Re: Re: Re: Setting the record straight
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Instead, I preserved his anonymity. Where's the blame here?

It was unnecessary. Truth, justice and the American way could have been preserved without that action.

What Can We Learn?
 

I think one of the strongest skills an umpire can have besides good mechanics and a strong knowledge of the rules, is good interpersonal skills. Think about it, at any one time we are involved with some 30-60 other individuals including players, coaches and our fellow umpires. The thread has again deteriorated into who called whom what when and where. I am not so concerned whether Carl is correctly quoting Peter that he called this crew idiots or whether he was reflecting upon a hypothetical umpiring team that might be construed to be composed of idiots (generally a rather harsh term for college officials but an improvement in my mind over buttsnufflers).

What I want to know is whether some of you have had similar experiences with a relatively new official (sixth game at Division I) and how much you might have thought his non-call was born out of misplaced respect for his fellow senior officials? Was there something you learned about putting that official on the same page so he would not be reluctant to make a call when it should be made?

I have only done a few three-man games and I wonder if it would have been natural for U2 to have assumed either U1 or the PU should have gotten the hit batter call? Jim Simms/NY

Call vs. decision !!!
 

It should be noted that topics regarding changing a call developed from what actually is done, to what could be done, to what should be done, and what is legal to be done. Much of the rhetoric and confusion is occurring because of mixing arguments reflecting the <u>various</u> positions. I will attempt to identify which of the above is being addressed throughout this post.
__________________________________________________ _________

<b>QUESTION #1: Is this a judgement call?
ANSWER : Yes</b>

Whether a ball struck or did not strike a batter is a judgement call. It is not a rules misinterpretation.
__________________________________________________ _
<i><b>(QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

After the ensuing conferences, the 2BU admitted that he did see the batter struck by the ball. Even though retroactively, <u>there indeed was conlicting calls made by two umpires</u>.</b> (My underline emphasis)

<b>The mistake that was made by 2BU was his failure to call the hit-by-pitch right away</b></i>.
___________
<B>QUESTION #2: Were 2 calls made on the same play to justify changing a call? <u>Should</u> this call have been reversed for that reason?
Answer : "NO"</b>

Jim, to say that U2 made a "call" on the batter<u> IS </u>ludicrous. To say U2 may have made a decision in his mind which he did not announce is more accurate. Announcing that decision when the decision does not belong to him is, indeed, the act of making a call. Therefore, no announcement, no call. He may provide his decision to PU when PU asks for it. Furthermore, as Peter pointed out in his hypothetical situation (which WAS taken out of context by Childress) the BU doesn't belong at this level if he provides his "decision of what occurred" to the irate coach instead of PU. We should all agree on that. No?

PU did not call the HBP either. That, "no call" by the PU indeed <u>is a call</u> <b>since the call belongs to PU.</b> His "no call" is in effect stating that the ball did not contact the batter. No different than PU makes a "no call" regarding HBP on every other pitch which does not contact the batter. PU is not required or expected to state on every pitch that it did not hit the batter. His lack of stating that it hit the batter is a "call" that it did not.
__________________________________________________ ________
<b>QUESTION #3: Does U2 have any <u>legal</u> right to make a <u>call</u> in this situation?
ANSWER : I don't know, but I don't think so.</b>

Keep in mind, <b><u>by all sets of rules</u></b> (OBR, NCAA, Fed) the <u>duty of the PU</u> is to <b><u>"make all decisions on the batter"</u></b>. Childress, in his later post, refused to address the issue pointed out by the wording of the rule. His response ridiculed me for addressing NCAA situation by referencing an OBR rule (which reads the same as NCAA). Now that I have addressed his nitpicking issue, I hope he will take the time to address the <b>real issue</b> (rather than circumvent it). Childress indicated the BU had "concurrent jurisdiction" with the PU on the HBP call. Based upon the indisputable wording of the rules of ALL rulebooks, I disagree.

Therefore, I wish to see this point refuted by anyone believing a field ump has "<u>official or legal</u> right and/or duty given to him by the rulebook to make the call of HBP on the batter. This is not legally "concurrent jurisdiction" as indicated so by Childress.

