Whenever I come across a post on one of these boards that strikes me as very insightful and direct, I save it into a "collective wisdom" subfolder in my umpiring folder. After a year and a half of doing this, there are only 22 posts in this folder. This is one of them, and it's one of the best.
=================
Posted by Bob Pariseau on October 18, 1999 at 11:28:28:

I'm going to try to give you a serious answer.
It's in the nature of the game.

Football officials own each and every call as a crew. If any crew member believes a call has been blown, or that he has seen something important that the calling official may have missed, he is REQUIRED to speak up and challenge the call. The crew must then decide, as a crew, what the proper call was.

It's NECESSARY to do this in football because some actions are legal, or illegal, based upon other actions possibly occurring quite some distance away -- in the area of responsibility of another official.

It's POSSIBLE to do this in football because the nature of the action, and the results of an infraction act on a whole play in its entirety. That is, the play stands, or a specific new result is imposed. It is never the case (please any football guys out there, bear with me if I've mistated some technicality), it is NEVER the case that only part of a play is "corrected".
-------------------------------------------

But Baseball is not Football.

The action in baseball involves a series of plays and real-time rulings. Each play and ruling intimately affects subsequent playing actions. Both the offense and defense key off of each call, as it is made, to determine the best course of action for subsequent play. This, to a large extent, is what makes baseball Baseball. Change it if you will, but you will end up with a different sport.

Yes, it is important to make the call Right. But it is MORE important, absolutely essential in fact, to make the call Right Now. If the call isn't made, what are the players supposed to do??

So the philosophy of officiating in baseball MUST, by the nature of the game, be different from the philosophy of officiating in football.

Baseball officials makes calls as individuals. They may seek help, if there is time, but they are still individually responsible for acting on that help as they deem best -- they still own each and every call they are responsible for.

Indeed, by RULE no umpire may seek to challenge or overturn the call of another umpire. This Rule, frequently misunderstood, has nothing to do with maintaining the "dignity" of umpires. Instead, it establishes the feel and flow of the game. Each umpire's calls DEFINE what happened on his portion of the play. Except in rare circumstances, nothing will change that. The players and coaches, as much as they may disagree with any given call, all know they must continue the playing action as if what the umpire called actually happened just as he called it.

Because there's no other way to do it.

There's no time to conference. And you can't correct "just part" of a play without opening up an ungodly can of worms about all the other "what if's" affecting the balance of play.

That is, most judgment calls are simply not reversible. NOT because it makes the umpires look bad to reverse a call, but simply because there is no fair way to do it given subsequent playing action -- or lack of action -- directly resulting from the blown call.
-----------------------------------

Professional baseball attempts to provide enough umpires so that everything that needs to be seen will be seen properly. The large crews used in post season play are trained to know their areas of responsiblity and take it as a matter of personal pride that they will be in the proper position to see every play. Coordination in a large crew can be tough. Add more umpires and it gets tougher. Not to mention that the players have to play around the umpires as moving obstacles.

But sometimes the umpire responsible for a call simply can not be in the right position. This is what happened last night. The second base umpire is responsible for making the tag/no-tag call at that point. He is INDIVIDUALLY responsible for making it. If he finds himself screened from the play he STILL has to make it.

If he finds himself screened he may consider going for help, but he has to balance this against two significant factors. First there may be no TIME to get help. The play may require an immediate call. That was true in the play last night. Had he called "NO TAG!!" then there was still time for the fielder to throw to second to put out the lead runner. Wait another second for an exchange between umpires and it is probably too late.

Second he must decide whether any other umpire is in position to give him significant help. In this case ONLY the first base umpire is close enough to convincingly offer help (the plate umpire or the right field line umpire may have an opinion, but they are so far away from the play that their opinion is not very believable even if it later turns out to have been right). But the first base umpire is directly across this play from the second base umpire (getting in position to make HIS call on the subsequent play at first). That is, he ALSO doesn't have the crucial "side" angle to clearly see the gap between glove and runner. He MIGHT have seen it, but the second base umpire can't defer to him because it is not obvious that he MUST have seen it.
----------------------------------

So the second base umpire is forced, by the nature of the play, to make a call based on his best judgment -- even knowing that he has a lousy angle to see the critical moment of the play.

