A changed call at Texas

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

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 exactly the same thing.

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

Jim, someone emailed me and said YOU may have this confused with a thread where PBUC ruled that a "called" out and a "declared" out are the same. Not a decision and a call. The difference between a decision and a call being, in fact, the verbal announcement (declaration) of the decision. I think it is ludicrous to think a decision and a call are one in the same. If that were true, anytime my partner made a call whereby in my mind I disagreed with it, by your logic it would mean we have two calls and can take that which we elect to take. Furthermore, by rule 9-04-C we must get together to clear up the difference in the "decision" (call). I hope you can see the ludicrousy of that determination. If you expect me to accept it as fact merely because you stated it, I am sorry to disappoint you. I doubt if others will accept it for that reason either.

What I would prefer would be to see a reference to the old thread or at least to where I might go to view this unofficial "official interpretation". Is it in NAPBL or perhaps a site I can link to? How about an MLB site I can go to? I will at least go to the old thread if you will identify it. I suspect others may also care to review it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in a forum topics were duplicated---although your statement appears there may not be much worth in it. It is a fascinating topic that many may with to discuss who were not around a year ago. BTW, if it is, indeed, an "official interpretation" I will only think of it then as a ludicrous interpretation, as I suspect many will. Furthermore, if there is difficulty in finding it for review, it only epidomizes the method of providing unofficial "official interpretation" and requesting it to be adhered to.

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.

No, Jim, we are not overboard nor is it overboard to question Regalistic statements such as a "decision" and a "call" are exactly the same thing". It is improper to think that these should be accepted as unquestioned doctrine. It should not go unquestioned since a decision and a call are logically not the same. Some justification other than "accept it because I have said it" is required, at least by me. If the forum management decides they want only one point of view put forth as doctrine they can set their rules accordingly. Once that is done, those willing to think for themselves may flee elsewhere. That is the decision of the forum management.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

]

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 25th, 2001 at 04:02 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
Jim, someone emailed me and said YOU may have this confused with a thread where PBUC ruled that a "called" out and a "declared" out are the same. Not a decision and a call. The difference between a decision and a call being, in fact, the verbal announcement (declaration) of the decision. I think it is ludicrous to think a decision and a call are one in the same. If that were true, anytime my partner made a call whereby in my mind I disagreed with it, by your logic it would mean we have two calls and can take that which we elect to take.

Jim Porter is not saying that disagreeing with your partner's "call" means two umpires have made different "calls" or "decisions" on the same play. He is simply saying that when two umpires have concurrent jurisdiction and an announced "decision" is overturned, it MUST mean the umpires made different "calls" or "decisions" on the same play. Otherwise, what's to overturn?

What I would prefer would be to see a reference to the old thread or at least to where I might go to view this unofficial "official interpretation". Is it in NAPBL or perhaps a site I can link to? How about an MLB site I can go to? I will at least go to the old thread if you will identify it. I suspect others may also care to review it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in a forum topics were duplicated---although your statement appears there may not be much worth in it.

The original discussion was indeed about the difference between "declare" and "call." Here's a URL where you can read the decision, independent of anyone on this Board:

http://<a href="http://web2.airmail..../index.htm</a>

It is a fascinating topic that many may with to discuss who were not around a year ago. BTW, if it is, indeed, an "official interpretation" I will only think of it then as a ludicrous interpretation, as I suspect many will. Furthermore, if there is difficulty in finding it for review, it only epidomizes the method of providing unofficial "official interpretation" and requesting it to be adhered to.

Here is more of your typical nonsense: "It can't be official because nobody told me." Because Freix doesn't like it, it's a "ludicrous interpretation." You are simply amazing. You go farther and farther down the road toward the town called Isolation. It's a tiny spot, hardly large enough to appear even on the most gigantic Atlas. It is peopled entirely by egocentrics, skeptics, romantics, manics, and paranoiacs. Quite often, an inhabitant might exhibit two or more of the personality flaws.

Listen to the depths to which your ideas have sunk:. To continue to uphold a lost cause, you are reduced to arguing that a "decision" is different from a "call." Freix, how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?

No, Jim, we are not overboard nor is it overboard to question Regalistic statements such as a "decision" and a "call" are exactly the same thing". It is improper to think that these should be accepted as unquestioned doctrine. It should not go unquestioned since a decision and a call are logically not the same. Some justification other than "accept it because I have said it" is required, at least by me.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

to call: To declare in the capacity of an umpire or referee: call a runner out; call a foul on a boxer; call a penalty for holding.

to decide: To pronounce a judgment; announce a verdict.