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree BU's coming in to help <b>is done and should be done</b> as we do it through history, tradition, and common practice meeting the General Instructions to Umpires. I, however, must question its <b><u>legality</u></b>. Perhaps legal through authoritiativie opinion or official interpretation? C'mon guys, why is opinion or official interpretation even needed. Read the rule------PU had duty to <b>"make all decisions on the batter"</b> Exactly what gray area needs interpreting here? What is not understood?
__________________________________________________ _________
<b>QUESTION #4: Does authoritative opinion or official interpretation take precedence over rules "not in question?"
That is, rules that are so specific they leave <b><u>no doubt</u></b> as to their meaning and intent.
ANSWER : No (in my opinion)</b>

Authoritative opinion and official interpretation needs to be used to <b><u>clarify</u></b> the rules, not to change them. Childress in the past stated it was his <u>opinion</u> that the General Instructions to Umpires should be ignored. He used statements from Jim Evans and/or NL training guide to support this opinion. As I see it, the General Instructions were put in the book for a reason and are still part of every book (to the best of my knowledge). They are still contained in new books being printed. They must have amended the book in the 60's or 70's to put in the DH rule. If the General Instructions were outdated, they could have been removed at that time were it meant to be. They chose not to. <i>I will accept usage of the General Instructions as part of the rulebook (not part of the rules) over the "opinion" of Childress.</i> Furthermore, I will likely not accept <u>a rule change</u> that does not involve a questionable area of the rules merely because it is an unofficial "official interpretation" delivered by Childress. <b>A rule change</b> needs to occur by amending the rulebook and not through an unofficial delivery means. (Regardless of how knowledgeable and accurate the messenger may be). I will accept unofficial "official interpretations" delivered by Childress for areas of the rules that have questions primarily because we have no better "official" means of delivery that I am aware of.
__________________________________________________ _______

In conclusion, the reversal of the call in the Texas / Stanford game does not qualify according to the list of 5 acceptable changes presented to us as unofficial "official interpretation". Therefore, to reverse the decision as was done would be not be "by the rules". Therefore, using Warren's previous logic, it would be illegal and protestable.

I should not fail to add that the situation falls into one discussed by Childress whereby one ump may add information to the decision of another ump, thereby allowing the call to be reversed. However, it ain't in the list of 5. If it ain't in the list of 5 it just can't be legal without breaking the rules. That has been the position of Warren Willson as Childress so accurately pointed out my mistake (of attributing that position to Childress). So those who follow the black & white of the rules-----don't reverse the call.

Those Neo-Romantics such as Jon Bible and myself who are not afraid to understand the intent and meaning of the rules and apply them while on the field may go against the teachings of Childress and reverse a call in that situation. We will follow the General Instructions and make it more important to do our jobs amd get the call right for the sake of the game----as opposed to protecting our dignity and egos.

I believe if Childress were to follow his own policies and writings he must admit this call should never have been reversed. Is that true? The readers truly want to know, <b>"Would Childress have reversed the call had he been UIC and not provided the immediate, necessary assistance from his BU's?</b> Now, will this question get answered? I hear the drum roll<b>................. His readers, inquiring minds want to know!!!

<i>Jim Porter (quoted to Bfair):

Well, we've certainly found the relationship between this tough call at UT and the list. Now all you have to do is open up your mind just a little bit and let the sun shine in! </i></b>

Jim, the only relationship I have seen is the continued efforts to attempt to put a size 12 foot into a size 10 shoe. People keep looking for any excuse to "legalize" the action. I have already legalized through the analogy of the General Instructions. You won't find it elsewhere. That dog just won't hunt.

It is the hypocrisy of attempting to support the action for one and not looking to support it for the other that also bothers me at times. Those who have followed all the posts know what I mean. Huh, good buddy!


Certainly, we all hope these situations will be few and far between. We must acknowledge, however, they do occur and they occur even moreso with umps less trained (and less paid) than those at the Professional level---despite the fact that we wish to continue to try to maintain the professional standards. My belief is to try to get the call right wherever it is feasible based on the happenings of the game. I think that is what occurred in Texas / Stanford.