He uses whatever evidence he can gather in an instant. How does the runner react? How does the fielder react? In this case, Knoblauch successfully drew the call he wanted by pretending he'd actually made the tag and, thus, had no further concern for the lead runner. That was sneaky and thoroughly professional on his part. And this time it worked.

As it turns out, the umpire blew the judgment. He's probably made that call correctly dozens of times in regular season games, but no one will ever remember those.

This, too, is baseball. The human factor in officiating is part of what makes the game what it is.
---------------------------------------

So what do you suggest be done about it?

Again, if the second base umpire takes the time to ask for help, the fielder must act as if the call is going to go against him -- otherwise he'll not have time to throw to 2B to play on the lead runner. And if he actually tagged the runner, that is an unfair result.

If the play is reviewed afterwards, what is a fair "correction"? Put the runner on 2B and let the out at 1B stand? Is that really fair? Had the umpire NOT called the out on the tag, the fielder could still have played for the out at 2B. Should the defense suffer the consequences of this reversed call?

The bottom line is that there IS NO FAIR CORRECTION possible on this play. That means the play has to stand as called.

And that, gentle reader, is baseball.
--Bob
====================
Addendum: How does this apply to Moose's "True Confessions" thread below? (In that play, Moose called a runner out, but did not see exactly when the ball was dropped. His partner saw that the call should have been safe.) Carl has taken the above reasoning and applied it to come up with this list of the ONLY calls that may be changed:

<ul><li>two umpires make opposite calls on the same play;
<li>a rule is misapplied;
<li>a call of ball on a half swing is "appealed";
<li>a call of foul/fair or home run/double on balls hit over the fence is questioned;
<li>a fielder drops a ball on a tag called out and the calling umpire does not see the drop.
</ul>

A few umpires thought that, in Moose's play, the call COULD be changed. Ergo, they disagreed with the above list. However, if one looks at the TYPES of calls on that list, these are calls that can ALWAYS be changed if wrong. If you allow Moose's call to be changed, why not allow it in all situations? The changability of a call then becomes a big grey area, where the umpire must decide if the call changed anything in the play. We then get to play fantasy baseball. Unfortunately, we just blew our first round pick.

Instead, we must look at the TYPES of calls that are changable. Is a tag out judgement call changable, regardless of if there is ensuing, continuous action? If not, it is changable in no situations.

In closing, PLEASE read Bob P's wise words and apply that logic to the situation. Hopefully that will help this situation out.

P-Sz

[Edited by Patrick Szalapski on Feb 6th, 2001 at 09:46 PM]

Ok Patrick I'm going to be a bit of a renegade and say why shouldn't baseball change?

Each team gets 3 outs (OK DAH) what does this mean?

In using the example from the Red Sox Yanks ACLS - ask Jimmy Williams if he would rather have had 1st and 2nd with 1 out (forget about the subsequent play scenario) or what he was left with runner on first 2 outs.

IMO that Subsequent play theory is way over-rated. The important issue is <b> CONSERVE THOSE OUTS (for the Offense) or GET THOSE OUTS (if your the defense) </b>

If we can change the call - Change it. The problem is the way the game has been officiated for the past 100 yrs says we can't. I say why not. As you said we do not live in a perfect world to begin with. Also, by changing the call I mean someone else <b> KNOWS </b> you blew the call.

At the very least balance would be preserved. Put the runners where one thinks they what have gotten. Hey we do this with obstruction why not here?

I guess I do not by that <i> old adage - baseball is unique it's Different </i> I think baseball could take some things from our fellow officials in Football and Basketball.