The verbs in one true sense are the same.

In that play from so long ago: Ford beckons the batter back to the plate. In effect: "You weren't hit by the pitch." After consultation with U2, Ford sends the batter to first. In effect: "You were hit by the pitch." Two umpires made different calls, announced separately it is true, but different calls.

If there had been no different call, the batter would have remained in the box.

What is the big, freaking deal here? We know from the mouth of the first base umpire in that game what happened. We know why it happened. All of the opposition in this thread has come from a tiny grouup of umpires, many living in Isolation, who refuse to accept my rendering of what the traditions of baseball have established as the legal situations where a "call" or "decision" may be reversed.

To borrow from The Godfather, "It's personal, Sonny, not business."

You know it, and I know it.

I will now join Warren and others; I have made my final comment on the "Texas Play" and on "The List of Five."

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
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.

Patrick, I'm going to agree with Jim's analysis in all but one point. It was NOT the PU or U1 who first went to U2. It was the manager. He went to the umpire who made the call (no verbalised call) and asked him what he saw. When he said he saw the HBP is when they were joined by Ford and Bible. That is also the point at which we clearly had 2 different calls on the same play.

The manager was entitled to appeal to U2 under OBR 9.02(b) and the UIC (Ford) was entitled to pick the call that was most likely correct under OBR 9.04(c). There is NOTHING about this process that is at all "on the shady side of the strict letter of the rules." This was handled properly from start to finish, and the only errors were U2's failure to verbalise the HBP and possibly Ford allowing the manager to remain while the crew discussed the correct call.

Had this been a rule misapplication by Ford, then it would have been appropriate for him to seek U2's advice directly. This was clearly a case of 2 separate judgement decisions on the same play, and that could only have been determined after the manager first asked U2 "What did you see?" This was NOT strictly a case of Ford deciding to reverse his own call under 9.02(c), after consulting with U2. This was instead Ford, as UIC, deciding that U2's call was more likely to be correct under OBR 9.04(c).

I wouldn't have re-entered this discussion, as I had earlier intended, but Jim's honest error concerning the sequence of events needed to be corrected so you could be absolutely certain that there was definitely nothing "shady" going on here.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 25th, 2001 at 05:34 PM]

[umpyre007]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

I will now join Warren and others; I have made my final comment on the "Texas Play" and on "The List of Five."

¶-6

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Originally posted by Carl Childress

¶-6

Only eight posts and you have already introduced your own icon! I like that little guy. Let's add him to the regulat collection. Jim/NYC

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump20
¶-6

Only eight posts and you have already introduced your own icon! I like that little guy. Let's add him to the regulat collection. Jim/NYC

Jim, if you click on the link Smilies are ON, which appears on every page, you will see the complete list of available smilies, including this little "rolleyes" guy.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 25th, 2001 at 05:41 PM]

[Jim Porter]

My recollection of that ridiculous declared versus called ruling was, in fact, in error. Gosh, I just can't imagine why I wouldn't have remembered that more specifically. Any ideas anyone?

The main idea of that one point in my post was all about how far someone is willing to go to make their point. I was certainly hoping that you would not take it so far as to bother anyone at the PBUC with such a trivial and ridiculous argument that there is some sort of rules-based difference between a call and a decision. The moment the PBUC was contacted to settle that dispute, it was truly a low point for officials on the Internet. Just my opinion, as Steve is so fond of saying.

As far as the topic at hand, you continue to neglect a single word. Do you have any concept whatsoever of the word "retroactive" and its meaning? Do you have any idea of how this word relates to an umpire who admits, after the fact, that he did see a batter get struck by a pitched ball?

So, my opinion is contrary to yours. So what? That's not a reason to call me a hypocrite, accuse me of looking only at one side, question my motives, and imply that my answer was not honestly my opinion but support for someone else's.

The fact that we disagree is also not a reason to belittle my opinion, tell me that just because I said it doesn't make it true, and appoint yourself spokesperson for the whole board and tell me others shouldn't accept my opinion just because I said it either. I never claimed such a standard. Step back, brother.

And, finally Steve, just because we disagree is not a reason to label something I say as "Regalistic," or befitting a Monarch. That is insulting. It is at the very core of the EWS - an immature little clique of cry-babies whose presence on this board is for no other reason than to disrupt the conduct of business here. I find all of you distasteful and childish.

