


Warren, in conclusion I present my argument as one which supports the efforts of Moose which, in my opinion, were highly respectable, dignified, and gutsy. He put the intent of the rules---making his best effort to get the call right---above and beyond his own personal need to prove infallibility

I certainly respect your right to disagree, however, I also feel many will agree. Just my opinion.

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 10th, 2001 at 07:23 AM] [/B]

I imagine the “dialogue” that takes place on this Board and others confuses many newer umpires. When posters are not actually resorting to name calling they too often seem focused on "winning arguments". The reason I first started visiting these forums was to improve as an umpire. I think this is becoming increasingly more difficult, not because there isn't plenty of room for further development on my part but because too many opportunities to educate become lost in focusing on the periphery. When I see a situation such as Moose presented I ask myself "What would 90% of top notch umpires have done in that same situation?"

I actually started looking in my "files" to try to support Warren's position and I realized that might be fruitless. "Sides" have already been chosen. Some have advocated everyone use their own real names I propose just the opposite - let's use a number system so only the poster knows his posts and everyone else just decides does it make umpire sense or not. I certainly would not question whether Moose was dignified or respectable. Gutsy however I reserve judgement on. On one hand Moose seemed truly concerned about "righting a wrong" yet further on he seemed more interested in "changing the rules". In this approach I think he may be in the "other 10%" of top notch umpires. I did come across a quote by Scott Ehret in Baseball Umpiring '97 that could assist Moose and others in similar situations " Even the best umpires blow calls. Every one of us has made a bad decision or exhibited poor judgment on occasion. Don't be discouraged or lose confidence in your ability. Instead work harder to do better". Jim Simms/NY

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
> Now there is a school of thought which says that only means "final" in
> the sense intended by the following sentence which spells out that
> players, managers, coaches or substitutes may not object to such
> decisions.

Yes, in fact that school of thought can count me as one of its students. Reading the rule in its full context leaves virtually no doubt as to its intent. Here's the rule without the snippage that proves quite inconvenient to your argument:

9.02 (a) Any umpire's decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.

Dave, I'm sure you and I are never going to agree. You bleated earlier about whether people could simply agree to disagree. Well, here you are Dave. A2D

However, it is important that certain false impressions created by your post are corrected.

1. From my words reprinted above by YOU, which include a paraphrased version of the second sentence in that provision, and the complete quote from OBR 9.02(a) also reprinted by YOU - can ANYONE see the slightest difference or adduce any intent to deny the existence or content of the second sentence of that provision? Clearly the answer is NO. There is barely a gnats ninny worth of difference between my paraphrase and the actual provision. Yet, Dave, the implication of your emboldened phrase "without the snippage" is that I was somehow selectively quoting the provision to bolster my position! Dave, I leave such underhanded tactics to you.

2. For the benefit of readers who are NOT disposed to view my posts with some sort of bias or prejudice, here is my analysis of OBR 9.02(a):

(a) In an addendum to the 1897 playing rules, on the subject of judgement decisions, the following instruction was issued to umpires -

"Coachers have heretofore been a disturbing element to the umpire. Rules 52 and 60 provide just what his and what your duties are. These rules are mandatory, not discretionary, if you allow them to be violated you become the chief culprit and do not properly perform the duties of your position. Bear in mind that you are not responsible for the creation of the rules or the penalties prescribed by them."

That requires that umpires not accept even "questions" from coaches on judgement decisions. These decisions are FINAL. Only matters of possible rule misapplication may be questioned. Coaches who follow a "What did you see" question with "Well I saw this and I want you to check with your partner" are NOW arguing/questioning/disputing a judgement decision. If you not only ALLOW that, but PARTICIPATE in it by going to your partner for help, then you have not only breached the rule you have encouraged the participant to breach the rule. As the above addendum says "you have not properly performed (sic) the duties of your position". In other words, you didn't do your job! How clear does this have to be? Such actions are ILLEGAL!

(b) The current rule is in 2 parts. Part 1 says that judgement decisions are final. It makes no reference to any exceptions such as "except for the umpire who made the original decision". Final means F I N A L. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnell's. Part 2 of this provision says that players, coaches, managers and substitutes may not object to judgement decisions. That is NOT inconsistent with, nor does it limit the generality of, Part 1 of the provision.

3. Contrary to Mr Hensley's assertion, I contend that the intent and the language of OBR 9.02(a) is to prevent ANYONE from changing the umpire's judgement decision INCLUDING the umpire who made that decision. FINAL means FINAL for everyone. If an umpire cannot change his own judgement decision by rule, that removes one more temptation for the participants to argue about or disagree with such decisions. How hard is that to understand? The alternative is to have a "final" decision, then a Final "final" decision and perhaps even a FINAL Final "final" decision. Gimme a break!

Now, Dave, since we have agreed to disagree on the interpretation of this provision, I expect there will be no further discussion between us on this subject beyond this point.

Cheers,

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, I disagree. 9.02a references judgement calls and that an umpire's decision is final. Furthermore, it identifies and discusses that team members should object or argue an umpire's decision. It does not preclude questioning an umpire's decision. There is a difference. Calls are questioned and most umpires typically provide mere explanations. However, when doubt exists, the General Instructions to Umpires can aid in reaching a correct decision.

Steve, the moment any coach/manager/player/substitute goes beyond asking "What did you see" and says "Well I saw this - check with your partner" they ARE arguing/objecting to a judgement decision. THAT is what happened in Moose's case. See my recent response to Dave Hensley for a quote from the original rule makers on the subject of judgement decisions and whether umpires should allow "questions" on such decisions. The import is clearly NO QUESTIONING - NO OBJECTING - NO ARGUING - NOTHING! A judgement decision is FINAL!

In fact, 9.02c discusses an appealed (questioned) decision and references in detail the half swing. Is not the decision on whether or not a batter actually swung a judgement decision? Why would the book allow this to change if not intended, when in fact, 2 paragraphs earlier they state "any umpire's decision which involves judgement...is final"? Under your interpretaition, they are contradicting themselves a mere 2 paragraphs later. That is a sound reason NOT TO accept your interpretation. (Not to say yours is wrong)

Context, Steve, context. The 1976 NOTE appended to OBR 9.02(c) which allows an appeal on this specific judgement decision is clearly an exception to the rule, as is OBR 9.04(c). Both of these were in Carl's list of five(5) calls which can LEGALLY be changed. Did you miss that debate? I have written a long 3-part exposition of the Half Swing Appeal wherein I contend that it is based on a wrong premise, and is placed out of context in OBR 9.02(c). It is also something else, Steve ... "The exception that proves the rule"! See, Steve, if it was normally expected that such judgement decisions COULD be questioned in this manner, WHY would the 1976 Note even be necessary? Any ideas on that, Steve?

Now, in conjunction with the General Instructions to Umpires (emphasizing the importance of making the correct decision over that of umpire dignity), one could quite logically conclude the rulemakers felt it important enough to get the call right and realized umpires should not accept arguments from teams but may accept assistance from partners. At least that is what I would conclude. Certainly, the General Instructions quite accurately indicate this practice should not be used "to extremes".

I think that has been what these threads have all been about. That is, whether or not it is legal and how often could / should this occur. I think one could conclude it is legal, could occur, but should occur only on rare needs.

I'm sorry, Steve, but you are WRONG on all counts here. Let me explain why.

1. No-one argued that getting the call right wasn't important. It is important.

2. Accepting assistance from partners is one thing, but getting help when questioned on a judgement decision by a manager/coach/player/substitute is ILLEGAL, and another thing entirely.

3. OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL is "contrary to these rules". OBR 9.02(a) is part of "these rules" and changing a decision declared "final" is "contrary to these rules" in that provision. The General Instructions to Umpires are NOT part of the rules. Neither are the Casebook Comments, such as the 1976 NOTE appended to OBR 9.02(c) on appealing the half swing. HOWEVER, unlike the General Instructions to Umpires, the Casebook Comments are to be read in conjunction with the rules and have the same force as the rules. I repeat, the General Instructions to Umpires are NOT part of the rules. Therefore, whatever is in those General Instructions is not LEGAL. That doesn't mean it isn't laudible, valuable, important, helpful or a whole host of other things. It just isn't a part of "these rules".

