With the permission of Mark Land, here's a post from eTeamz that was the basis of some heated discussion here at The Official Forum.<p><hr color=red>At today’s [2/16/01] University of Texas vs. Stanford game there was to me a bizarre turn of events. The Umps: Home: Wade Ford 1st: Jon Bible 2nd: Un-named 3rd: David Wiley.

Situation: 2 bottom of the sixth, Stanford leading 1-0; 2 outs; R1, R2, Jeff Ontiveros, who is a RHB, batting. Pitch obviously hits Jeff on the back foot. R1 trots to second. B/R starts down to 1st when PU calls him back “Where are you going?” Defense throws to second, where there are now two runners. The defense eventually tags R2 trying for 3rd. Defense trots of field.

Texas is HOT. Manager Garrido comes out argues for long time with Ford and gets no satisfaction; he then goes to Bible at 1st. I can hear Bible say that he did not see it hit the batter. Garrido is only getting madder. I was almost surprised that Bible did not chase him.

Garrido finally gives up and takes a couple of steps towards the dugout before he turns around and heads to U2 at second. Ford and Bible join them. After about 2 minutes, Ford signals that Ontiveros is awarded first, dead ball, no out. Almost 5 minutes after it started, Stanford retakes the field. The next batter singles to right, scoring one, R2 thrown out. Texas goes on to win 2-1.

It was obvious that U2 saw the ball hit the batter. What I will never understand is why he did not kill the play immediately. More, how could he just stand there while the manager discusses it with both PU & U1? I am sure he felt pretty lonely out there. I am pleased he eventually “got it right.”<hr color=red><p>I belong to a college email community that includes Jon, so I wrote to ask: "What up?" Jon replied: "We didn't handle it well, and we have discussed that among ourselves, but we got it right."

I want to make three points:

1. 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.

2. Jon Identified two problems:<ol type=a><li>The first-base umpire (himself) did not follow his own rules. In 1986 Jon's speech at the St. Louis NASO convention was "Let the Players Make the Calls." I remember that well since Jon bought my breakfast that morning. If Jon had paid close attention to the actions of the batter, he would have <i>known</i> B1 was HBP. (I'm certain nobody will argue that a college batter can act at once and convincingly in such circumstances.)</li><p><li>The second-base umpire (in his sixth game at UT) saw the HBP but was afraid to call it since the CWS'ers (Bible and Ford) had said nothing. Jon assures me that umpire NOW knows: If you are 100% sure of what you see, wait a moment, and -- when the umpire charged with the primary responsibility does nothing -- sing out the call: "Dead ball! HBP!"</ol></li>3. I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right. Childress from here on out.<p><ol type=a><li>One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.</li><li>Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.</li><li>Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."</li><li>After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted.</li></ol>Since it was the <i>right</i> call properly arrived at, nobody was ejected. That kind of teamwork in the crew is what makes college ball so much fun.

Someone posted that surely those guys were "idiot umpires" who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb.

Great post Papa C.

I once worked the plate in a game with a partner who was rather new to the profession. Having been his clinic instructor and evaluator, I was quite intimidating to the poor chap. I tried to ease his tension, but it was natural. There wasn't much I could do.

There was a pitch that came in a little tight on the batter, and he didn't really react like he was hit. The coach yelled from the dugout, "Hey Jim, didn't that hit him?"

"Nope. I watched the ball all the way in. It missed him by a few inches," I said quickly.

Suddenly remembering my clinic instruction to him, my young partner said, "Time!"

"Oh no!" I thought.

He walked up sheepishly and said, "That hit him."

We had a long talk over a soda after that one!

Speak up <b>right away</b> fellas.

<font size=+2 color="red">Don't wait!</font>

I had posted this in another thread that has mysteriously disappeared...

I'm sure we've all been in this situation before -- 2 man crew, you're in "A". Batter appears to foul one off his foot (or HBP, whatever the case may be), yet the PU calls nothing. You're pretty sure the ball hit the batter, but since you're standing 100' from the play and your partner is only 5 feet from it, you give him the benefit of the doubt. The play continues, and once the play is over the manager starts chirping and your partner believes something happened, but since he was blocked out he called nothing. He asks you what you saw, and you tell him you have a dead ball. To me, this seems to be more of a "pulled foot, need help" situation, except the PU can't ask from help right away, nor does he need to. If the BU rules fair ball, play stands; if he rules dead ball, we start over.

Now, maybe some of the EWS'ers are wondering why this is any different than the now-infamous "Moose Play." In the situation above, the PU made no initial call. In Moose's play, he made a call, tried to convince the manager it was the right call, and then changed it after some added information. Disregarding bad mechanics, would it have been legal for Moose to have made an initial no-call on the play and then go ask for help?

Dennis

No, Dennis: MB was trapped the instant he didn't <b>corret</b> his call.

<b>Any call can be corrected.</b> "<font side=4>He's out!</font>" the umpire screams, then, seeing the ball on the ground, sheepishly bleats, "<font size=1/2>Safe.</font>"

Here's the main difference between MB's play and the UT play: Mike had <b>sole</b> responsibility for the force out at second. The call is his -- and his alone. But when a batter is hit by a pitch, every umpire has concurrent jurisdiction. Any umpire who saw the pitch hit Ontiveros could have signaled dead ball. Only one saw it, and he froze -- from lack of experience.

Remember: When the pitch comes in and the plate umpire says nothing, <b>that is a call</b>: The pitch didn't hit him. When the issue was being discussed earlier, some umpires neglected that vital point. In the UT play an umpire with concurrent jurisdiction later made a call: "The pitch <b>did</b> hit him." Two umpires made opposite calls on the same play; one was legally changed.