Grow up for cryin' out loud. The world doesn't revolve around Steve "BFair" Freix (if that is your real name.)

No, Steve, you are definitely overboard. Now, I am too. Just my opinion.

[oregonblue]

WW, if I am mistaken, then I apologize. Yes, I was referring to that 2/23 post earlier in this thread. ANd you all should know by now that I am not one of the mean spirited...I try to keep my personal dysfunctions inside my home as much as possible.

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by John Klem
. All of a sudden, it appeared to this uninvolved reader, that several writers, led by [name removed due to oath taken] , changed their position 180 degrees. They changed their position, all the while denying that they were changing their position.

The paragraph above will save the new reader hours of reading frustration. See? 100s of heads are going, "Oh... NOW I get it!"

Orwell's 1984 Readers will have to form their own club. I'm sticking with my short fairy tale.

Mike Branch
Founder, Member
EWS

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by oregonblue
WW, if I am mistaken, then I apologize. Yes, I was referring to that 2/23 post earlier in this thread. ANd you all should know by now that I am not one of the mean spirited...I try to keep my personal dysfunctions inside my home as much as possible.

No problem, Pat. Apology accepted. I don't expect any better treatment simply because I'm a staff writer. I agree that the treatment of posts and threads on this board has been more than a little "uneven" at times, but I don't think that is deliberately along Staff vs Others lines. At least that's my opinion, but I'm sure there are certain others who would strongly disagree.

I think the "unevenness" has probably had more to do with who complains and who doesn't. I think that, for better or worse, ordinary posters are LESS likely to complain about a staff writer's posts than vice versa. Of course I could be wrong about that. It's just a feeling, not a fact. If I'm correct, then that builds in a certain amount of unintended bias, because the moderator doesn't have time to review all posts. That is why I was happy to post his email address and the advice to contact him if you have a problem with ANY post, including mine.

OTOH, I believe that there is a tendency for a staff writer to be MORE likely to have his posts and perceived attitudes publicly criticised than any so-called "ordinary poster". That possibly redresses some of the perceived imbalance. If I had my "druthers", we would have a voluntary code of ethics which prevented "ordinary posters" from capriciously attacking the staff writers, because like it or not ordinary posters have higher expectations of our behaviour and so expect that we not normally respond in kind. My suggestions for that were rejected here, and so I object to being held to any higher standard than an ordinary poster simply because I am a staff writer. I think that's only fair.

All the same, I don't believe in making unprovoked personal attacks on posters. You'll just have to take my word for that. That doesn't mean I won't shoot back if I believe someone has made me their target. No free shots at this kangaroo, mate! (grin) If you saw the movie Crocodile Dundee, I'd be the 'roo shooting back at the 'roo shooters! (BIG grin).

Keep posting, Pat. Don't be intimidated by WHO we are, but don't get us in your sights just because you can either! If you think we've made a mistake, ASK. If it looks to be a REALLY embarrassing mistake, ask privately via email and give us the opportunity to correct the mistake ourselves - just like you would do with a partner on the diamond. That's not a lot to ask, is it?

Thanks for being open-minded in this discussion and not an avowed "CC/WW hater" (grin).

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 25th, 2001 at 07:42 PM]

[umpyre007]

Originally posted by oregonblue
WW, if I am mistaken, then I apologize. Yes, I was referring to that 2/23 post earlier in this thread. ANd you all should know by now that I am not one of the mean spirited...I try to keep my personal dysfunctions inside my home as much as possible.

Some people would be ecstatic to have a dysfunctional house in the Valley of the Rogue. Ah, what memories.

[Bfair]

These threads started with discussion regarding a reversed call by Mr. Moose. He was relatively persecuted by our Internet Authorities for his reversed call which was stated as illegal because it did not fit within the list of 5 Changeable Calls presented by Childress.

Considerable discussion questioning various rules, interpretations, and legalities ensued. Low and behold, we have a play in Texas occur that fits as an ideal example. The highly rated officials in this game do not follow recommended procedure due to the way the situation developed. All officials, those on the field and those on the boards, agree it could have been handled better. However, it is quite obvious the reversal did not fall within the list 5 acceptable types of calls to change.

It is obvious to all only one call (a judgement call) was made on the play---that being a judgement call that the batter was not hit by the pitch. No other call on the play was made prior to the coach coming out to protest the call. After extensive protest by the coach to both U1 and U2, the judgement call was ultimately reversed to get the play right.