.......I pointed out the illegality of the action by reference to the specific rule which made the action illegal (ie against the rules). In contrast, you proposed the legality of the action by instead refering to a set of General Instructions which are NOT a part of the actual rules (ie NOT part of the subject "law").

Warren, you will accept NAPBL, J/R, JEA, Carl's list of 5 exceptions (and most everything else he says) none of which are printed in the book by the rulemakers, yet you are willing to disallow that which is in the book that being the General Instructions ??? Something is wrong here.

Who says I won't "accept" the General Instructions? Of course I accept them, in their proper context. They are NOT official interpretations, like the NAPBL. They are NOT Authoritative opinion like the J/R and JEA. They aren't a compilation from legal or official sources, as is Carl's list of 5 reversible calls. They are just General Instructions. LEGAL means in accordance with the rules of baseball. If the General Instructions are not a part of the rules of baseball, they aren't strictly legal. What's more, if they are at least 50 years out of date, they may not even be relevant. That is the substance of Evans' reappraisal of those General Instructions. I am also not a Fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible. So sue me!

I will gamble by asking, "Can you provide me a rulebook without the General Instructions to Umpires included?" I don't know the answer to that. If you can, I suspect you would likely have to hunt to find it. Until such time, I feel I should conclude that the rulemakers put it in the book for some reason---perhaps to teach---and perhaps because they believed in what they were writing and felt it provided a depth of knowledge into the understanding of being an umpire. Possibly even to provide umpires compassion to get the final decision right vs. arrogance of maintaining self-dignity at the expense of the game. When an obvious error is made and not discussed for possible correction, self-dignity is NOT maintained, rather arrogance is displayed.

You are missing the whole point of the admonition to "get the call right" from the General Instructions. It needs to be read in conjunction with the rules it supports. By all means go to the book, or your partner, on a rule misapplication. Get the call right. However, on a judgement decision only go to your partner BEFORE you make your call if and when it is unavoidable. AFTER the call is made, by rule (which supercedes the General Instructions) the decision so made is FINAL.

Warren, in conclusion I present my argument as one which supports the efforts of Moose which, in my opinion, were highly respectable, dignified, and gutsy. He put the intent of the rules---making his best effort to get the call right---above and beyond his own personal need to prove infallibility. He did this on a rare occasion where certainly the call and the level of the contest dictated the need for accuracy in the final decision (which HE made). To the burgeoning Bullwinkle of baseball, you have proven your integrity.

Whoa, Steve, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh? Let's see what those facts were:

1. Moose SAW the ball on the ground and STILL made the OUT decision.

2. Moose LIED about what he saw to the coach/manager, hoping to avoid being questioned about an obviously wrong call.

3. When the coach called his bluff, instead of wearing the consequences of his LIE, Moose sought to involve his innocent partner to help him out ILLEGALLY.

Now, I accept that the end result was that Moose got the call "right". In the process he LIED to a coach, lost his dignity as a result, and made his partner complicit in his error. Moose originally asked for a review of his actions. Almost without exception his actions were adjudged to be wrong and in at least some senses ILLEGAL. Moose was also given a lot of good advice about how to do it better in future. What did Moose do with that advice? He IGNORED IT! He chose instead to post a justification of his own actions. In short, he not only crapped on his partner he crapped on all of us who thought he was genuinely asking for help. And THIS is the Moose you want us to applaud? No thanks!

Having said that, if Moose HAD accepted the reviews and the constructive criticism of his colleagues, I would be the FIRST to applaud him. Not now, Steve. Not now.

Some posted that, as his partner, they would have sent him back to make his own call without aiding him. I believe (although I am not certain) you made concurring posts. I was taught to work as a team and support my partner. If I don't like his actions, I take it up with him after the game. However, in this rare incident, I fully support my partner rather than hanging him out to dry. I have little on field respect for those who indicated they would have left him hanging-----whether Moose's actions were legal or illegal. That is not me. I support my partners on the field.

There was a veritable MOUNTAIN of advice for Moose that would help avoid putting his partner in such a position. Had he been prepared to accept it, this would be a non-issue. Moose is apparently one of those who only learn the hard way. You do him, or anyone like him, no favours to let him get away with this sort of rubbish! It is a choice between two evils, the lesser of which is to cause your partner a small hurt now to avoid a lot of bigger hurts later. Sometimes, Steve, you have to be a little bit cruel now in order to be a LOT kind in the long run. NEVER suggest that I would NOT support my partner. In this case, supporting my partner means telling him to fix his own mess. You may not agree. So be it. At least see the logic.

I certainly respect your right to disagree, however, I also feel many will agree. Just my opinion.

BTW, I suspect the rulemakers, too, were neo-romantics in their decision to include the General Instructions to Umpires. Perhaps Abner was a neo-romantic---we may have a lot in common!!! I'm beginning to qualify as a neo-anything.

Finally, let me disabuse you of your misapprehension that "Abner" had ANYTHING to do with the rules of baseball. He didn't. That furphy was started by one A.G. Spalding who, as a fiercely patriotic commissioner and despite a wealth of evidence, refused to acknowledge that the great American game was in fact invented from a combination of rounders and cricket; both English games. The fact is that the rules of the modern game were given to us by one Alexander Joy Cartwright and the membership of the New York Knickerbocker Base Ball club, in 1845.

When the General Instructions to Umpires were included in the rule book, shortly after 1950, good ol' Abner was LONG DEAD. There was nothing remotely "neo-romantic" about their inclusion. The truly sad thing is that, like much of the rule book, they haven't been amended since and they now bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the instructions issued to umpires these days. If you want to view the modern equivalent, look at Section 7 of the NAPBL Umpire's Manual. If you want a contemporary redefinition of the General Instructions currently in the rule book, look to Evans' "General Instructions: A Commentary" which is appended to his Official Baseball Rules Annotated.

Steve, I NEVER deal in suspicions when I have facts instead. I don't speculate or opine when there are facts to the contrary view plainly in evidence. If you are going to discuss rules, official interpretations and mechanics with any credibility it is important that you do likewise. Otherwise you will have more in common with Mr Spalding than you would like to believe.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 11th, 2001 at 03:26 AM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
In arguing that a passage from the current rulebook is obsolete and should be ignored, you cite a similar reference from an 1897 rulebook. The revelation that you base your opinions and interpretations of current baseball rules on rulings and interpretations from the 19th century, long after they've been superceded and replaced with modern rules and interpretations, explains A LOT. The irony is exceeded only by the comedy. Send in the clowns, indeed.

Another obfuscation. That selective memory of yours is some doosey to observe, Dave. YOU asked ME to produce evidence of the underlying INTENT of OBR 9.02(a). The quoted 1897 rule expresses the original INTENT you queried. Will you NEVER see things clearly that are contrary to your own myopic viewpoint?

In the Jim Evans quote you and Carl use to support your contention that the General Instructions are obsolete, not "real" rules, and should be ignored, I think you may have missed the import of this statement:

Assistance is not requested except when the responsible umpire is "blocked out" from seeing all the elements of a play or he has substantial reason to believe that his positioning did not afford him the proper position to render an accurate call.

This is Evans' comment on the general instruction that advises umpires to use "secret signals" to allow an umpire to correct a "manifestly wrong decision." While Evans points out that today's umpires don't use secret signals, the statement I've quoted shows that he still allows, albeit in rare circumstances and with the admonition that requests for help should be minimized, for the possibility that an umpire can seek assistance from his partner in order to correct a manifestly wrong decision. If Evans says you can do it, it stands to reason it would not be "illegal" to do it.

Obfuscation after obfuscation. Who EVER said it was ILLEGAL to get help BEFORE making a decision? In fact, I can agree that it is permissable to get help even AFTER certain judgement decisions have been made where the rules specifically permit. What is clearly and unequivocally ILLEGAL, Dave, is to get help AFTER the decision is made and AFTER the coach/manager has questioned the call! That has been the whole import of this debate, but I'm sure you'll deny that. Unlike yours, however, my memory is quite sound and not in the least selective!

Cheers,