Carl's list of five

[Carl Childress]

It is apparent that a small group wishes to nit-pick a perfectly reasonable guideline for umpires of games at all levels.

First, they always refer to it as "Carl's list of 5" as if that automatically makes it worthless or wrong. In this country most umpires who have heard of me would believe that gives the list status.

Second, it's not MY LIST. It's a compilation of five instances where the rules, official interpretation, or current practice sanction a changed call. Three of those are judgment calls that are changed IN SPITE OF the language of 9.02(a).

Let me go over the list one more time, individually. If anyone disagrees, please let us know. On the other hand, if you believe these five instances do represent calls that may be changed legally, stop denigrating the list!

1. Two umpire make opposite calls on the same play. I argue that one of those calls will be legally changed to match the other. Does anyone disagree?

2. The plate umpire calls "Ball, no he didn't go!" and the catcher asks him to get help. The appropriate base umpire may legally say, "Yes, he did." (9.02c CMT) Does anyone disagree?

3. An umpire misinterprets a rule, and another umpire corrects his error. (9.02b and c) Does anyone disagree?

4. A call of foul is changed to fair or a home run becomes a double (also vice versa). Fitzpatrick interpretation, common practice in the major leagues. Does anyone disagree that it occurs? Does anyone disagree that it is done legally?

5. A ball comes loose on a tag for an out, and another umpire sees it. (9.02c; JEA) Does anyone disagree?

If you believe there are other instances that can be legally changed, please post them and the authoritative opinion supporting that ruling.

Finally: Someone is all agog that some AAA umpires in Arizona discussed whether they should learn how to change an erroneous call even during continuous action. The tone of the quote was such that a careless reader might think the discussion provided an answer different from current practice, which is "No, it cannot be changed."

George Bush was governor of Texas while my state executed over 250 people. No doubt each time he discussed recommending to the Pardon Board they commute the death sentence. But he did it only once, and that time for a serial killer.

Discussing an issue means nothing. My wife and I discussed going to Hawaii this summer. She said: "I don't want to go if it costs more than $100." I said: "Me neither."

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 18th, 2001 at 05:31 PM]