Pete Booth

Baseball, as opposed to football and basketball, allows a coach to come onto the field to voice his disagreement with a call made by an official. Sometimes these disagreements are animated, and sometimes they result in ejection of the coach. Fans love to see this stuff. I've heard from Pro umpires this is one reason there will never be instant replay in baseball. A lot of people will tell you baseball is a boring game to watch - without an occasional on-field rhubarb it would be even more so. Of course, from where I sit those folks aren't true aficionados of the great game of baseball, but that fact remains.

I realize this isn't a very GOOD argument for no instant replay, but it is AN argument nonetheless. Now, let's see who tears into me for this...

Patrick Szalapski (quoted):
<b>Carl has taken the above reasoning and applied it to come up with this list of the ONLY calls that may be changed:

---two umpires make opposite calls on the same play;

---a rule is misapplied;

---a call of ball on a half swing is "appealed";

---a call of foul/fair or home run/double on balls hit over the fence is questioned;

---a fielder drops a ball on a tag called out and the calling umpire does not see the drop.

................Instead, we must look at the TYPES of calls that are changable. Is a tag out judgement call changable, regardless of if there is ensuing, continuous action? If not, it is changable in no situations.</b>

I fail to see significant differences in the last <b>allowable exception</b> per CC's list and the last paragraph written by Patrick as, indeed, there COULD be ensuing action after CC's last exception. In fact, I could provide you ways that items 2 and 3 of Carl's list could affect ensuing action. Therefore, using Patrrick's summaary paragraph, I guess that could reduce the list. Consequently, I must even start questioning the authoritativeness of the entirety of the list itself !!

Other sports changed and continue to change to improve what and where they may within their game. I don't think baseball (and its officials) should stand with their feet in concrete applauding the advancement of other sports. Certainly the opposite approach of jumping off a cliff is deadly. However, I don't feel most involved with the game or fans of the game would consider an umpire correcting an obviously poor decision as "jumping off a cliff". In fact, whereby Moose said this was done with consultation of another official, I think most would applaud the efforts of the official in trying his best to get the call right. Many umpires may disagree with that action. In whole, I feel the number of umpires disagreeing would be a sigmificant minority compared to the number of people agreeing wiht his efforts.

Not all situations can fall into "reversible" catefories. In fact, by the book, no judgement calls are reversible (despite Carl's list which includes several judgement calls). Somewhere, somehow, at sometime, someone must have said we in some way may alter from that book. Is that not correct? We obviously must use great judgement in possible reversible situations in regards to how that reversal may have impacted the ensuing play. That matter is addressed in other sports. However, where it has little or no impact on ensuing play, I respect an official who will put forth his best effort to get the call right.

Call me and my friend Columbus absurd if you wish, but we both think the world is round. I can't speak for Columbus, but I think the writer's of the rules would also respect an umpire's best efforts to get his call right while on the field. It is not a matter of dignity, it is a matter of fairness---and that is why, IMO, the game even includes umpires as part of the game itself !!!

Just my opinion,

Moose's Call and The Pace of Change.
 

<b>Bfair:</b>
Talk about flip-flopping! Steve, in one place you say you applaud efforts to get the call right, and in another you say that the list of reversible calls (given to assist umpires in knowing when they can legally get help in getting it right) should be reduced. Which is it?

The difference between Carl's list of five(5) reversible calls, and every other non-reversible call is only <i><b>one word</i></b> - LEGALLY. The five calls in Carl's list are all <u>legally</u> reversible. The rest are not. Your contention that NO judgement calls are reversible is just flat wrong. For confirmation see OBR 9.04(c), 9.02(c)Comment.

Moose's correction of his call was NOT in accordance with any of the five(5) LEGALLY reversible calls in Carl's list, despite the apparent closeness of the last item in that list. Moose SAW the ball dropped. He just didn't know WHEN it was dropped. He guessed and made a call. Having made that call, it cannot be reversed LEGALLY. The "number of umpires disagreeing" with his actions was not a "significant minority" in that thread. It was a landslide majority, and almost unanimous if you read Peter Osborne's post carefully.

