Old Time Religion - Judgement Calls

[Ump20]

I am not sure that any of these “classics” will convince readers about the illegality of changing your judgment calls nor the finality of foul ball calls past first-base but I’ll offer them for consideration:

(1) Base Umpire Mechanics (excerpt from NASO’s It’s Official April 1996)

Pulled foot, swipe tag, dead ball. “In the rare situations when you need help on a pulled foot or swipe tag at first, get help from your plate umpire before you make a call. A capable base umpire will get his own calls. This is especially true if you are on the same side of the diamond as the call…”

(2) Judgment Calls Are Final (excerpt from Referee Magazine November 1992)

“Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment…is final (Fed 10-1-3, NCAA 3-6f, OBR 9.02a) Those simple words mean exactly what they say. The result: When the umpire announces a judgment decision by rule the call cannot be changed…

Umpires who want to change judgment calls often justify the changes by referring to pro rules 9.02b and c )(or similar rules in other books). Those rules say, in part, that if there is reasonable doubt that an umpire’s decision may be in conflict the umpire making the original call may ask another umpire for information, then the original umpire will make a final decision. That’s a nice rule, but it does not apply to the above play. Why? Because there is no conflict with the rules. The base umpire judged that the defensive team did retire the batter-runner. There is no information another umpire could offer (such as the ball was dropped by the fielder out of the base ump’s field of view) that was not available to the base umpire. Jim Simms/ NY

NASO is National Association of Sports Officials. It’s Official is now part of the monthly Referee Magazine.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Ump20
There is no information another umpire could offer (such as the ball was dropped by the fielder out of the base ump’s field of view) that was not available to the base umpire.

I'm on your side, but the above statement is erroneous. If the base umpire didn't see it, it obviously wasn't available to him. It's not as if the base umpire had the information and chose to ignore it; he actually WISHES he had the information but must make the call without it.

For the other reasons you and others give, though, I agree with you and also with Carl's List of the only changable calls.

P-Sz

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski

I'm on your side, but the above statement is erroneous. If the base umpire didn't see it, it obviously wasn't available to him. It's not as if the base umpire had the information and chose to ignore it; he actually WISHES he had the information but must make the call without it.

For the other reasons you and others give, though, I agree with you and also with Carl's List of the only changable calls.

P-Sz

I believe that the article covered plays at first in which the base umpire has seen the play and has made a judgement call. The ball was not on the ground and BU saw no reason to check with the PU BEFORE rendering a call. I think there has been general agreement about the need to correct the situation where you see the ball on the ground and your partner making the call does not. I think I'll now try to include this in my pre-game with my partner.

I think one of the problems with umpires who try to change these calls AFTER judgement is made is that they are generally done after coaches complain. This invites future questioning on other close calls. Those who want all calls correct even after the fact even if they involve continuation plays should remeber one umpire, one call and the fact that the two-man system isn't going to insure no calls are missed. Jim Simms/NY

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Ump20


“Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment…is final (Fed 10-1-3, NCAA 3-6f, OBR 9.02a) Those simple words mean exactly what they say. The result: When the umpire announces a judgment decision by rule the call cannot be changed…

Ye Gods! Disclaimer: I am NOT re-entering this silly argument over semantics... however, let's be clear, I (and others) will continue to argue the LEGAL vs ILLEGAL point.

It is NOT illegal.

Boys... look a the paragraph above.. which cites FED... trying to support the argument that Once Made... it CANNOT be changed. EVER. Now... (are you sitting down).. turn to page 71 of your 2001 FED CASE BOOK at look at 10.2.3.

Hello?? If this call change is ILLEGAL (it ain't).. then why does FED ALLOW IT??

TYPING SAVER: this is NOT a mechanics argument... we all know its a @#% up sitch... but it is LEGAL. (aka - No Protest).

Question: Does the BRD notate this "clear difference" in FED vs (alleged) OBR on this issue??

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by BJ Moose

Ye Gods! Disclaimer: I am NOT re-entering this silly argument over semantics... however, let's be clear, I (and others) will continue to argue the LEGAL vs ILLEGAL point.

It is NOT illegal.

---[snip]---

TYPING SAVER: this is NOT a mechanics argument... we all know its a @#% up sitch... but it is LEGAL. (aka - No Protest).

OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL "Illegal (or illegally) is contrary to these rules."

OBR 9.02(a) "Any umpire's decision which involves judgement ... is final."

Referee Magazine November 1992 "...a judgement decision by rule cannot be changed..."

The only two exceptions to this are also specifically mandated by rule. They are check swings, OBR 9.02(c)Note, and conflicting decisions by two or more umpires, OBR 9.04(c).

Moose, those are the rules. ILLEGAL does NOT mean protestable. The rules specify precisely what ILLEGAL means. If all judgement decisions where legally able to be changed, there would be no need for two specific rules setting out that those decisions can be changed in certain unique circumstances.

You have LOST THE ARGUMENT. For crying out loud, GIVE IT UP! To do otherwise is to ignore reality.

Cheers,

[Bfair]

Warren Willson (quoted):
OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL "Illegal (or illegally) is contrary to these rules."

OBR 9.02(a) "Any umpire's decision which involves judgement ... is final."

Referee Magazine November 1992 "...a judgement decision by rule cannot be changed..."

Carl's complete list of 5 would not fall within this reasoning, Warren. However, you support Carl's list of 5.

As Dave points out, you are remaining inconsistent in your logic and arguments. Not surprising as of late. You will have difficult time winning this argument while remaining consistent. Please decide which you will choose to do.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren Willson (quoted):
OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL "Illegal (or illegally) is contrary to these rules."

OBR 9.02(a) "Any umpire's decision which involves judgement ... is final."

Referee Magazine November 1992 "...a judgement decision by rule cannot be changed..."

Carl's complete list of 5 would not fall within this reasoning, Warren. However, you support Carl's list of 5.

As Dave points out, you are remaining inconsistent in your logic and arguments. Not surprising as of late. You will have difficult time winning this argument while remaining consistent. Please decide which you will choose to do.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Steve,

Please see the latest thread started by Carl Childress that once again treats the five exceptions that allow such a reversal. In there I actually quoted a play in the American League Playoffs of 1986 that seems to be contrary to the list as presented by Carl (that does not make it only Carl's List). I show this example not because I think that judgment calls once rendered can legally be reversed or that I think Carl is wrong. I do so only because this ONE MLB situation seems to do contradict the famous List of 5. I don't do so to tell Carl he's wrong but only because he has considerable knowledge and may have talked to Richie Garcia about this actual play. I don't umpire by the Carl Childress or Warren Wilson school but you can be darn sure what they have told me over the years has made me a better official, at least a more confident one. I think they have helped countless others

I am dismayed when posters look for snipets of language that might refute or at least reflect on the credibility of some real craftsman. If I followed that logic I would point out that we have a TV news photograper who comes to his son's games. On disputed calls we use his camera to make sure we get calls RIGHT. Why do we do this? Because one time a MLB umpire did the same thing. I would exclude the fact that he was told don't do it again. If you want to bring videotape replay into your league you could do so. That does not make it official or legal but it might help final calls.

My whole intention in posting the reference from an umpire article from 1992 is that I have been conversant with the legality or lack thereof in reversing calls for some time. It was not so much to support Carl or Warren (they sure don't need me to do that) but it was meant to try to get some people to look beyond WHO was posting and look at the WHAT they were saying. Jim/NY

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
> Moose, those are the rules. ILLEGAL does NOT mean protestable.

That seems to conflict with your statement to Peter just two days ago:

> You changed a judgement decision. No question. OBR 9.02(a) says that
> can't be done. Therefore it is ILLEGAL and because it is a
> misapplication of the rule, it is also protestable.

Once again on the trail of nits to pick, eh Dave? My response in this post was to the logical fallacy posted by Moose that the act of changing a judgement call was LEGAL because it was NOT protestable. I simply reversed the language to point out that, by definition, his reasoning was WRONG. For all practical purposes an illegal act which involves a misapplication of a rule IS protestable. That doesn't ipso facto make the definition of ILLEGAL = protestable, even if the practical effect is the same. It certainly doesn't make the reverse case true, which is what Moose argued. If you are going to pick nits, at least make them juicy enough to be worth the picking! Either that or find another occupation.

You have apparently made me a target of your activities since I returned. I wonder if you really believe the other posters haven't seen that for what it is? You seem to have lost all impartiality in these debates, Dave. That's sad.

Cheers,