In the play that encited the thread, the umpire at second had sole jurisdiction, made a call, saw the ball on the ground, did not immediately "correct" his call (which would have been legal), and then went illegally to his partner, who quite rightly refused to intervene.

Finally, the initial error was compounded by a lie: "He dropped the ball on a transfer, Coach."

MB had several chances to extract himself from the goo, but like the second-base umpire at UT, his admitted lack of experience at that level worked against him.

We can all learn from the fiasco, though, both the original play and the UT play:

From the FIRST PLAY:

1. Use proper timing: See the play through from start to finish, which is: ball into glove, ball into hand.

2. Be ready to correct a call instantly if your timing goes bad. "He's out! No, safe! Safe!," pointing to the ball on the ground.

3. Choose the most likely result when something untoward happens. MB didn't see the hand move, but he did see the ball on the ground. The probable result is a drop.

4. Don't involve your partner unless he has concurrent jurisdiction.

5. Don't lie to the coach. Say, simply: "Coach, if I had another chance, I might call it differently." Or say truthfully, "Coach, I kicked this call in all likelihood. Take a shot or two, but don't go too far. Nobody feels any worse than I do."

FROM THE SECOND PLAY:

1. Let the players help you call some plays.

2. If you have concurrent jurisdiction on a play, when the primary umpire makes no call, it is your responsibility to do so. It's not an appeal play. Take charge: "Dead ball! HBP!"

Truth shall set you free
 

Four very enlightening lines above. And all are exactly applicable to the great Ruminant Play! and the classic, OUT er SAFE call at 1st on the pulled foot.

Just change the sitch.

BU makes call, OUT.
Another Umpire, standing at attention at 45 feet has information. (F3 was WAY off the bag)
Two umpires, in essense, have made different decisions on the play, but only ONE was announced.
After consultation, the improper call is reversed and the proper call (SAFE) is made.

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

with all due respect, of course.

Re: Truth shall set you free
 

Sorry, but that's not right.

1. In the "pulled-foot" play, the <b>base umpire has sole responsibility for the call</b>. It is his and his alone.

2. In the "hit by pitch" play, as in the batted ball hitting the runner, the dropped third strike, <b>all</b> the </b>infield umpires have concurrent jurisdiction</b>.

One of the first lessons you learned from your Youth Ball Supervisor was: "When you see that ball hit the batter, throw up your hands and yell 'Dead ball!' It's not an appeal, Mike. It's your call too. Sometimes (often) the plate umpire will be blocked. See the play, make the call."

An umpire with sole jurisdiction has two options when he suspects he is in trouble:

(1) Make a call, then correct it immediately.
(2) Ask for help BEFORE making a call.

Afterwards, unless the call matches one of the five recognized instances when a call can/must be changed, you are stuck forever with the original outcome.

Now, we know umpires of amateur games change those calls in a heartbeat. Then, when the trained umpire shows up at the park where Old Smitty has been practicing revisionism, the good umpire is the one everyone thinks screwed up.

Alas!

Thanks for the input! I'll act accordingly in the future in such situations. Better to make the call right away than to sit and discuss it over tea and cookies after the fact.

Dennis

Re: Re: Truth shall set you free
 

It may be beneficial to create a list of situations where there is concurrent jurisdiction, and where there is sole jurisdiction. That way we'd all know when to speak up and when to shut up. A possible eUmpire.com article, perhaps?

Dennis

My rule of thumb regarding long distance help is if I am 110% sure the situation occurred then I call it.

For example, the batter appears to foul one off his foot and I am working the bases. If I am 110% sure the ball got him I kill the ball immediately. If I am not 110% sure, no call is given. In addition, I can't be of any help to the plate guy upon appeal because if I was sure I had something I would have killed the play immediately.

What about the shoe polish?
 

I understand your desire for accuracy. Considering the BU is much further away on a possible hit ball fouled off a batter's foot it would seem that in most cases that should be the PU's call. Good mechanics dictate that PU in the slot should be able to see the strike on the low outside corner at the knees. It does not assume the PU will see the ball hit the batter's foot, especially if screened by the catcher or possibly the batter himself. Sometimes BOTH PU and BU in a two man system can miss the batted ball hitting the batter.

I was PU in a Connie Mack game last year in which the offensive coach claimed the batted ball had hit his batter. It was an easy groundball to SS and the batter ran a few steps before claiming he had been hit. Neither of us saw it and I told the coach that was "unfortunate". Later I learned from reliable sources that it indeed had NOT hit the batter. Deception can be contagious.

For those historians and Top Dogs I give you the 1969 World Series and Mookie Wilson. The plate umpire checked for shoe polish after Mets' Manager Gil Hodges claimed that Mookie Wilson had been hit by I believe it was a pitched ball. Comments anyone? I know ballplayers don't shine their shoes these days and sometimes nither do umpires. Jim/NY

In 1998 I attended the Lone Star Umpire Camp, instructed by Jon Bible. After attending this 3 day camp, I too subscribe to the theory that all umpires on the field are responsible for getting the calls right. Yes, it is the primary responsibility of the plate man to get foul balls off the batters body. But if I am working the bags and am 110% sure the batter was hit I will kill it regardless.

Jon and his staff mentioned two other thought processes to consider:

When formulating your decision is the batter/runner acting like he was hit immediately or not.

If you call foul immediately, you have only a strike on the batter, for all intents and purposes a do-over. If you let the bastard play continue, you will have a controversy from one side or the other and probably the shitty end of the stick.

I am pleased to have been there
 

I am glad Carl passed my original post along to Jon. It is nice to hear his explination.