<b>Pete Booth AND Bfair:</b>
In your advocating change for baseball, Pete/Steve, you are ignoring one of its greatest assets, and the significance of that asset for many of your countrymen. TRADITION. What makes baseball so great is that it is an anchor in the ever moving, ever changing sea of Life. That 3 strikes will always be an OUT is something many people have come to depend on for solid stability, when everything else in their lives appears at best as jellow.

In his book <i>Future Shock</i>, Alvin Toffler speculates that the greatest single danger to modern society is the pace of change. When too many things in people's lives change too quickly, some people are "shocked" by the instability of their environment and "crack" under the pressure. That theory, however pessimistic, can be used to explain much of modern society's problems; drug and alcohol abuse, family breakdown, gambling addiction, youth suicide etc. These are all efforts to either keep up with the pace of change or find a way out of the pain of failure to do so. Life is a never-ending process of adjustment to change.

To a degree, baseball has helped to insulate middle America from much of the "shock" that rapid change can bring. The soliloquy by James Earl Jones in the movie <i>Field of Dreams</i> articulates that very clearly. "Throughout the ages the only constant has been baseball", he says, and I tend to believe he was right. If you mess with that "constant" there will be nothing left that speaks of stability and tradition in many people's lives. That is why baseball, more than any other sport, has resisted change if it is purely for change's sake. Although parts of the game certainly have changed over time, the underlying principles have remained solid and constant; rewarding self-sacrifice, encouraging respect for authority, prizing team spirit - these are the values that make baseball great. Hard, but great.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 8th, 2001 at 12:32 AM]

Moose weathers firestorm of enraged hunters
 

The post below of is great significance.

FORGET for a minute your opinion as to if it is "proper" or "mechanically sound" to get help after a call.

I only ask one simple question. IS IT LEGAL to make the call (judgment call, OUT)... then, based on information beamed into my brain from an alien intelligence (aka, the other umpire).. then CHANGE the call to SAFE.. and MAKE THAT MY FINAL ANSWER!

I content that the book clearly says this is OK.. i.e. LEGAL. If it was not.. then (almost) every changed judgment call would result in a protest! As in my orig case..

Would WW and RF like to reconsider their positions? Again.. I emphasize, this is not a case of SHOULDA... I only mean legally.

CC's list is a good list for reference.. for MECHANICS PROPRIETY... it is NOT all inclusive.

Mike,

I draw your attention to OBR 9.02(a) and quote it's first sentence here to save you looking it up for yourself:

"<i>Any umpire's decision which involves judgement, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final.</i>"

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. I don't take that narrow view of this provision. It is my contention that this rule makes such decisions "final", and so not subject to change by ANYONE (including the umpire himself who makes the decision) in the interest of preventative officiating. If such a call is NOT changeable <u>by rule</u> then there is no point in testing the waters and asking the question or demanding the official get help, is there? THAT is the whole point of this provision, IMHO.

Like so many of the rules of this great game, I believe this rule was intended to teach the participants a valuable lesson; in this case self-discipline in handling decisions which may be demonstrably wrong and go against you or your team. The umpire should NOT seek to minimise or negate that lesson by choosing to believe that the rule doesn't apply to him! That's arrogant. If it is a judgement decision, and a call has been made, it is FINAL. No-one, not even the umpire making the call, is legally entitled to change it without the specific permission of the rules themselves.

Moose, reading the words "for everyone except the umpire making the call" onto the end of this sentence is NOT good practice for the serious official. The word "final" is usually followed by a "period" (full stop). That's because if, as we are so often admonished these days, "No means NO" then "Final also means FINAL". The End. Finito. Fin. If you are allowed to change one so-called "final" judgement call to give a FINAL "final" judgement call, was the first judgement call ever really "final", no matter who makes the change?

