Changing Calls

[ump24]

I am very concerned by some of the things I have been reading about as of late on this site. Several different people have posted the position ,"get the call right at all cost". I agree with this position, but only to a point.

In the case of the UT play, this is a call that can be reversed easily enough. Granted, Brandon Padgett didn't handle the play correctly, the rule book specifically gives the authority to all umpires to call a dead ball (HBP). My only point in saying this is that it MUST be done in a timely fashion. To allow an extended arguement to go on with out stepping in to immediately correct an error is poor.

This is not the same as changing an out to a safe or a safe to an out. I read a post that stated that AFTER making a call at first base that it was OK to be coerced into seeking help on whether a player pulled his foot. I emphatically say NO. The only way to get help on this play is to ask for help first. Not after you have already made a call.

When it is a situation that you have the sole responsibility of covering, you must make the call and stick with it. Going to a partner after an out or safe has been made is not acceptable. So, what is acceptable?
1)Check swings that have not been called a strike.
2)Fair balls to foul. NOT FOUL TO FAIR!
3)Asking for help on a tag BEFORE making a call.

There may be other instances but those are the only ones I have at present.

Again, the idea that you may go to a fellow official on any situation that he may have knowledge of is ludicrous. Be competent and take care of your business.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by ump24
I am very concerned by some of the things I have been reading about as of late on this site. Several different people have posted the position ,"get the call right at all cost". I agree with this position, but only to a point.

I think we all want to make The right call . Heck we all played the game and I hated it when our team got hosed , but you learn to live with it.

There are certain situations we can change and others we can't. In the play described below - the ball was dead No continuous action to worry about. That situation is easily correctable. The call should have been made right away. I do not think anyone disagrees with that, but sometimes when one is working with the "Top Dogs" , one is relunctant to chime in .

There are certain calls, just by there very nature that cannot be changed and they involve continous action plays.

A prior example which I have given: Last inning, Game Tied, HT up, runners at corners 1 out - infield in. Ball hit directly at F4 who attempts to tag r1 and throw to F3 to get the inning ending DP and go to extras.

When F4 attempts the tag on r1, this is U2's call and it is critical to the next sequence of events. If the call is OUT, then F4 will throw to F3 to get the DP, however, if the call is safe, F4 (remember he is playing in) will probably try and get r3 at home thinking he cannot possibly get the DP.

Now after dust has settled, whatever call U2 made cannot be changed even though it was wrong because of the effect on subsequent plays.

Therefore, I would sum up as saying that a call can be changed if there is no continuous action to worry about.

Pete Booth

[ump24]

Pete, great example and point. It just backs up my position that much stronger. The only thing I want to call attention to though is that continuous action is not the only reason that you can't change a call. Once an out or safe is made there is no, oops, let me get help. Someone may be able to get away with changing calls at lower levels, but not at the better high school and college level, unless it falls into the previously mentioned category.

Let me take this position even further. We have all called pitches balls that were obviously strikes, as well as strikes that were obviously balls. If we operate under the principle that we should get help and get the play right, then why don't we go to our partner on these questionable pitches. I'll tell you why, because it's U1 responsibility not u2.

Make one call and stick with it! Don't put your partner in the grease for your inefficiency!

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
There are certain calls, just by there very nature that cannot be changed and they involve continous action plays.

---[snip]---

Therefore, I would sum up as saying that a call can be changed if there is no continuous action to worry about.

Pete, I understand where you are coming from but I feel it is important to reiterate that umpires don't make the rules UNLESS the rules themselves fail to provide a solution to a specific problem. That is the effect of OBR 9.01(c). Now in the case of changing calls, be they judgment decisions or not, the rules clearly DO provide for the specific problem. That is what the List of 5 Legally Changeable Calls was all about!

As an individual umpire, you cannot LEGALLY decide to change a call because, in your judgement, "there is no continuous action to worry about". That rationale might be a good justification for why the rule makers have allowed certain calls to be changed, but it is not a valid reason to allow the individual umpire to LEGALLY change any call on the diamond, especially a judgement decision, when that call or decision is not previously allowed to be changed by rule or interpretation.

We already have a list of 5 calls that can be legally changed. If you want to ADD to that list, that's fine but you'd need to show where there is support for that either in the rules, official interpretations or at the very least the authoritative references of JEA and J/R. Otherwise, anything that does NOT appear in the list simply cannot be LEGALLY changed, despite whether the absence of continuing action would make such a change easy to effect.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 22nd, 2001 at 04:58 PM]

[David Emerling]

----------------------------------------------
As an individual umpire, you cannot LEGALLY decide to change a call because, in your judgement, "there is no continuous action to worry about". That rationale might be a good justification for why the rule makers have allowed certain calls to be changed, but it is not a valid reason to allow the individual umpire to LEGALLY change any call on the diamond, especially a judgement decision, when that call or decision is not previously allowed to be changed by rule or interpretation.