Now, our Internet Authorities, in an apparent attempt to save face, scramble to try to make this play fall into one of the categories within the list of 5. They attempt to tell the people of the land that this was "correcting two calls made on the same play." That the "decision" made by U2 at the time of the pitch was in fact a call. Upon questioning (ridiculing the ludicrousy) of this we are told there was a PBUC ruling advising that a "decision" and a "call" are, indeed, the same thing. Upon questioning this authoritative statement regarding the PBUC ruling, we find an error has been made and the point, indeed, is not true. A decision (undeclared) and a call are not the same and never should be the same. That dog just won't hunt. It seems some have attempted to stretch the interpretation farther than a pair of bikini underwear on Jaba the Hut--- trying their best to make it fit.

The umpires did what was necessary to get the call right. I agree with what they did. The circumstances were such that they were able to follow the General Instructions to Umpires and they chose to get the play right over protecting their dignity (egos). They did not choose to ignore the General Instructions (as recommended by Childress in his thread General Instructions: Generally Ignored) where it is the opinion of Childress to ignore this portion of the OBR rulebook. (BTW, it is understood it is not part of the NCAA rulebook).

Childress (quoted from "Change that Call"):

The neo-romantics are lost in a dream world, a fantasy where they believe the adversaries respect right, truth, justice, and the American way. Santa Claus, Cinderella, The Never-Ending Story: "The kids deserve the right call, and I’m gonna give it to them.”
_________

Childress (quoted---this thread):

Jon Bible continues to be one of the Neo-Romantics. He is, I am certain, the foremost umpire of the last quarter century to preach consistently: "Get the call right!" Come hell or high water, Jon expects only "right" calls. He and I have agreed to disagree "slightly" on this point. I say "slightly," because in this instance "getting the call right" was also legal.

Childress, now that you have accused both Jon Bible and me of being Neo-Romantics you need to understand it is not as bad as you make it seem. We understand the game, the rules, and the intent of the rules-----and that, when possible, we make getting the call right more important than protecting our egos. I don't believe Jon Bible and I are "lost in a dream world" as you state. I guess we all may need more Bible Study vs. BRD.

Despite your habit of presenting and co-mingling your opinions and interpretations with the unofficial "official interpretations", I do admire your rules knowledge. However, please remember my preference is to think and understand rather than to merely accept doctrine. It is not wrong to question that which you do not understand and that which is illogical. I do not stand alone.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS







[Edited by Bfair on Feb 26th, 2001 at 01:43 AM]

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Bfair
These threads started with discussion regarding a reversed call by Mr. Moose. He was relatively persecuted by our Internet Authorities for his reversed call which was stated as illegal because it did not fit within the list of 5 Changeable Calls presented by Childress.

Considerable discussion questioning various rules, interpretations, and legalities ensued. Low and behold, we have a play in Texas occur that fits as an ideal example. The highly rated officials in this game do not follow recommended procedure due to the way the situation developed. All officials, those on the field and those on the boards, agree it could have been handled better. However, it is quite obvious the reversal did not fall within the list 5 acceptable types of calls to change.

It is "obvious" to you that this play does not fit into the famous List Of Five. I think Warren, Carl, and to an extent Jim Porter have amply described the nuances, subtle though they may be that does make this a totally legal call. Furthermore, there is a lot we can learn about working with a "new guy" on a crew who didn't announce a call he should have.

We have beaten this play to a bloody pulp. I refer you to a play that seems to support your position, which has received little response. Go to the thread on the American League playoff game of 1986. Did I post this play because I disagree with Carl? No, not at all. I posted it exactly because it seems to run counter to the list which Carl posted, and which I believe to be a sound reference. This list is not the sole wisdom of one umpire who has many years as an official under his belt. Just like Frank Pulli went to the videotape on a disputed call -- there were repercussions that said in fact baseball is not yet ready to use videotape. I thought that Carl or perhaps one of the other staff members might be aware if this call in 1986 produced similar fallout.

Now, our Internet Authorities, in an apparent attempt to save face, scramble to try to make this play fall into one of the categories within the list of 5. They attempt to tell the people of the land that this was "correcting two calls made on the same play." That the "decision" made by U2 at the time of the pitch was in fact a call...