Just my opinion,

Bfair
Steve Freix
The Neo-Romantic
The Neo-Know-Nothing

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 24th, 2001 at 03:03 PM]

Steve,

I read everything you wrote. You're just wrong.

Furthermore, I rather resent your implication that my opinion was posted for some ulterior motive other than <b>it is what I truly believe to be correct</b>. I have not questioned your motives, please don't question mine, unless you'd rather I completely ignore your existence on this planet. I don't want to do that, so please let's just stick to the topics and keep personalities out of this. It is, of course, your choice.

About a year and a half ago, a poster on another board made the case that a "decision" was not the same as a "call" - an argument I see you bringing forth here. This poster argued this ridiculous point so vehemently that a ruling was requested from the PBUC which clarified, once and for all, that a "decision" and a "call" are <b>exactly the same thing.</b>

I certainly hope you won't push it as far as that poster did.

So, what are you EWS guys gonna do? Are you gonna keep pushing and pushing until no one wants to visit this board anymore? Ease up, Dude. You're overboard.

I grow tired of this topic. I won't even be reading anymore about it. Let's move on to something more constructive.

Re: Call vs. decision !!!
 

No-one EVER claimed it was "a rules misinterpretation".

The ONLY real justification for your position here is that U2 did NOT, <i><b>in your opinion</b></i>, have "concurrent jurisdiction" over this call with the PU. In other words, you are chosing YOUR opinion over that of any other source of expertise. THAT IS JUST FLAT WRONG! You say you won't accept Childress' unofficial "official interpretations" (sic), but how about Jim Evans in his <i>Official Baseball Rules Annotated</i>? Here is what he has to say on this subject (Carl Childress has already given you this information but it appears you either didn't bother to read it or you simply chose to ignore it because it came from Childress):

"<i>When a certain category of "obvious" errors exists, a partner is expected to move in and help rectify the mistake. These errors do not involve plays in which the umpire's judgment is in question but rather the conditions under which the decision was made...

This procedure would be followed when it appears to the base umpire that the plate umpire based his judgment call on something his partner obviously did not see...

PLAY: The batter squares to bunt the 1-1 pitch. The catcher rises and prepares to field the potential bunt. The ball is bunted, and it deflects off the batter's foot while he is still in the batter's box. The ball rolls toward the mound and the catcher fields it. The plate umpire points the ball "Fair" as the catcher is picking it up.

RULING: The base umpire should immediately signal 'Time' and kill the play. Even though the plate umpire has made a call, it is obvious to the base umpire that his partner was blocked out and could not see the entire play. The base umpire in this case has <b><u>equal jurisdiction</b></u> and is correct in overruling his partner and changing the call to "Foul" when it is obvious that the incorrect decision has been rendered.</i>" {my bold and underline}

It is clear from this that, even though a ball hitting or not hitting the batter is clearly (a) a judgement decision and (b) normally reserved to the Plate Umpire, there ARE circumstances where the Base Umpire has equal or joint jurisdiction in making the call. <i>No-one really cares whether you accept that or not, Steve, any more than they care whether or not I do - and I certainly DO!</i>

It is the right to change a call where two umpires have made different calls on the same play that is the LEGAL issue, Steve. The LEGALITY of that is spelled out in OBR 9.04(c). No-one EVER claimed it was necessarily LEGAL, by the rule book definition, for the two officials to be making the call on this particular play. It was instead claimed that it was HISTORY and TRADITION, coupled with the Professional practice as outlined in JEA 9.15, that makes this call one of equal or concurrent jurisdiction for the Base Umpire. It appears in the List of 5 Legally Changable Calls because it is LEGAL to change the call under OBR 9.04(c), but the basis for making those calls of equal or concurrent jurisdiction is in JEA 9.15 and not the rule book. <i>No-one really cares whether or not you, personally, accept that any more than they care whether or not I do. The facts remain unchanged either way.</i>!