Some have posted that as a BU they will take action if they are 110% sure. (Ignoring, for a moment, that I am 110% sure of EVERYTHING.) I am not sure I would go that far.

If a batter appears to foul a ball off his foot, kill it. As was pointed out, it is at most a strike.

Should you be more sure about a HBP than a foul? Perhaps. Go with your best call. I agree you can only call what you see. That seems to be a "yes" or "no" question. As Jon pointed out, get help from the batter. Does this add up to 110%? I don't know; as an ump I only have to count to 4.

Re: I am pleased to have been there
 

Mark,

Welcome to the Forum. I'm not sure if this is your first visit or not. I don't want to start you off here on a negative note, but I think as an umpire you at least need to be able to count to 9! (grin) Remember, you have to be certain that the defense has all nine of its players on the diamond at the start of a half inning.

I too was pleased to read Jon's explanation of that event at UT. I suspected there was a reasonable explanation as to why U2 didn't make a verbal call, even though he later admitted seeing the HBP. Having 2 CWS officials in your crew, when you apparently only have 6 games at that school under your belt, will do it to you every time, I'd say! (grin) I swear that I have NEVER been intimidated by the level of play I have been asked to call. OTOH, I certainly HAVE initially been intimidated when calling for the first time with some of the most respected officials in our country, including our No. 1 ranked official. Anyone who really wants to impress will understand why that happens.

Cheers,

Making Lemonade out of lemons!!
 

Carl... a grand tip of the Antler. After all the @#%^ that my confession produced, your #5 above is the most professional advice I've ever seen. It is burned into my brain.. (if I had one that is....) :)

Mike

Re: Making Lemonade out of lemons!!
 

I appreciate the kind words. I note also that the founder of the "emperor's society" did not identify himself as such in the post. That is a start in the right direction, isn't it?

<b>Carl Childress (quoted):
<i>Someone posted that surely those guys were "idiot umpires" who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb.</i></b>

Carl, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of indicating "someone" called them "idiot umpires". Can you provide that source of statement? As I can best recall, you may have taken a quote out of context.

Peter O. may be the author of the misquote that you mention. I tend to recall that Peter was referring, not to Jon Bible, but to umpires in a hypothetical situation that Peter had just described. It was a hypothetical situation whereby an umpire told an irate coach that another umpire was wrong. Both umpires insisted that they were 100% right, and a decision had to made as to which umpire's decision would be followed.

<b>Peter appeared to be trying to <u>make the point</u></b> that 2 umpires cannot have "equal juridistiction" over a call. I believe a previous post on the board had referred to the effect of "equal jurisdiction" and Peter was merely refuting it.

This is one of the problems with board censorship. Due to the deletion of Peter's post (and those of others), you could not check his post before making your statement in order to insure that you were accurate. The rest of the readership cannot check the post either to see if it was a misquote (accidental or otherwise).

Just my opinion,

Once again, your memory, like that of the Orwell citations, is wrong. I chose not to announce who made the remarks about idiot umpires because Mr. Osborne and Mr. Bible belong to the same email community.

BTW: Here's Jon's comment:<ul>I didn't realize that the UT situation had generated THAT much discussion.
I have not gone to the websites but gather from your comments that quite a lot of talking has gone on. So we are now "idiot umpires" who worked our "last NCAA game"??</ul>Here's the relevant passage:<ul>Let us suppose that U2 is stupid enough to tell the coach that he is 100% sure that the ball hit the batter's foot. The PU, on the other hand, is 100% sure that it did not hit his foot but hit a clod of dirt at home plate. The PU's call stands because he has primary responibility for that call. But our friend, Warren, is saying that we have a protestable situation.

What we have here are idiot umpires who have probably worked their last NCAA game. However, it is not protestable.

Peter
Member
EWS
at 7:20, 2/21</ul>

If that truly WAS the point that Peter "<i>appeared to be trying to make</i>", that "<i>2 umpires cannot have equal jurisdiction over a call</i>", then I suggest that he would have been quite wrong by <b><i>any</b></i> reading of OBR 9.04. Certainly his quoted claim in the above post, that if two umpires made different calls on the same play then in that case the PU's call should prevail because his was the primary responsibility, is just plain WRONG when OBR 9.04(c) is taken into account. According to that rule, the final decision belongs to the UIC who shall decide according to which umpire had the better view, not according to who had the primary responsibility.

I don't see the proper moderation of this <i>restricted</i> discussion board, in accordance with the guidelines that EVERY poster had to agree to when registering to post, as "censorship". If it really bothers you that posts get deleted, Steve, then may I suggest that you encourage every poster to leave personal criticisms out of their posts, including yourself. I, for my own part, am happy to promise NOT to intentionally post criticism on a personal level unless I am first addressed on that level. I can't Bfairer than that! (grin)

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 12:51 AM]

Carl, I felt at a disadvantage as I did not have the post to work from. I could not locate it. Would you please advise where I may review the entire post? As originally stated, I was working from memory that this was a hypothetical situation.

I think that since the paragraph you refer to starts with:
<b>"Now let us suppose...."</b> , then everything immediately following would and should be considered hypothetical. Therefore, I find it improper to state that "someone" said these guys were "idiot umpires" as, indeed, this statement had been taken out of context and made as if to appear to be directly stated regarding Jon Bible and others of that crew. That is why I posted as I did. I did not feel your initial post reflected the truth of situation in which those words and labels had been used. I would hope upon review you would now agree.

Additionally, in my subsequent paragraph I indicated that Peter O.'s post was in response to a previous post suggesting "equal jurisdiction". As I don't have that post either, would you care to reprint it?