"Wriggling" will NOT get you out of your judgemental error in the original thread, Moose. The judgement calls in Carl's list that can LEGALLY be changed are very unique and specific exceptions to the general rule. They are supported by their own specific rules that modify the general rule which is that judgement decisions are final. There are NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS, at least not in the OBR. This is NOT, as you have claimed elsewhere, a matter of OPINION. This is black letter law! Let's look at Carl's list again, and I will put the citation against each.

1. Two umpires make opposite calls on the same play (judgement call) - see OBR 9.04(c) for authority to change.

2. A rule is misapplied (rule misapplication not judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(b) and (c)

3. A call of "Ball" on a half swing is appealed (judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(c)Comment for authority to change.

4. A call of fair/foul or home run/double on balls hit over the fence is questioned (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 7.05(a) and (f) and OBR 2.00 Definition of Fair/Foul

5. A fielder drops the ball on a tag called out and the calling umpire does not see the drop. (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 2.00 Definition of A Tag

Now only points 4 and 5 above are properly subject to some conjecture as to whether they are really judgement calls rather than rule misapplications. The salient point for BOTH of these is that the calling official does NOT have access to ALL of the relevant information before making his call. If the official DID have all the relevant information, and made the demonstrably wrong call anyway, it clearly becomes a judgement call and so "final". That's why in such cases you only tell the calling official what you've seen and let him decide, rather than reversing the call yourself.

You may argue that you didn't have ALL of the necessary information either, when you made your blunder of a call at 2nd base, but I'd argue otherwise. You admitted that you SAW that ball on the ground and yet you STILL called OUT and attempted to bluff your way out of trouble. That is not the same as if you had NOT seen the ball on the ground in the first place, in which case your PU would have been legally entitled to help you out and you would have been legally entitled to change the call.

To answer your specific question, Mike, NO - I do NOT want to reconsider my position on this question. Do you?

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 7th, 2001 at 11:14 PM]

Moose, my answer is...
 

...no. Doesn't change a thing.

Rich

A prevarication (Aussie definition), Mr Hensley. The unanimity I postulated earlier was with specific regard to the lack of support for Moose's actions following his booted call. I postulated no unanimity concerning any other "things", including the validity of Carl's list of legally reversible calls! That list may certainly be unanimously accepted, but I have simply never postulated one way or the other on the subject.

I saw where Carl indicated to you that the difference between his legally reversible call and Moose's irreversible call was that Moose's was a force play, not a tag play. That's certainly true, especially if we are talking about a <u>dropped</u> ball. That implies that the ball was in the glove at some point and so on a force play you are left with a judgement call as to whether the base was properly tagged before the ball was dropped. It is not necessarily <i>still</i> true if we are talking about a ball that was <u>never caught</u> in the first place, as was apparently the case in Moose's original play.

Furthermore, Carl's list speaks to calls which may be legally reversed by, or after consultation with, other officials. I would have no problem with Moose <i><b>immediately</b></i> reversing his own call the moment he noticed the ball in the dirt, and <u>before</u> he was approaced by the coach/manager. That's just a part of the normal decision-making process. It would be lousy timing but it would still be perfectly proper, IMHO. I don't see that as against the spirit and intent of OBR 9.02(a) in the same way that getting help from another official <u>after</u> a call has already been made, and <u>after</u> being approached by a coach/manager, most certainly would be.

Either way, though, I am prepared to concede Carl's superior knowledge of the Professional reasoning behind allowing this call to be reversed on the tag play but not the force play. After all, it was the fact it was a Professional interpretation that made this point authoritative, not that either Carl Childress or I agreed or disagreed with each other, the ruling or its logic. Of course, I certainly DO agree with Carl's list and its logic but that is beside the point.

(BTW, the typo you pointed out has been corrected in the original post. Yet another nit well picked.)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 8th, 2001 at 12:09 AM]

How my posts "strike you" (sic) is of little consequence to me. We have generally been discussing the issue of umpires changing calls <u>when approached by a coach or manager to "get help"</u>. I haven't resiled one jot from my position in that regard. However, changing one's mind mid-decision, before being approached to do so, is very poor timing but nevertheless a perfectly legitimate part of the decision-making process. I don't see any contradiction between those two points of view and my contentions regarding OBR 9.02(a).