I do not recall Carl Childress saying the General Instructions to Umpires should be "ignored", as you claim. I do recall him saying they were "outdated" and needed to be viewed in the context of current professional practice and reinterpreted. I certainly remember him referring you to a Jim Evans commentary on those General Instructions, which appears as an Appendix to his <i>Official Baseball Rules Annotated</i>. The General Instructions were NEVER intended to take precedence over the actual rules, and clearly do NOT form a part of the rules themselves.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is NOT shared by the majority of thinking officials world wide. The undisputable FACT is that the NAPBL makes interpretations that DO "change" rather than simply "clarify" the rules, as do the MLB professionals. Most of us choose to follow those changes because IT IS THEIR RULE BOOK we are following. If you have any doubt about that, check the Forward to your inviolate <i>Official Baseball Rules</i>, and you will see that it was "<i>written to cover the playing of baseball games by professional teams of the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, and the leagues which are members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.</i>" If THEY say THEY want THEIR rules changed by making interpretations to that effect then MOST sensible, thinking officials will ACCEPT THEIR CHANGES as "official" and so a part of the actual rules themselves, and by extension LEGAL.

Again, no-one really cares what YOU personally think about official interpretations and authoritative opinion, much less what you personally think about Carl Childress as a "delivery means", any more than they really care what I think about those things. Each will make his own decision. I am of the opinion that MOST will choose, as I certainly do, to accept these sources out of simple common sense. Whether you choose to accept or reject these sources is entirely up to you.

Just flat WRONG, Steve.

As Jim Porter pointed out, a call (or a no call) is a decision and <i>vice versa</i>. In this situation there were clearly at least 2 separate decisions. OBR 9.04(c) tells how to legally change a call when there are two separate decisions on the same play which differ. It is LEGAL to change a judgement call when there are 2 separate and different judgement decisions made on the same play by different umpires.

Like Jim, I've had way too much of this discussion over the several threads. It seems only to be Steve "Bfair" Freix, Peter "His High Holiness" Osborne and Mike "BJMoose" Branch who disagree, and all are avowed members of the same clique (EWS). If Steve, and others like him, are not convinced now then they never will be. That's too bad, but that's also life. Whether any individual chooses to believe Steve Freix, Peter Osborne and Mike Branch, OR Warren Willson, Carl Childress, Jim Porter, Jim Evans and the OBR is entirely up to each person following this discussion.

I have broken my own vow not to respond to Steve's posts, by posting this response. I made that vow and so it was mine to break, just like the NAPBL and MLB make the rules and so those rules are theirs to interpret AND change. I felt that the issues were so confused by Steve's post that they deserved to be finally reclarified and the balance redressed. I will now return to honoring my vow and not post in response to this poster. Like Jim Porter, I will not respond any more on this issue.



[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 24th, 2001 at 06:30 PM]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!
 

I am not a CC or WW hater...nor am I a member of any other camp, except umpires struggling to learn how to do it better. In fact, I appreciate the scholarship that WW brings to the table. I would bet though, that if one of the more infamous CC/WW haters blatantly called someone a LIAR, the thread or post would be in jeopardy. Just my opinion.

Pat, Rogue Valley

Liar, Liar Pants On Fire
 

Dear Pat,

I also respect WW's well thought out posts. I also believe that in some situations he could have been "censored" by the Forum Police. I beg to differ in this case, as nowhere do I see him call anyone a "LIAR". He might have alluded to a poster not being part of the "thinking" family of umpires. Personally, I think he and others lead themselves open to attack when they make vows not to respond to certain posts by other members. If that person makes what is perceived to be a valid umpiring point, I think it should be subject to view and comment by all. If WW perceives it to be predominantly a personal attack that is when he should exercise his vow and not post at all. Jim/NY

I'm with T!
 

What a bunch of horsefeathers! It's a good thing the EWS is around!

I read Steve's long post. Some I just don't understand (but, remember, according to [unnamed by oath] I am Brainless. But most of it I think is right on. If it is OPINION, I agree with Stevey.

And I think he mentioned this EARLY in his post. SOME OF YOU PEOPLE cannot keep straight:

Things you SHOULD DO
Things you MUST DO
Things that are Fact
Things that are Opinions

If people could figure out the above 4.. then this waste of bandwith.. Yeah, Oh Yeah, would stop.