I hope to salvage what I saw as an attempt to degrade Mr. Osborne to those who may have seen the original post and knowing of his words yet not recalling the exact situation. Of course, Mr.Osborne does not have the ability to defend himself on this board.

Based on what I see, my memory appears accurate. It is likely far more difficult for me as I don't have access to the posts of the thread that disappeared. It appears you have access to them or may have done some quick copying before they disappeared.

Just my opinion,

<b>The infamous list (previously posted by Carl Childress):

<i>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.
__________________________________________________ _________
</i>Carl Childress (quoted from this thread):<i>
Childress from here on out.<p><ol type=a><li>One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.</li><li>Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.</li><li>Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."</li><li>After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted.</li></ol>Since it was the <i>right</i> call properly arrived at, nobody was ejected. That kind of teamwork in the crew is what makes college ball so much fun.</i></b>
__________________________________________________ ________

First and most importantly. Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play. That dog just don't hunt. It is ludicrous to try to sell it as anything different. Reviewing the play situation shows there were not opposing calls on the batter. Pure and simple.

Secondly, the coach came out to argue a judgement call. Whether or not a batter is hit is, indeed, a judgement call (Until you refute it) As you have argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls, yet alone have a judgement call reversed as a result of his argument

Thirdly, elsewhere in the thread it is referred to as "concurrent jurisdiction".
<B>I will quote rule 9.04A(4):
The umpire-in-chief.....usually called the plate umpire....His duties shall be to make all decisions on the batter."</b>

I will question the concurrent jurisdiction. Furthermore, I must question any authoritative opinion or official interpretation that states otherwise. No jurisdiction applies on this judgement call until such time as asked by UIC. Furthermore, application of authoritative opinion and official interpretation is for questions arising regarding areas not specifically defined in the rulebook. It provides opinion or interpretation on the "gray" areas left open by the rules. Now, read the above rule. What gray area needs opinion or interpretation? What don't you understand as to who the call belongs to regarding the hit batsman? Did he ask for help when the call was made? No. If we are going to <b>legally</b> change this phrase, it needs to be done by revision, not opinion or interpretation. I need somewhere to believe what I read in the book.

Now, do we as BU all help in these scenerios? Yes. Are we doing it in accordance with the rules? Let's wait for Carl's answer. He likely has it prepared already I am certain. Much of this info is from thread he may already have---just no one else.

In closing please note how the wording of the original list submitted changed from 2 umpires making opposing <u>calls</u> to the rephrasing of 2 umpires making concurrent <u>decisions</u>. We even had one decision referred to as "announced" as opposed to an "unannounced" decision in this thread. I am afraid of this explanation, who has jurisdiction in the future on the "unannounced" decisions, and how often as an umpire I need to make the check for the unannounced decision? BTW, does the mechanics book provide a signal for that decision?

I look forward to an explanation that refers to calls, not decisions. Otherwise, I will feel like one of the animals watching the words change on the list of rules in "Animal Farm".

BTW, if the words change, how can we trust the messenger to be certain he is delivering the correct words?

Just a thought and opinion,

To Bfair,

You state that you don't feel that two calls were made in this play. I suppose you are assuming that because Ford didn't make a verbal call.

Therefore, are we to assume that if a plate umpire doesn't say,"ball" it is not one? I don't think that you are thinking this through logically.

It appears as if you are simply trying to argue Carl down. Not a wise decision in this case. He is right.

Also, I would like to ask all of the nay sayers out there, how many of you have ever worked a Division 1 game? Beyond that, how many of you have ever worked one involving two teams that were both in the college world series last year? I have only had the priveledge of working for a team that has been in the CWS and to say the least the pressure is mountanous. This isn't some Little League scuffle over someone leaving the base early. Try to think about that before you make criticisms of these mens performance!!!

Steve,

This is not ludicrous, and because you label as such, I'm not entirely sure you are thinking it through. I've listened to all sides of this issue before making up my mind, and I feel it is a good time to voice my opinion.

After the ensuing conferences, the 2BU admitted that he did see the batter struck by the ball. Even though retroactively, there indeed was conlicting calls made by two umpires.

The mistake that was made by 2BU was his failure to call the hit-by-pitch <b>right away</b>.

One of the valuable ways that Papa C. conveys information to us is to make statements such as the now-infamous list. Without giving us the answers outright, he pokes and prods us into finding the answers for ourselves. The list is broadly written, and leaves open the possibility for broad interpretation. That's valuable, in my opinion. It allows us to consider a situation, and figure out its relationship to the list.

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!

It can do nothing but help you learn.

One great difficulty in jousting with Freix is his inability to get his facts straight. Childress references <i>Animal Farm</i>. Proved wrong, so Freix says I've altered my posts. Childress misquoted Osborne about "idiot umpires" and so held him up to ridicule. Proved wrong: Freix revealed Osborne as the culprit, not me. Childress has "argued in past threads, the coach should not be allowed to argue judgement calls...." Not so: That was Warren Willson's argument, not mine. That's 0 for 3.Despite the fact the game under discussion was played under NCAA rules, everyone seems bent on discussing OBR statutes. I supposed the JEA should be accepted then. Here's Jim Evans:<ul>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. [An example:] 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 equal jurisdiction and is correct in overruling his partner and changing the call to “Foul” when it is obvious that the incorrect decision has been rendered. (9:15)</ul>The principle did not change. If one member of his audience cannot make proper inference from one statement of the principles, the good writer tries a second, or a third statement.