We already have a list of 5 calls that can be legally changed.
--------------------------------------------------

Which specific rule would you cite to support that it is illegal for an umpire to change his call because of the reason above? I'm inclined to agree with you, philosophically, but I am more interested in the rule citation.

On a swipe tag on the base paths, where the runner is called out ... when the dust settles, if the umpire making the original call should subsequently decide to change that call (for whatever reason), would that be protestable as a misapplication of the rules by the offended manager? And, if so, which rule was misapplied?

9.02(a) "Any umpire's decision which involves judgment ... is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions."

In this case, his final decision (the second one) would be final ... if you follow me.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by David Emerling
Which specific rule would you cite to support that it is illegal for an umpire to change his call because of the reason above? I'm inclined to agree with you, philosophically, but I am more interested in the rule citation.

On a swipe tag on the base paths, where the runner is called out ... when the dust settles, if the umpire making the original call should subsequently decide to change that call (for whatever reason), would that be protestable as a misapplication of the rules by the offended manager? And, if so, which rule was misapplied?

9.02(a) "Any umpire's decision which involves judgment ... is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions."

In this case, his final decision (the second one) would be final ... if you follow me.

David,

You are new in this forum. This issue has been a VERY heated debate over the last few days/weeks. You are correct that I have based my assertion on the wording of OBR 9.02(a). We are not talking about getting help BEFORE making a call on a swipe tag/pulled foot. We are not talking about getting help after making a call where all the information was not available to the official at the time he made the call. See the other threads on this issue for a complete list of the 5 legally changable calls.

We have had the argument about the FINAL "final" decision before and frankly it makes no sense. The word final is specific. Under the rule, once a decision is made THAT first decision is "final" - not the one after it, or the one after that. For judgement calls, the only exceptions are in OBR 9.02(c) Note and OBR 9.04(c). There is also a PBUC interpretation and a JEA authoritative opinion which each operate to allow changes in certain other specific cases. Other than these, the only decision that can be legally reversed is a rule misapplication.

To suggest you can have a "final" decision, and then a Final "final" decision and then a FINAL Final "final" decision means that all of the preceeding decisions before the LAST "final" decision were NOT "final" at all, and so in breach of the rule. It is even arguable that the "final" decision so made would STILL not be truly "final" because it too could be changed upon further deliberation. No, David, the FIRST complete decision made under the rule is the FINAL decision. If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we do that via email to avoid inflicting this debate on the board yet again?

Thanks and cheers,

[David Emerling]

----------------------------------------
No, David, the FIRST complete decision made under the rule is the FINAL decision. If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we do that via email to avoid inflicting this debate on the board yet again?
-------------------------------------------

It's true, I do not frequent this forum very often so I apologize for delving into a topic that has already been so recently addressed.

It's an interesting issue, though.

Your thinking has a certain logic - there's no doubt about that. It would be interesting to know if there has ever been an official protest (at any level) where the it was alleged that an umpire "illegally" changed a call that, by rule, could not be reversed.

Again, I apologize, I'll let the issue go and just lurk at the exchanges.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
To suggest you can have a "final" decision, and then a Final "final" decision and then a FINAL Final "final" decision means that all of the preceeding decisions before the LAST "final" decision were NOT "final" at all, and so in breach of the rule. It is even arguable that the "final" decision so made would STILL not be truly "final" because it too could be changed upon further deliberation. No, David, the FIRST complete decision made under the rule is the FINAL decision. If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we do that via email to avoid inflicting this debate on the board yet again?
Thanks and cheers,

At the risk of appearing to change my position on the entire "changable calls" issue, I wish to take issu with the above assertion. Of course, it sounds quite reasonable at first. After all, final means final. However, upon further examination, it is not true.

Let us take an analagous example in that of the Supreme Court of the United States. I'm sure that the reader is aware of the notion of the "top court in the land," even if the reader does not reside in the United States. At any other level of court, the decision is not "final"; that is, either the participants may appeal the decision, or the judge may reconsider a decision and/or initiate a process to change part of a decision. When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is final (U.S. Constitution, article III plus various interpretation). However, the Supreme Court is free to later amend their decision, even though it was final. What is "final about it, then? It is not changable through any action of the parties involved; only the impartial arbiter(s) may change it.

Thinking of every other example in society, any person in power that gives a final decision is free to have at least some influence--sometimes unilateral power--to get the decision changed.