Mike Branch
Founder, Exhalted Member
EWS

Oh Yeah, You Guys Play Like Girls!!

Jim/NY and oregonblue...
 

<b>Jim:</b>

You are perfectly correct. For the record, I don't like being labelled a LIAR and I certainly don't use that term lightly with respect to other posters. I certainly haven't called Steve a LIAR in this thread. I have stated that I don't recall certain statements by Carl Childress that Steve claimed existed, but that's not an accusation against Steve; just a statement of fact. I don't recall them.

If Pat is referring to my suggestion that IF Peter Osborne had deliberately misrepresented my position in another forum, that made HIM a LIAR, then he is simply mistaken. The "IF" is the operative word there. I have NOT said that Peter DID take this course deliberately. That certainly WOULD have meant labelling him a LIAR under those circumstances. For obvious reasons, not the least of which is my different nationality and consequent idiomatic use of the language, I choose my words <i>very carefully</i> when addressing such matters.

On the question of "vows" and responses to posts, surely that is entirely MY decision to make, and should not be influenced by what anyone else perceives. I am not preventing anyone else from responding by my actions, and I certainly should have the personal freedom to chose whose posts I will respond to, or not, for whatever reason. As for being "open to attack", past history here is that I am MORE "open to attack" when I post than when I abstain from posting. The irony is that I am sometimes attacked for my views even when I DON'T post a response! The mere presence of my name in the author's location of a post has been a catalyst for some to attack the post, IMHO.

<b>oregonblue:</b>

It is a FACT that my posts certainly HAVE been moderated in this forum. If you feel that the content of ANY post, <b><i>includng mine</b></i>, has breached the guidelines of the Forum then you may notify the moderator by email and have him review that post. His email address is [email protected]. It will help him if you include the URL to the post you find offensive. That URL appears in the address box of your browser as you read the post, and may be cut and pasted into your email. He will confirm that he has edited my posts, at times removing entire paragraphs which he adjudged to be inflammatory and others removing entire posts which he concluded were sufficiently off topic.

I have NEVER claimed that I, or any of the other staff writers, deserved BETTER treatment in that respect than any other poster. I certainly HAVE claimed that some of us are subject to MORE constraints on our posts than the average poster, by virtue of our staff involvement. I have asked for EQUAL freedom to respond in our posts, or alternatively freedom from being attacked simply because of who we are. I believe that is fair, don't you Pat?

Cheers,

Mr. Klem:

First: The definition you use for prevaricate is NOT the definition in the Australian dictionry. Warren has quoted that definition before on this forum and -- I'm sure -- within the last six months -- while you lurked. Perhaps you missed it.

Second: I take it you are neither father nor teacher. Both "professions" make ample use of "It's not you I'm angry with; it's your behavior."

As Warren has said, we <b>all</b> have idiotic ideas from time to time. We all <b>should</b> be happy when someone points them out.

I've been married for more than 40 years, so I'm conversant with the way women use this technique. Mama says: "Good Lord, Papa, that's the dumbest thing I ever saw you do." My wife knows that <b>I</b> am not dumb, but we both know I do dumb things.

I suggest you were pulling our legs a little when you said you needed to look up "prevaricate." Artistic license, I'm sure since you proved by your post that you are a literate as well as composed writer. But this <b>idea</b> you have that Warren is calling people liars <b>is</b> just <b>idiotic</b>. (a hasty grin goes here, just in case)

It's perfectly possible to like a person and dislike a behavior. That's part of the basis of the criminal justice system in the United States; i.e., certain people get probation for an offense that sends another man to jail for 10 years.

Go back and read Warren's posts carefully. You'll see that <b>most of the time</b> Warren is complaining about ideas, a poster's behavior. Of course, sometimes Warren himself is just plain idiotic, and ....

BTW 1: There is no paid "staff" at eUmpire. There are seven free-lance writers, independent contractors, whose work appears, but not exclusively, at that site. We are not "employees" of Right Sports, Inc. In that respect we resemble the umpires who call a game between McAllen Memorial and Edinburg North. The home team pays, but the umpires are not employees of that home team.