Oh no, Dave, nit-picking is a perfectly respectible pastime for some, just as long as it doesn't become the chief or only source of "contribution" to our society. Rules nuts like myself are well known to be occasional nit-pickers. It's just that we believe in regularly contributing something more than the picking of a few nits from time to time.

BTW, when you <b>email</b> someone and privately advise them of an error - as you did for Garth - that's helpful nit-picking. But when have someone's email address and you choose instead to <b>publicly post</b> their minor error, that's not helpful nit-picking it's oneupmanship! You wouldn't deliberately engage in THAT though, would you Dave?

Cheers,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

I haven't resiled one jot from my position in that regard.

"Resiled"? (I know what it means <i>now</i>.) Good Lord, Warren....

<b>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

"<i>Any umpire's decision which involves judgement, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final.</i>"

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. I don't take that narrow view of this provision. It is my contention that this rule makes such decisions "final", and so not subject to change by ANYONE (including the umpire himself who makes the decision) in the interest of preventative officiating. If such a call is NOT changeable <u>by rule</u> then there is no point in testing the waters and asking the question or demanding the official get help, is there? THAT is the whole point of this provision, IMHO.

.....The umpire should NOT seek to minimise or negate that lesson by choosing to believe that the rule doesn't apply to him! That's arrogant. If it is a judgement decision, and a call has been made, it is FINAL. No-one, not even the umpire making the call, is legally entitled to change it without the specific permission of the rules themselves.

.....The word "final" is usually followed by a "period" (full stop). That's because if, as we are so often admonished these days, "No means NO" then "Final also means FINAL". The End. Finito. Fin. If you are allowed to change one so-called "final" judgement call to give a FINAL "final" judgement call, was the first judgement call ever really "final", no matter who makes the change?

....The judgement calls in Carl's list that can LEGALLY be changed are very unique and specific exceptions to the general rule. They are supported by their own specific rules that modify the general rule which is that judgement decisions are final. There are NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS, at least not in the OBR. This is NOT, as you have claimed elsewhere, a matter of OPINION. This is black letter law! Let's look at Carl's list again, and I will put the citation against each.

1. Two umpires make opposite calls on the same play (judgement call) - see OBR 9.04(c) for authority to change.

2. A rule is misapplied (rule misapplication not judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(b) and (c)

3. A call of "Ball" on a half swing is appealed (judgement call) - see OBR 9.02(c)Comment for authority to change.

4. A call of fair/foul or home run/double on balls hit over the fence is questioned (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 7.05(a) and (f) and OBR 2.00 Definition of Fair/Foul

5. A fielder drops the ball on a tag called out and the calling umpire does not see the drop. (rule misapplication not a judgement call) - see OBR 2.00 Definition of A Tag</b>


Warren, acceptance of Carl's list isn't unanimous. Pehaps among those who accept gospel, but not among all. Your support of his points #4 and #5 is weak. Using same logic I could conclude it appropriate for BU to advise PU that he might wish to change his call on a pitch because his call didn't agree with the strike zone as defined in rule 2. <b>WEAK</B>. Upon review your quotes show me how YOU waiver in your posts not to prove a point, but rather to prove YOUR point. First you state the finality required of the decision, then falter to allowing them changed "per Carl's list". Which thought will be your final decision? You may discuss this with your partner before making the call. Or, we might even let you make your call and then correct your decision---but I guess that would only be allowable depending upon whatever your FINAL decision actually is........ Catch 22, I guess.