In baseball, then, the conclusion is obvious. A coach/team member may not influence a change a "final" judgement decision, but the one who made it certainly may.

However, that doesn't mean they SHOULD--an important distinction.

P-Sz

[chris s]

Originally posted by David Emerling
----------------------------------------
No, David, the FIRST complete decision made under the rule is the FINAL decision. If you want to continue this discussion, may I suggest we do that via email to avoid inflicting this debate on the board yet again?
-------------------------------------------

It's true, I do not frequent this forum very often so I apologize for delving into a topic that has already been so recently addressed.

It's an interesting issue, though.

Your thinking has a certain logic - there's no doubt about that. It would be interesting to know if there has ever been an official protest (at any level) where the it was alleged that an umpire "illegally" changed a call that, by rule, could not be reversed.

Again, I apologize, I'll let the issue go and just lurk at the exchanges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
David, it is no win here for us "lesser thans". I had posted an after the fact assistance question here awhile back. I was PU,Br avoided a tag by running very clearly outside of the 45 foot line AND he was tagged. BU saw neither. To add, BR overran first and scrambled back safely, which is what BU called. Skipper asked BU for help, he came to me and I told him I got a tag, do with it what you want. He changed call to out and ate it.
The first time I posted it, the only poster who acknowledged the running out of baseline to avoid tag was Moose, all else gave the ol PU got it till the 45, bla-bla.I posted the sit a couple weeks ago and one guy(who attended Evans Florida Classic) stated that I,as PU, should have called it(running out of baseline to avoid tag).NOBODY jumped his ass,or mine. I asked then why is everybody else saying different, no response, from anyone. Maybe they were wrong about PU jumping in on a lane infraction, maybe they like to let thier partner fry, hell I dunno.
I DO, however, believe if gotta ask for help, do it before a call. BUT, I also believe that if a PU is gonna do his job and bust up the first base line, he should do something other than watch his partner fry and pick his butt. Lane violation or swipe tag with runner out of baseline(usually on a off-line throw) who has the best angle for that? THE PU!!!!!! Standing at attention, so to speak. JMHO.....chris

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by ump24
Several different people have posted the position ,"get the call right at all cost". I agree with this position, but only to a point.

Training Point #67. The Axiom as above is dangerous, probably wrong. But as you said.. beware. It is not what we are all about. Sometimes.. you simply cannot get the call right. Right?

Going to a partner after an out or safe has been made is not acceptable.

Absolutely 100% True. (Well, I can think of a couple cases, so 98% True). BUT.. (it is the sworn duty of the EWS to be sure the truth is told)...

It is not illegal. It is BAAAD mechanics.

Stuff happens. It happens.

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
At the risk of appearing to change my position on the entire "changable calls" issue, I wish to take issu with the above assertion. Of course, it sounds quite reasonable at first. After all, final means final. However, upon further examination, it is not true.

Let us take an analagous example in that of the Supreme Court of the United States....

---[snip]---

In baseball, then, the conclusion is obvious. A coach/team member may not influence a change a "final" judgement decision, but the one who made it certainly may.

However, that doesn't mean they SHOULD--an important distinction.

Why go to the US Supreme Court, Patrick? There is an analogy in the very rules under discussion! Look at OBR 9.04(c) and you can read the following:

"After consultation, the umpire-in-chief ... shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made" {my emphasis}

The point you are making is valid, but your conclusion drawn from that point is quite wrong. Look at it this way:

1. A judgement decision of the umpire is final [OBR 9.02(a)]

2. Therefore changing such a judgement decision is ILLEGAL viz "contrary to these rules" [OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL]

3. In accordance with the principles you put forward, only the rule makers can change the rules, not the people enforcing them.

4. Therefore, the umpire cannot change his OWN judgement decision, once made, unless the rules ALLOW him to do so.

5. OBR 9.02(c) Note, OBR 9.04(c), PBUC interpretations and JEA 9.15 all provide LEGAL occasions when the rules, and decisions made under them, may be changed.

It is important to note that an umpire immediately changing his mind while in the midst of making his decision is NOT considered changing a judgement decision. That is the rationale for not protesting the "Out - Safe - OUT!" call. Carl calls that "correcting a call". It's a fine distinction but it makes the point. That is entirely different to declaring a runner OUT, despite having seen the ball on the ground, lying to the coach about how the ball got to be on the ground, having that explanation disputed by the coach, going to your partner for help and THEN changing your judgement decision on the initial Safe/Out call! The latter is clearly ILLEGAL under OBR 9.02(a), and because it is ILLEGAL to change such a judgement decision, doing so anyway becomes legally protestable as a misapplication of the rules of baseball!