BTW 2: eUmpire is always looking for good baseball writers. You may reach me at [email protected].

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 24th, 2001 at 11:10 PM]

Well, I'll throw another log on the fire. When a U2 says silently to himself, "Self, that's a HBP, I hope UIC calls it." and then neither says nor signals anything, he has not made a call

We are right to say that, in terms of the OBR, a decision is no different than a call. However, U2 has not made a decision, either--at least, not an important decision. He has made the decision that it was a HBP, he has made the decision to allow the UIC to call it, and--this is where we all agree he screwed up--he has made the decision not to call it himself. THAT's the decision. His no-call is a call. It agrees with the no-call of U1, U3, and UIC.

There is no logical justification for changing the call under OBR 9.04(c).

What we have here is a good ol' fashioned "Hey Bubba, ask Dick for help!" And he did. Not the most kosher use of 9.02(c), but that's what they did.

We've probably been over this; sorry if this post adds nothing new. Many of you disagree with my position, but that's my call and I'm stickin' to it.

P-Sz

Mr Klem, I don't KNOW you and despite the conclusions you have apparently drawn here I would have to say that you don't KNOW me either! There are just a couple of points to be made about your possibly premature decisions about me.

1. "<b>prevaricate</b> <i>v.i.</i> speak or act evasively or misleadingly; quibble, equivocate;" [The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Ed] I have posted that definition to this forum before. I have even posted it in direct response to Mr Osborne. He is well aware of the Australian idiom for this term. He well knows that the term, when used by me, does NOT normally carry the connotation of LIAR as you have concluded.

2. I have posted many times that it is simply not reasonable to infer attitudes and emotions from a text medium, especially when our cultures and language are so significantly different. The "innuendo, left-handed compliment and the subtle insult" are such fine distinctions in language usage that I believe it is totally unfair to infer them from a text message. You simply cannot be sure that what you are READING is what was intended and WRITTEN by the author! The best recourse is to ASK! For example, "<i>Did you really mean to imply that I am both snide and arrogant, Mr Klem?</i>"

3. I would have to ask what other writers, and from what other countries? Apart from a few Canadians, who have no doubt "lived" in close proximity with Americanisms for most of their lives, the vast majority of posters here appear to be American, and I can only make judgements about those who post. I can know little about the lurkers and neither, Mr Klem, can you. I must also ask why it must be only I that ought to "learn American ways"? Why shouldn't you equally be required and prepared to learn mine? As I have said before, I believe I am so frequently a target on these discussion boards because some people form an impression that my use of the language is "snooty", and so I too must be "snooty", or "superior" or "condescending". That is neither fair nor true, since that impression is formed from your own social source of reference. You'll just have to take my word for that. Try to look past your impressions, Mr Klem, and see only the words themselves.

This is only a part of the picture, Mr Klem. I qualified by noting that to say "<i>That idea is idiotic</i>" is acceptable <u>IF</u> it is accompanied by a reason or explanation for that opinion. Without that reason or explanation, saying such a thing is merely a "discussion-ender" and not beneficial. Adding the reason, OTOH, opens the door for further discussion. I respect your right to your opinions, Mr Klem. Just please do not presume they are either the RIGHT or the ONLY opinions, no matter whether or not you are convinced of that yourself.

You further say that the "<i>paid staff on eumpire have the halo of teacher attached to them</i>". Attached by whom? As Mr Childress explained, we are freelance contributors and staff writers. We are not "paid staff" in the sense that we are the salaried employees of eUmpire. We certainly are not salaried employees. I have NEVER asked to be considered as a "teacher", "expert" or even "Umpire royalty" as one poster recently proclaimed. Why should I be saddled with <i>your</i> expectations in that regard? Why should I, along with the other staff writers, be held to any higher standard in my posts? Most of us are, of course, one way or another but that is certainly neither just nor of our choosing. I have publicly argued that case for months now.