As Carl references Orwelle's <u>Animal Farm</u> on occasion, I cannot help but think I am looking at the rules posted and amended by Snowball and Napoleon. The rest of us, like the poor working horse (I can't remember his name) are expected to sit back and accept the dictates. Perhaps this will be another case where we will support a position by saying these "amendments" are the official interpretations passed on by MLB. Of course, somewhere in the next thread will be statements about things that DON'T apply to us because "that's Pro, and we shouldn't compare ourselves to Pro." In other words, some tend to pick and choose what they want to apply and when to apply it not necessarily for the sake of the game, but for the sake of winning their argument. Actually, I am beginning to question whether or not I may be in Pleasantville.

<b>Warren Willson (quoted):

That 3 strikes will always be an OUT is something many people have come to depend on for solid stability, when everything else in their lives appears at best as jellow.</b>

Warren, I don't mean to add instability to your life, it's good to see you back on the boards. I merely wish to show you what it is like when someone wants to nitpcik your writings despite the fact they KNOW what is meant. Your above statement is obviously wrong. Even you know, I hope, that strike three has to be caught to be an out. Even this, of course, has a few exceptions put in by the book, not by Carl. <b>Strike three is not always an out.</b>

Just my opinion,

BTW, Columbus and I are still in agreement---the world is round, and it took someone to discover that fact.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
To answer your specific question, Mike, NO - I do NOT want to reconsider my position on this question. Do you?
===========

No I do not. I can read also. It is simply your interpretation that 9.02 final means the FIRST decision as opposed to the FINAL decision.. It is also directly toward coaches and arguments, protests. My position is also clearly supported by the long comments section which describes getting help when not sure. These comments DO NOT narrow this ability to specific areas or calls that have not yet been made.

B.J. Moose

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?

The Great Bill Klem
 

Slightly off subject, because Moose is arguing about "may" rather than "should" for changed calls, is this reference I found to Bill Klem:

<b>"He could be stubborn. He reportedly once started to call a runner out at the plate, then signaled safe when a ball rolled loose. The catcher showed him he still held the ball; the loose ball had apparently fallen from one of Klem's pockets. He refused to change his call."</b>

from Bill Klem, The Baseball Online Library.

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?

Moose support hits rock bottom...
 

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 <i><b>for that type of call</b></i>!

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 <b>judgement call</b>, that is NO CONTEST. Umpire Dignity (read Game Management) wins hands down, every time!

The rules intended that the umpire's judgement decision be <b><i>unquestioned</b></i>. That is clearly the import of OBR 9.02<i>ff</i>. 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 <i>sure enough</i> to <b>LIE</b> about what he saw and, when the coach <i>called his bluff</i>, instead of dealing with the consequences of that <b>LIE</b> 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]

Re: Moose support hits rock bottom...
 

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.

The Rocky and Bullwinkle show ...
 

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 <b>LIED</b> 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 <b>LIE</b> 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)

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

Cheers,

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

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

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...

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]

Warren Wilson <b>(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!............</b>


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 <u>object or argue</u> an umpire's decision. It does not preclude <u>questioning</u> an umpire's decision. <b>There is a difference.</b> 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. <i>Is not the decision on whether or not a batter actually swung a judgement decision?</i> 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)<b>.....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?.........</b>

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).

<b>.......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").</b>

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 <b>intent of the rules</b>---making his best effort to get the call right---<u>above and beyond his own personal need to prove infallibility</u>. 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 <b>integrity</b>.

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]

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

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 -

"<i>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.</i>"

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, <u><b>you didn't do your job</u></b>! 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 "<i>except for the umpire who made the original decision</i>". 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 <u>by rule</u>, 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,

One last time, Steve....
 

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 <b>FINAL</b>!

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 <u>proves</u> the rule"! See, Steve, if it was normally <b><i>expected</b></i> that such judgement decisions COULD be questioned in this manner, WHY would the 1976 Note even be necessary? Any ideas on that, Steve?

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".

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!


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.

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.

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.

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 <i>Official Baseball Rules Annotated</i>.

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]

No A2D, huh. Ok....
 

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?

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 <b><i>certain</b></i> 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 <b><i>and</b></i> 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,