"Final" certainly does mean FINAL, unless you are the body making the rules! Individual umpires do NOT make the rules of baseball, even if the US Supreme Court DOES make the rules for your nation. The US Supreme Court notwithstanding, espousing the principle that an official charged with enforcing statutes can decide to read or interpret the rules in any way he sees fit is an anethema. Only those who make the statutes can decide to do that. Where would your great nation be if the people charged with enforcing its decisions in law could look at a Supreme Court decision and say, "Who cares? I'm going to do it this way because I think the law says something different!" In the case of the rules of baseball there are only 5 acknowledged cases where the "Supreme Court" has allowed for their law, or at least decisions made under that law, to be changed. As for the rest, "FINAL" means FINAL and that, my friend IS FINAL!

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 23rd, 2001 at 09:27 PM]

[Ump20]

As pertains to Warren's recent follow-up.

The point you are making is valid, but your conclusion drawn from that point is quite wrong. Look at it this way:

1. A judgement decision of the umpire is final [OBR 9.02(a)]

2. Therefore changing such a judgement decision is ILLEGAL viz "contrary to these rules" [OBR 2.00 Definition of ILLEGAL]

3. In accordance with the principles you put forward, only the rule makers can change the rules, not the people enforcing them.

4. Therefore, the umpire cannot change his OWN judgement decision, once made, unless the rules ALLOW him to do so.

5. OBR 9.02(c) Note, OBR 9.04(c), PBUC interpretations and JEA 9.15 all provide LEGAL occasions when the rules, and decisions made under them, may be changed.

I know what Warren is saying and I agree with it. I think some may be caught up with his emphasis, right as it may be on ILLEGAL. Depending upon the level of play there may be little if any consequence on the field or post-game in terms of a protest being made let alone being upheld. Some coaches might even tell you "nice job" when you actually just screwed up. No one is likely to be fined, and surely no one is going to haul you off to jail. The bottom line is if you have concentrated on all that has been said over the past week you're probably pretty serious about this avocation or "other job" called umpiring. If you accept the argument as presented, not because it comes from Warren or Carl but simply because it is correct on the merits and in keeping with the rules you owe it to your partner(s) and your fellow officials to start making these "corrections" within the rules. You will have made living the precept that the two-blues are the only ones on the field responsible for the integrity of baseball.

[JJ]

As I said on another thread - an example of a call that CAN be changed but SHOULDN'T be changed. Too many worms come out of such a "can".

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by chris s
David, it is no win here for us "lesser thans". I had posted an after the fact assistance question here awhile back. I was PU,Br avoided a tag by running very clearly outside of the 45 foot line AND he was tagged. BU saw neither. To add, BR overran first and scrambled back safely, which is what BU called. Skipper asked BU for help, he came to me and I told him I got a tag, do with it what you want. He changed call to out and ate it.
The first time I posted it, the only poster who acknowledged the running out of baseline to avoid tag was Moose, all else gave the ol PU got it till the 45, bla-bla.I posted the sit a couple weeks ago and one guy(who attended Evans Florida Classic) stated that I,as PU, should have called it(running out of baseline to avoid tag).NOBODY jumped his ass,or mine. I asked then why is everybody else saying different, no response, from anyone. Maybe they were wrong about PU jumping in on a lane infraction, maybe they like to let thier partner fry, hell I dunno.
I DO, however, believe if gotta ask for help, do it before a call. BUT, I also believe that if a PU is gonna do his job and bust up the first base line, he should do something other than watch his partner fry and pick his butt. Lane violation or swipe tag with runner out of baseline(usually on a off-line throw) who has the best angle for that? THE PU!!!!!! Standing at attention, so to speak. JMHO.....chris

Chris,

I note that you were obviously not satisfied with only Moose agreeing with your position on this play, and the lack of any negative responses at the Florida Classic, and so took this situation to another forum for answers.

Please, do tell us what was the response from apparently the most respected authority in THAT other forum at the moment - Bob Pariseau? Did he agree with the experienced officials here, that it was definitely NOT your call and that you don't have "joint jurisdiction", or did he support you and Moose in "poaching" calls from your BU partner? Don't be bashful, Chris. I'm sure I'm not the ONLY one here who would like to know where Mr Pariseau stands on this burning issue. While you're at it, maybe you'd like to share with the readers here how you feel you ought to decide to "poach" those calls depending upon YOUR personal opinion of the competence of your partner.

If it is truly a "no win here" for "lesser thans" such as yourself, perhaps that's more your problem than a product of any alleged attitude of superiority on anyone else's part.

Cheers,