If this list is flawed why haven't other senior officials called Carl Childress to task for it. The guy seems fairly well known and a lot of umpires with varied experience have probably read his writings either for free on the Internet of after paying a modest fee for one of his books. If changing legal judgment calls "after the fact" is the preferred way why has no group, other than the secret EWS forces articulated the benefits?

The umpires did what was necessary to get the call right. I agree with what they did. The circumstances were such that they were able to follow the General Instructions to Umpires and they chose to get the play right over protecting their dignity (egos)...

I agree that they got it right and followed the proper path. As to whether or not they were guided by the General Instructions, I think you would have to check with them directly.

The neo-romantics are lost in a dream world, a fantasy where they believe the adversaries respect right, truth, justice, and the American way. Santa Claus, Cinderella, The Never-Ending Story: "The kids deserve the right call, and I’m gonna give it to them.”..

The most hotly debated plays were Mooses's "correction" on I believe a tag at second in a Connie Mack game wherein he "after the fact" gave his call over to a partner who had no jurisdiction. There were some questions about whether or not he was "ready" for that level of ball and I think those comments were somewhat unfair although I understand the reason they were raised. In the Hit By A Pitch NCAA play we clearly saw where a third umpire with equal jurisdiction had clearly seen a batter hit by a pitch and ruled nothing. His timidity is what should be questioned and perhaps the chemistry between all three umpires that might have given rise to it. The thread on Grizzly Veterans dominating plate conferences when they are base umpires also involves chemistry and as Jim Porter has pointed out, possibly body language by the PU. Again, a chemistry issue.

Childress, now that you have accused both Jon Bible and me of being Neo-Romantics you need to understand it is not as bad as you make it seem. We understand the game, the rules, and the intent of the rules-----and that, when possible, we make getting the call right more important than protecting our egos. I don't believe Jon Bible and I are "lost in a dream world" as you state. I guess we all may need more Bible Study vs. BRD.

I guess you are right about Carl referring to Mr. Bible as a Neo-RomanticI simply do not recall it being linked to this play. Quite frankly I gloss over the verbal barrages launched to and fro by staff writers and EWS. I yearn for concreteness. I would love to see us say "I get your point. It doesn’t fit my situation. I will continue to do what works for me..." and then we MOVE ON to another topic, where possibly we can reach some agreement. Jim Simms/NYC

[DDonnelly19]

Originally posted by Bfair

Despite your habit of presenting and co-mingling your opinions and interpretations with the unofficial "official interpretations", I do admire your rules knowledge. However, please remember my preference is to think and understand rather than to merely accept doctrine. It is not wrong to question that which you do not understand and that which is illogical. I do not stand alone.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS
[/B]

First, the difference between EWS and the rest of us is that we leave our opinions outside the gate when we step onto the field. I may feel that we should "get it right at all costs," but I won't compromise my philosophy with the illegality of changing a call. And who are we to argue what is legal and what is not? If Carl says that "such and such" is an official ruling, I'd bet money he's right. The man is a distinguished author of many articles and books related to umpiring, so why would he tarnish his reputation by stating something he knows to be false? Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on. When I first arrived on the umpire boards, I had no idea who Carl Childress was. I remember one of my first arguments with him involved charging conferences between innings; after comparing Carl's resume to mine, I realized I had no chance of winning. When are the EWS members going to realize this?

Second, I'm having a difficult time accepting the EWS rationale for the legality (or illegality) of the Texas and Moose plays. You claim that Moose's changed call was legal since Moose received more information from his partner after the play, and then changed his call based on that information. BU rules out, manager comes out to argue, wants BU to ask for help, PU says safe, BU changes call. How is this different from the Texas play? PU rules no HBP, manager comes out to argue, wants PU to ask for help, U2 says HBP, PU changes call. Carl has given his reasons why the two situations are different (sole vs. concurrent jurisdiction), and I would assume that if there were concurrent jurisdiction on Moose's play, we could make the same justifucation for changing the call. So what's the EWS's stance on this? On Steve's post dated 2/24/01, he states: "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.". Well, using EWS logic, the Texas crew did it "by the [EWS] book." So, which is it?

Dennis

[GarthB]

This topic has long been divided by one simple issue. Did the NCAA crew's call fit within the list of calls referenced by Carl (Two calls by two umpires, each with jurisdiction)

One side, apparently including the umpires on the responsible NCAA crew, believes it does.

The other side, primarily those identifying themselves with something known as EWS, do not.

Fine. Twenty more exchanges is not going to change anyone's opinion.

Let's move on.

GB