I don't WANT your pedestal, Mr Klem. I certainly didn't ASK for your pedestal. If my posts or articles have somehow caused you to judge me to be in that elevated position, it has more to do with YOU and YOUR PERCEPTIONS than it does with ME. I am not willing to be cast in the role of "educator", "expert" or "doyen" if that means a declared "open season" on me and my ideas while I am required to surrender the right to return fire! I also do NOT deserve to be criticised, Mr Klem, for how <i>YOU</i> have elected to perceive <i>ME</i> or my "attitudes" from my posts. That is altogether unreasonable.

Cheers,


[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 25th, 2001 at 05:00 AM]

Inviting All who lurk
 

SNIP

I agree with Carl Childress that there is a major difference. It is somewhat akin to the umpire instructor who says you can say "Hey Joe that was a horsebleep {Note for bleep please sunstitute apporpriate English, Canadian, or Australian vernacular} call. If you say that I am horsebleep -- You are gone {ejected}



Now indeed I do have to admit I looked up "doyen". Having seen Warren's photo I would definitely say that label fits. ...If it means "old guy"

Mr. Klem you described yourself as a "lurker" and began by seriously objecting to the character of one of the real doyens when it comes to use of the Internet. He responded in a measured way exhibiting wonderful skill with language. In all honesty when I began "surfing the web" in early 1997, to find out if there was anything I could learn about the craft of umpiring this Aussie's posts impressed me. The first post I saved as kind of a book on umpiring was one of Mr. Willson's. Just think of the untapped resources of this medium! An umpire several thousands of miles away can learn from us and we in kind, should we wish, can learn from him. This does not mean I think he is always right and cannot be challenged.

What I would like to see are more of the "lurkers" participate in this forum but not necessarily in this thread. Ask your questions. Share your experiences. Provide your opinions on what it takes to make us better umpires than we were on February 25, 2000. Jim Simms/NYC

Actually, Patrick, I agree <b>and</b> disagree.

I'll jump back into this thread just once, because Patrick has always been a gentleman on these forums, and has always been open to new information.

You are correct that initially there was no call made by U2. If the coach had stayed in the dugout and tossed a handful of sunflower seeds in his mouth rather than enter the field in protest, we'd be discussing how badly that crew missed the hit-by-pitch.

But the coach <b>did</b> enter the field to argue the no-call. The crew did meet and the plate umpire did ask for more information from U2. Yep, you are right. That's a 9.02(c) appeal. There's no gettin' around it.

However, on this 9.02(c) appeal, U2 admitted that he did see the batter get hit by the pitch. Since dead balls at the plate are concurrent jurisdiction, U2 has made a decision (or a call.) Even though <b>retroactively</b>, U2 did the <b>same exact</b> thing as if he had called the ball dead immediately when it hit the batter.

The only way to believe U2 actually saw the hit by pitch is to recognize his decision retroactively. Remember, his mistake was not that he made the wrong call, he just failed to speak up immediately when making the right one. His silence during the initial play was a mistake, he actually did see the ball strike the batter, and his call or decision then reverts back to the time it occurred.

So, at this point, because of the 9.02(c) appeal, we have a 9.04(c) situation. We have two umpires with concurrent jurisdiction who made conflicting calls on the same play, even though retroactively.

The Umpire-in-Chief, as he is charged with doing under 9.04(c), brought all umpires into consultation, and decided which call or decison was correct. He decided U2 was correct, and awarded the batter-runner his hit-by-pitch.

There was just one big mistake here and we all know it. That mistake was made by U2. Let's all learn from that, at least, even if we can't agree on what rules in the OBR we would invoke to get the mess straightened out.

I don't have a problem with retroactive enforcement on this play because of the concurrent jurisdiction. I don't have a problem with the UIC changing the result of the play based on U2's retroactive call because it was a dead ball situation.

So, anyhow, if this had been an OBR game, those are the rules that would apply.

Good call, blue!
 

Well, that all sounds great to me, Jim! The difference between us here is very little. I think the process of changing the call was a little on the shady side of the strict letter of the rules. You think the change was in full accordance with the rules. We both agree that the practical outcome was fair, just, and good. All is well in UmpireLand.

P-Sz