To wit:

A non-verbal call is <b>still</b> a decision by the umpire. Some decisions <b>must</b> be announced: "Yes, he went." Some decisions are not usually announced: The ball comes very close to the batter, he hits the dirt, and the umpire says: "Ball!" <b>Implicit in that call is the non-announced decision: "Well, whatever you think, the pitch didn't hit him."</b>

But the ultimate bit of tomfoolery is this statement:Assume for a moment that Freix is correct here: Two umpires did not make opposite calls on the same play.

My first question is: <b>How did Ontiveros get on first?</b> Freix must say: "U2 ruled the ball hit him."

My second question is: <b>When Ontiveros started to first the instant he ball nicked his heel, why didn't he continue?</b> Freix must say: "???"

Ford made an unannounced call: "The ball didn't hit him." Then, he <b>announced</b> his call: "Come back to the plate."

Finally: What is the big deal? The purpose of my list was to help umpires identify those situations where they must or could change calls. The fact that I made that list should work in its favor with most umpires, as indeed it did. The difficulty as I have said repeatedly is that one group will turn cartwheels to avoid accepting any message when they don't like the messenger. This thread is a perfect example.

Papa C.,

Any comments on how "the list" changes with NCAA, or how changed calls are somehow different in NCAA, would be most appreciated by me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

One great difficulty in jousting with Freix is his inability to get his facts straight. Childress references <i>Animal Farm</i>. Proved wrong, so Freix says I've altered my posts. Childress misquoted Osborne about "idiot umpires" and so held him up to ridicule. Proved wrong:

Carl was privy to the following email that I sent to Jon Bible in an NCAA forum that the three of us participate in. I know that he has read it because he responded to it. Carl made the assertion on NCTalk that "someone" had called Jon Bible and his crew "idiot umpires". I sent the following in response:

------------------
Jon;

I had originally ignored Carl's post (on NCTalk) because I felt that it was a deliberate attempt to get me involved in a flame war. Now that this has appeared in another forum and has been attributed to me, I felt that I needed to set the record straight.

As the result of a long back and forth discussion, Warren Willson was arguing that had you not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable. I was pointing out the absurdity of this
arguement and to demonstrate the absurdity, I posed a hypothetical situation that made the umpires out to be idiots. It was clear to me and to unbiased readers that I was not referring to you or your crew. One of those readers has even raised this exact issue with Mr Childress. The problem is that the forum in which this was raised has deleted the entire thread (and one or two other related threads) in which this issue came up. They said that they did this because the thread had become too heated with insults. Some of the particpants, however, feel it was because one of their top stars, Warren Willson, was taking a beating.

Whatever the reason, except for Carl, I know of no one who has access to the whole series of threads. Carl has released bits and pieces of the thread to try to prove his point on eumpire that I disparaged you. He has not released the whole thread. (He might not have it although he seems to have the pieces that he needs.) For the record, I want to state that you made the best of a bad situation and I am sure that you will work many more NCAA games. I would like to also say that I hope that I could have done as well as you did given the same situation.

Your situation in Texas was like the coming together of the planets. On eumpire, we had a heated discussion ranging over two weeks about whether or not certain calls could be changed. I was on the "get it right" side and when I heard of your game, I immediately posted the synopsis of it by Mark Land. Since the other side could not denigrate the god of NCAA umpiring, Jon Bible, they went through linguistic gymnastics to explain why your crew really did not "change" a call. (For the record, Carl did not materially particpate in most of these threads as I recall.)

Warren Willson had originally argued that, with rare excptions (checked swing, etc.) to change a call could result in a protestable situation. When faced with your crews play, he argued that to not change the call would be
protestable. Actually he argued that no call was changed, since the PU technically made "no call". As I said, it was linguistic gymnastics.

I look forward to seeing you umpire many more World Series.

Peter

--------------------
Carl has read the above post and yet he continues to say that Bfair has misrepresented what I said. I would like to set the record straight and point out that Bfair has ACCURATELY reflected what I said with regards to Jon Bible. It is Carl that is deliberately misrepresenting my position. It is deliberate and with malice because he has had access to the email that I sent to Jon Bible since early this morning 2/23/01. He responded within an hour of its posting so I know that he read it prior to his post disparaging Bfair's integrity.

In addition, several posters have attributed Animal Farm references to me. I have never read Animal Farm, am ignorant of the plot, and have never quoted it. It is easy to blame all the words that no one wants to claim on the man whose posts have all been deleted. (insert big smile here)

Peter

Peter, you owe me an apology...
 

Mr Osborne, you NEVER cease to amaze me with the degree of your prevarication and obfuscation. In this case you have MISREPRESENTED me and my position most rudely, since I am NOT a member of the forum in which you posted these assertions, and so am unable to refute them. You OWE me an apology for your misrepresentations there, and you owe that it be offered in a manner that ENSURES that Mr Bible and the members of that list clearly see that apology!

At no stage did I argue "<i>had (they) not sent the batter to first after U2 saw the HBP, the game would have been protestable.</i>" To continue to claim otherwise is to once again infer in a public forum that I am a liar. I AM NOT. What I DID say was that the moment U2 declared he had seen the batter hit by the pitch, then we had a "protest situation". Indeed we do have a "protest situation". If the result of U2's admission is not at least discussed by the crew under OBR 9.04(c), and a final decision made by the UIC, that would be protestable. If the crew refused to discuss what U2 saw, the manager would be entitled to protest that the rules had been misapplied. THAT was the basis for my contention, and NOT as you wrongly claimed that a failure to send the batter to first would be protestable. You made a wrong assumption about my statement that we had a "protest situation". Not only were you WRONG in your assumption but you have also compounded that error by shamefully misrepresenting my position on the matter in a forum where you KNEW I had no redress!

Not satisfied with one misrepresentation there, you then proceeded to make a second! At no stage did I argue "<i>that no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'</i>". This is just pure fantasy! In fact I explained specifically that PU's "no call" WAS a judgement decision. I also explained that U2's decision that the batter was hit was also a judgement decision even though not verbalised at the time. I said that meant we had TWO decisions by different umpires on the same play, and so the matter was properly handled under OBR 9.04(c). Can you explain how I could possibly argue that position IF I had first claimed that "<i>no call was changed, since the PU technically made 'no call'</i>"? Your assertion is absolute nonsense, and misleading in the extreme.

There can be no doubt, from this post, that you are a PREVARICATOR. If your misrepresentation of my position was also deliberate, then I suggest that further makes you a LIAR. You owe me an apology, Peter, and it had best be unequivocal. Your actions in this matter as they relate to me are disgraceful! If you have ANY vestigal sense of honour, or any remnant of a desire that your apparent dishonesty be expunged, then you MUST redress this situation and <b>APOLOGISE</b>, <b>IMMEDIATELY</b> and <b>UNEQUIVOCALLY</b>.

Setting the record straight
 

Let’s see the record straight via direct quotes and times:<ol><li>The “Texas play” makes it to The Official Forum. Sometime on 2/21. The thread has been removed.</li><p><li>Osborne replies to Willson and makes this remark:<ul>What we have here are idiot umpires who have probably worked their last NCAA game. However, it is not protestable [sic]. (7:20 am on 2/21)</ul></li><p><li>I send a request to Jon Bible for any comments he might make. I do not identify the source of the "idiot" remark. (8:24 pm on 2/21)</li><p><li>Jon replies at 10:02 pm on 2/21, in part saying:<ul>I didn't realize that the UT situation had generated THAT much discussion. I have not gone to the websites but gather from your comments that quite a lot of talking has gone on. So we are now "idiot umpires" who worked our "last NCAA game"??</ul></li><p><li>I post the Mark Land piece, with his permission, from eteamz, in which I made this comment:<ul>Someone posted that surely those guys were “idiot umpires” who had called their last NCAA game, implying they were over-the-hill. I think just the reverse is true. Conference supervisors are looking for umpires who can handle explosive situations with dignity and aplomb.” (10:44 pm on 2/21)</ul></li><p><li>Steve Freix replies:<ul>Carl, I am uncertain as to the accuracy of indicating "someone" called them "idiot umpires". Can you provide that source of statement? As I can best recall, you may have taken a quote out of context. Peter O. may be the author of the misquote that you mention. I tend to recall that Peter was referring, not to Jon Bible, but to umpires in a hypothetical situation that Peter had just described.” (11:46 pm on 2/22)</ul></li><p><li>I post the entire context of Osborne’s original comment. (12:20 am on 2/23)</li><p><li>Osborne writes Jon to say:<ul>I had originally ignored Carl's post because I felt that it was a deliberate attempt to get me involved in a flame war. Now that this has appeared in another forum and has been attributed to me...,” implying I was the one who identified him as the name-caller. (7:13 am, 2/23)</ul></li></ol><p>Summary:<ol><li>Texas play occurs.</li><li>Discussion in The Forum.</li><li>Osborne calls the umpires “idiots.”</li><li>Thread is removed.</li><li>I repost the situation, with explanations from Jon. I repeat the “idiot” remark but do not attribute it to anyone by name. (Note also that I did not identify by name the second-base umpire.)</li><li>Freix identifies Osborne as the name-caller while questioning my honesty at posting accurately and in context.</li><li>I post the context.</li><li>Osborne tries to weasel out.</li><li>My mention of Osborne by name occurred once, when I posted the context of his remarks after his minion, Freix, accused me of inaccurate journalism.</li><li>I never identified Osborne as the source of the "NCAA idiots" remark to the email community.</ol><p>All of the posts referenced here are available except the original post containing the "idiot" remark. I thoughtfully copied that for posterity, and I am glad I did.

Finally: I have no access to the Board other than my own posts, which the admin will cheerfully acknowledge if necessary.

Re: Setting the record straight
 

It seems to me that one of the real values that we have on this site is that someone such as Carl Childress can go to a Jon Bible and ask about a particular play. Most sports reporters don't have that kind of access, at least not with MLB umpires. I certainly recall a thread in which a poster referred to this NCAA crew as "idiots".

What I don't understand is why would this be important to mention to Jon Bible, especially if he does not frequent this Board and likely wouldn't have seen the silly reference? Why not say "Jon, there has been a lot of discussion on e-umpire about that play where there was so much delay until U-2 finally made a call--what can we learn from your experience."? JIM/NY

Re: Re: Setting the record straight
 

I simply sent a copy of a Forum post through the regular channels of my email community. If someone calls Bush an idiot, a reporter is amiss if, when asking for a response, he doesn't mention that. Most reporters would gleefully and cheerfully identify the source. Based on Osborne's behavior toward me over the past year, I would think few would censure me if I had.

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

This is . . .
 

all too funny for words.

You all need a dose of reality.

YOU ain't THAT important.

Any of youse.

heheheheheh

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

<b><i>[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 <b>exactly the same thing.

I certainly hope you won't push it as far as that poster did.</i></b></b>

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 <b><u>must</u></b> 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.

<b><i>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></b>

No, Jim, <u>we</u> are not overboard nor is it overboard to question Regalistic statements such as <b>a "decision" and a "call" are exactly the same thing".</b> 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]

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?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:<p>
http://<a href="http://web2.airmail..../index.htm</a>
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 <b>can</b> sit on the head of a pin?From the American Heritage Dictionary:<ul>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.</ul><ul>to decide: To pronounce a judgment; announce a verdict.</ul><p>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 <b>were</b> hit by the pitch." Two umpires made different calls, announced separately it is true, but different calls.<p><b>If there had been no different call, the batter would have remained in the box.</b>

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 <b>refuse</b> 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 <i>The Godfather</i>, "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."

Re: Good call, blue!
 

Patrick, I'm going to agree with Jim's analysis in all but one point. It was NOT the PU or U1 who <u>first</u> 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 <i>absolutely certain</i> that there was definitely nothing "shady" going on here.

Cheers,

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

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

¶-6 :rolleyes:

A new addition
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: I will now join Warren and others; I have made my final comment on the "Texas Play" and on "The List of Five." ¶-6 :rolleyes:

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

Re: A new addition
 

Jim, if you click on the link <a href="http://www.officialforum.com/index.php?action=showsmilies">Smilies</a> 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]

My recollection of that <b>ridiculous</b> 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 <b>one</b> 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. <b>Just my opinion,</b> 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 <b>definitely</b> overboard. Now, I am too. <b>Just my opinion</b>.

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.

Wheat v Chaff
 

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

No problem...
 

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 <i>who complains</i> and <i>who doesn't</i>. I think that, for better or worse, ordinary posters are LESS likely to complain about a staff writer's posts than <i>vice versa</i>. 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 <b>publicly</b> 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 <u>privately</u> 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]

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

In a Nutshell--------
 

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).

<b><i>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. </b></i>

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. <b>I don't believe Jon Bible and I are <u>"lost in a dream world"</u> as you state.</b> 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]

How About a Truce?
 

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.


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?

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 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.

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

Re: In a Nutshell--------
 

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

Excellent Post, Jim
 

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

Gospel According To Carl
 

[/QUOTE]

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... Dennis [/QUOTE]

Dennis,

I cannot speak for Carl but I would suspect that is the last thing he would want. Most know that by profession Carl spent many years as a teacher. I think he sees himself in that same light as an "umpire mentor". The last thing a good teacher wants is for you to accept what they say just because of their credentials. I think what Carl, Warren and others get upset about is when their theories, rulings, or opinions are dismissed outright or challenged merely because of who presented them. Carl's posts are the first ones I read on any Board and I would not oppose them without "doing my homework". Jim Simms/NYC

Re: Gospel According To Carl
 

Well, I didn't mean for that statement to sound so severe, but it seems that some people won't accept official interpretations unless they come out in print from an offical source. Carl has relayed a number of "official" rulings that he has received via phone call or e-mail, yet some people choose not to accept these as "official". Carl does distinguish between official interpretations, authoritative opinions, and his own suggestions (at least he does in the BRD). I doubt he'd want every umpire to live and breathe as he does, but I assume he'd at least want everyone to accept and enforce offical rulings, even if it contradicts what's in OBR or what they feel the rule should be. It's OK to formulate opinions, just don't do it on someone else's time when on the field.

Dennis

Re: How About a Truce?
 

I can verify that Carl did indeed call Jon Bible a neo-romantic in this thread. And you know what? They remain respected colleagues.

Carl has called me a neo-romantic on more than one occasion. Carl and I also remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.

Sometimes, folks, a label is <b>not</b> insulting, nor is it intended to be. I can remember the fervor created by Carl's labeling a group who opposed him as, "The Gas House Gang." The targets of this label were incensed at the name-calling - - until they found out what it meant, and that it wasn't an insult at all!

Do yourself a favor. If you see a word you don't understand, look it up. You may save yourself some grief.

This coming from a <b>proud</b> neo-romantic.

JimP opined:

<B>I can verify that Carl did indeed call Jon Bible a neo-romantic in this thread. And you know what? They remain respected colleagues.

Carl has called me a neo-romantic on more than one occasion. Carl and I also remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.</B>

Then there are those of us who firmly believe the "romantic" era has not yet ended. No need to use the pre-fix "neo" with us.

GB

<b><i>Jim Porter (quoted):
Carl has called several umpires that I know neo-romantics. They, too, remain respected colleagues, and friends.

Carl called Bfair a neo-romantic, and we haven't heard the end of it.

Sometimes, folks, a label is not insulting, nor is it intended to be.</b></i>

However, Jim, sometimes it is insulting especially when one provides his own interpretation of what he means by it (as Childress has). It should be taken as <u>meant</u> to be insulting when the words say just that. If he doesn't mean it, he shouldn't publish it in a public forum !!!

<b><i>Childress (quoted):

Jon Bible continues to be one of the Neo-Romantics....

...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.” </b></i>
__________________________________________________ _______
<b><i>[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19

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.......

.......Until any of us can boast a resume like Carl's, we better take what he says as gospel and move on.</b></i>

No one has stated a need to get it right <u>"at all costs"</u> Furthermore, I don't feel I compromise my philosophy with the "illegality of changing a call". I have right to and will question Childress "opinion" when it overrides the rulebook. I choose whether to accept his opinion, and I will question his means and methods of delivery of such unofficial "official interpretations".

<b><i>...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.
</b></i>

Dennis, I see little difference in Moose's call and the Texas call. Both used poor mechanics but ultimately put "getting the play right" over the "need to protect their dignity (ego)".

<b><i>...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?</b></i>

My opinion, not that of EWS, is that it is <u><b>ludicrous</b></u> to try to claim there were two calls on this play. Childress now states, then, that it is okay due to "concurrent jurisdiction". Where was this in the original List of 5 Changeable Calls. Why was not this 6th reason part of the original list if it is now okay to change the call per this reason? I must question the accuracy of the messenger no different than if I were told we received The Ten Commandments from Moses but he needs to add an 11th Commandment!!! <u>Something is wrong here !!</u> How accurate is the original information we are receiveing? Is something changing merely to justify a point of view? Is not that what occurred in Orwelle's "Animal Farm"?

What I see:
---Passing judgement upon Moose improperly
---Hensley justifying Moose's action through the rulebook
---Childress post "no,wrong", take my opinion, not the rulebook---live with the List of 5.
<b>---Infamous Texas / Stanford play occurs </b>
---eUmpire editors trying looking at the Texas play and attempting to justify the outcome by the List of 5.
---Childress saying to Freix, I am talking NCAA not OBR
---Childress uses OBR to qualify "concurrent jurisdiction" position
---postion taken "2 calls on same play"
---Freix states this is <b>ludicrous</b>, all can see only 1 call occurred. The other is merely opinion of U2 provided after coach has extensively complained.
---but "decision" and "call" are the same, PBUC says so in ruling, don't push the issue further and question it
---Freix question, "prove it", "show where I may find it"
---Sorry, not official PBUC ruling---we made mistake
---Freix and others keep saying "you can't put that square peg into that round hole"
---eUmpires editors keep trying to fit square peg into round hole
__________________________________________________ _
The reason Freix is so intent involve the issues here:
---The eUmpires editors and disparaging remarks made to Moose.
---The eUmpires editors saying take my opinion over the rulebook.
---The eUmpire editor(s) saying talk NCAA, not OBR and then use OBR to justify position.
---A List of 5 really needing to be, perhaps, a List of 6 (still wanting to know if this if "official"). But take this and all my other unofficial "official interpretations"
---An applicable "ruling" by PBUC requested to go unquestioned, which in fact, is found to be inapplicable when, indeed, questioned.

<b>INCONSISTENCY amongst eUmpire editors in their position and methods. We do as we wish and say to justify what we desire. You however, are wrong in using the same methods or even questioning our methods.</B>

Despite those who do not like the posts of Freix, <u>he is consistent in his approach.</u> That being, don't expect me to accept doctrine, provide me proof of why. Don't be afraid to question the "experts" whether they like it or not---make them provide legitimate answers. Highlight the insults and negative inuendo for all to see. Don't let others double-talk their way around the obvious.

Understand the game and the intent of the rules, and do my job to maintain fainess and balance by the rules and by the interpretations made available to me, the umpire.

Just my opinion, to those who may want it and to those who understandably don't

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Feb 26th, 2001 at 03:48 PM]

<B>Childress (quoted):

...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.” </B>


That's an insult? Hell, that's Utopia.

GB

Peasants Rise Up!
 

John,

It seemed to me that Jim Porter simply mentioned that he is with e-umpire and provided his e-mail address at Right Sports. I don't see where that equates to a "ridiculous title". It is my understanding that "EWS" is an imaginary club set up to poke fun at Carl, Warren and others. Hey at some time we all want to belong to a group but I would caution members of EWS not to use their "personal" opinions in speaking for the entire membership. By the way does EWS have a forum where we can visit that has a message board and advice written by long time college umpires? I also heard that EWS is looking for space while the clubhouse is undergoing renovations.

Another Peasant

These interpretations are made available to you, thanks to the Internet, thanks to PBUC and the NAPBL, thanks to JEA, thanks to J/R, and thanks to Carl and the BRD. It seems that you pick and choose what interpretations work well for your philosophies. You attack Carl and his credibility, so why don't you shoot an e-mail off to Jim Evans and bash his credibility? I don't see Jim working any MLB games, yet you don't see anybody here attacking Evans.

I think it takes a bigger ego for someone to create a secret society, pick and choose what rules they wish to enforce, attack the credibility of authoritative sources, and ridicule others behind their backs all because one of their members blew a call in a game, and didn't like the feedback he was given. So when are you EWS guys going to swallow your pride and "do the right thing" by accepting "official" official interpretations?

Dennis

For purposes of full disclosure
 

That is kind of mean spirited..isn't it?? :(


Not really true. Actually not true at all. The principles of EWS are long and wordy and might bore the occasional reader. We do reserve the right to make FUN of someone who does something really stupid, however. <-JOKE, GET IT!!

We simply point out when the Gods are Mortal. We simply point out when... "...he's wearing nothing at all!" It is an important task and we take our social responsibility quite seriously. :)

Mike Branch
Founder, Member
EWS

Mike writes:
<B>We do reserve the right to make FUN of someone who does something really stupid, however. <-JOKE, GET IT!!</B>

Is it still a joke when you do it?

<B>We simply point out when the Gods are Mortal.</B>

You mean when the four of you THINK it is appropriate. Or do you claim some ability to know what every umpire is thinking?


<B>We simply point out when... "...he's wearing nothing at all!"</B>

Again, this would be in YOUR opinion.

<B> It is an important task and we take our social responsibility quite seriously.</B>


I take it you ASSUMED these responsibilities, or was there a mailing I missed?

Since the gang of four, otherwise known as the Emperor's Wardrobe Society, has assumed these responsibilities, to whom do they answer when THEY are mistaken?

Oh, now you've gone and done it!
 

HEY.. Somebody is in BIG TROUBLE!!! :)

Who told you the secret meaning of EWS??

Jeez.. now we gotta get new decoder rings... Did you BLAB Stevey??

As to the question. When an EWS member is [M-word] they answer to the Great Forest Brainless Idiot, are forced to eat grubs, drink Olympia beer, and read the FED case book. Suffice to say, they are severely dealt with.

Mike Branch
aka The Great Brainless Idiot
Member, Founder
EWS

I think that five pages on this subject is probably more than enough :)

Thanks,
Brad