Wow... I put alot of work into my "last" message. It wouldn't do any good to say,"WHAT?" but what the heck.. "WHAT??"

To summarize:

It is an EXPRESSION OF OPINION that a call cannot be changed. It can. Sect 9 comments to umpires makes this CLEAR, although it does conflict with "judgment calls are final". But this is simply another example of contradiction in the rulebook of which there are several.
I would also theorize that the "judgment final" section is intented for the coaches, meaning you can't protest, and once a umpire has MADE his final decision, that THAT IS IT.

Thus, RF, (look I'm smiling) is incorrect, technically.

You MAY espouse that a call should NOT be changed, eat the call, live with it, etc etc. You may be correct.

However, it is perfectly LEGAL for calling umpire to CHANGE his call, for whatever reason. Ex: getting info from his partner. This is not overruling, this is simply a change, and it is not protestable.. therefore it is legal.

PS: I wanted to be sure I was on record as saying that WW in his first response to the BIG THREAD posted one of the best thought out and most logical eat the call posts. However, his last response was another story altogether.

This one will make the cut, won't it?

You say that it is perfectly LEGAL for calling umpire to CHANGE his call, for whatever reason.

Yes. It is also perfectly legal (by baseball rules) to pee on second base.

Mr. Childress has listed those calls where a change in call is acceptable by the traditions of baseball and most trainers and supervisors. You may argue with those and continue to try to justify your error and remain a "mid tier" umpire. Or you may learn from your mistake and the traditions of the game and take the next step in your development.

Your choice.


BellevueBlue

Amazing! You're still not reading carefully. I haven't gone back through the entire thread, but I know most posters agree that calls <b>can</b> be changed. Indeed, I argue that they <b>must</b> be changed. But not all calls <b>may</b> be changed. Note carefully that the 1950 case book comment you allude to does not identify <b>which plays may be changed</b>. The traditon and professional interpretation decide that. And that is, indeed, opinion, but highly "authoritative opinion" reaching near the level of "official."

You call was not one of those sanctioned for change.

Warren, as the other objective observers noted, was dead on both times. You are <b>still</b> defending an indefensible action.

BTW: I didn't see your most recent post. But if it was deleted, it was clearly in violation of the guideliness set out by Right Sports and the Admin, Bradley Batt.

Baseball Is Not A Perfect Game
 

I responded to the original post about the blown force at second base. If you made a call and you're the only one in the stadium that seems to be of the opinion that you had an out than it's unfortunate but you have to live with it.

Articles about officiating notes that lots of officials are leaving and few are joining. Part of this may be attributable to the close scrutiny even at the high school level. Videotape shows that it isn't just the pros that miss a call from time to time. You missed this one maybe in part because you assumed the force. You need to stay focused on the play.

Others have stated that you were "out of your league" at a Connie Mack regional. I wasn't there so I don't know but making up your own rules about appeals isn't reflective of a professional umpire at the amateur level. I realize the tendency is to "make it right" but life isn't always fair. Carl Childress presented a clear outline of calls that can be changed. This isn't one of them. Jim/NY

I didn't see Moose's initial post, thus I have no comment on it.

In regards to Dave's question: <b>"Surely it was *perceived* by Mr. Batt to be in violation of the guidelines set out by Right Sports (by the way, where exactly are those guidelines? Is there a link I can click somewhere and read them?)"</b>

1. As owner/administrator it is well within Mr. Batt's authority to act upon his perception, just as is for Gary McGriff and the administrators at ETeamz. The fact that each draws the line at different areas does not diminish their right to do so.

2. When you registered at this forum you first "had to" read the policy on the appropriateness of posts, which included the guidelines, and then click either "ok" or "I accept", I believe. I forget the exact language.

In essence we have all been forewarned.

I don't know if there is a link to bring that back up after registering.

3. Regards Dave's comment: <b>"but, as someone else said on a private mail list where the banned Moose post has resurfaced, there are any number of much more inflammatory posts, by a number of members, readily accessible in the forum archives."</b>

That would be in their opinion. I happen to agree, but sometimes some posts escape the attention of the administrators. They do not monitor this forum 24 hours a day. Additionally, it is not my, or anyone else's opinion that rules on this issue, it is that of the forum's administrators.

Again, likewise elsewhere. I cannot get posts removed from McGriff's that go far beyond what is tolerated here. That is for Gary to decide.

I never saw this.. but I did watch a partner take a leak in the outfield during a game.

Be assured. This umpire mechanics rule. "Don't whiz on the playing field" is IN my book.