NFHS interpretation

David Emerling · #17 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 24, 2005, 01:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by DG

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling
Well, according to your list of occurrences that can result in umpire consultation and correction, this would be ONE of them.

Apparently, if there is no question that a batted ball has not left the park and "Foul!" is called, no matter how outrageously incorrect - such a ruling must stand - even if everybody in the park realizes it is was fair - even the umpire who made the ruling.

On the other hand, if the ball has clearly left the park, and has been outrageously ruled "Foul!", it can be changed.

Is that where we are?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

No, this is not where we are. The PBUC is OBR. FED ruling would be that a verbal FOUL can not be changed, no matter how bad the call is. [/B]

You're right. I didn't notice that your list was a PBUC list.

Well, at least FED is consistent on this one - no matter how illogical.

FED 10-2-3l says: Umpire-in-chief duties - Rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage.

Why not say no decisions can be reversed? Some can? Which ones? Where are those listed in the FED rulebook/casebook?

If such a list is soley the product of an interpretation, then there is no point in citing any rule when one of these interpretations are invoked. The essence of most interpretations is a tacit acknowledgement that either 1) there is no rule that directly addresses a certain situation, or 2) the applicable rule is too vague, or 3) the applicable rule is too specific and does not encompass alternate/similar variations along the same theme.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN