|
Tue Feb 06, 2001, 10:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
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:
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] 
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 08:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 CONSERVE THOSE OUTS (for the Offense) or GET THOSE OUTS (if your the defense) 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 KNOWS 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 old adage - baseball is unique it's Different I think baseball could take some things from our fellow officials in Football and Basketball. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 09:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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...
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 10:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Patrick Szalapski (quoted):
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. I fail to see significant differences in the last allowable exception 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,
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 05:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
Moose's Call and The Pace of Change.
Quote:
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 one word - LEGALLY. The five calls in Carl's list are all legally 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. Pete Booth AND Bfair: 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 Future Shock, 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 Field of Dreams 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]
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 07:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Quote:
|
|
Wed Feb 07, 2001, 08:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I draw your attention to OBR 9.02(a) and quote it's first sentence here to save you looking it up for yourself: "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." 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 by rule 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]
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 01:07am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 dropped 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 still true if we are talking about a ball that was never caught 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 immediately reversing his own call the moment he noticed the ball in the dirt, and before 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 after a call has already been made, and after 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]
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 02:17am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, when you email 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 publicly post their minor error, that's not helpful nit-picking it's oneupmanship! You wouldn't deliberately engage in THAT though, would you Dave? Cheers,
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 02:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
Quote:
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 06:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
"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." 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 by rule 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 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. WEAK. 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 Animal Farm 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. 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. 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. Strike three is not always an out. Just my opinion, BTW, Columbus and I are still in agreement---the world is round, and it took someone to discover that fact.
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 11:17am
|
|||
|
|||
[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.
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 11:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
Thu Feb 08, 2001, 12:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
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:
"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." from Bill Klem, The Baseball Online Library.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
