A changed call at Texas

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
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

Actually, Patrick, I agree and 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 did 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 retroactively, U2 did the same exact 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.