A changed call at Texas

[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