|
Fri Feb 23, 2001, 10:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
One of the victims when the Board was sanitized is the following situation. Although I am in agreement with Warren and ascribe to a certain umpire's List of Five Exceptions this play seems to be a case where a jusgement call was changed after it was final.
I came across the following situation in Baseball By The Rules Pine Tar, Spitballs, and Midgets "..The score was 1-0 Boston in the bottom of the fourth. Oil Can Boyd was doing the pitching honors for the Red Sox, and the Angels had two out and two men on: outfielder Brian Downing on first and first baseman Wally Joyner on second. Third baseman Doug DeCinces came to the plate and hit what Jim Palmer called a pool cue shot the ball meandered down the first baseline and bounded off the bag into fair territory. By the time Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner caught up with the bouncing ball, his play was at the plate, where Wally Joyner was preparing to score. Buckner fired the ball to catcher Rich Gedman. It was a close call, but plate umpire Terry Cooney made it: safe. Red Sox Manager John McNamara argued the call, and Oil Can was predictably perturbed, but its unlikely that even they could have predicted what happened next: Terry Cooney had second thoughts, conferred with third base ump Richie Garcia, and changed his call. Joyner was out. This time Angels manager Gene Mauch argued the call and then some, but he didnt get a new call for his trouble. He got thrown out of the game. (However, he did get some satisfaction later, when the Angels won the game, 5-3.) Interviewed after the eventful game, umpires Cooney and Garcia explained what happened. Cooney said that because hed gone to cover the play at first, he was able to see that Gedman had the ball in time, but he wasnt sure Gedman had actually tagged Joyner. He called the runner safe. When McNamara and virtually the entire Red Sox bench came at him, Cooney decided to check with Garcia. Garcia said that Cooney didnt ask him to make a call or to decide whether Joyner had beaten the tag; Cooney simply wanted to know whether or not there had been [EMPHASIS] a tag. Garcia answered in no uncertain terms-there had definitely been a tag. The umpiring teamwork resulted in a reversed call . (pg 204-205 book by Glen Waggoner, Kathleen Moloney, and Hugh Howard). I do not recall the play that well. I was not yet an umpire. I do remember many thought Oil Can should have been ejected albeit it was a league playoff game. Heaven forbid but this seems to support the EWS crew in that the call was made after a final judgment and based upon a managers complaint. I also know that a year or two ago a MLB ump [Frank Pulli] went on his own to a video replay on I think was a homerun call so MLB umps are not infallible or without mistake. Jim Simms/NY 
|
|
Fri Feb 23, 2001, 10:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The List Again
The following list was posted several times. I add an excerpt from one of Carl Childress' recent posts to promote conversation on the American League 1986 Playoff Game three play posted above.
...Second, it's not MY LIST. It's a compilation of five instances where the rules, official interpretation, or current practice sanction a changed call. Three of those are judgment calls that are changed IN SPITE OF the language of 9.02(a). 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 am not sure there is an actual answer besides Cooney screwed up perhaps in positioning if not in mechanics. Jim/NY
|
|
Fri Feb 23, 2001, 10:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Appearances can be deceptive. The fact that an official can ILLEGALLY change a judgement decision, and apparently get away with it, doesn't mean it wasn't ILLEGAL to do so in the first place! (grin) I can see it now, "Your honour, I murdered three people last week and no-one arrested me or put me in jail. That means you can't do that this time either!" Yeah, right! I have no doubt that a whole host of largely inexperienced umpires all over the world have ILLEGALLY changed their judgement decisions at one time or another. Heck, I probably did it once or twice myself - when I didn't know any better! That doesn't make their actions any less ILLEGAL or any less PROTESTABLE. The fact that there may never have been a case where a coach/manager has tested this principle, and had it verified by the league, doesn't change the principle. Only if the league properly decides otherwise will the principle itself be in any doubt for that league. If the league deciding otherwise is the MLB, and they make such a contrary decision, THEN we could truly say that changing judgement decisions is no longer ILLEGAL under the OBR. Woe be to baseball the day that happens. Umpires will spend their entire lives second-guessing their judgement decisions. As Carl said in another thread or post, and I am paraphrasing and claiming no accuracy for the numbers, the day will then come when Team A lodges 61 protests of judgement decisions and Team B lodges 47 protests of mostly the same decisions (but less because they won). Games will then regularly be decided in the protest committee, in much the same way that America's Cup yachting decides the bulk of its close races these days. Cheers,
|
|
Fri Feb 23, 2001, 11:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreement
Quote:
I am not threatened if ONE MLB play supports (perhaps in error) those who advocate getting the call right regardless of how you go about changing it. If nothing else it might show that ALL umpires are subject to mistakes. Jim Simms/NY
|
|
Mon Feb 26, 2001, 02:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Having been a lifelong Red Sox fan (feel for me, fellas,) I do remember this game, this call, and this situation. "Oil Can" Boyd was a big celebrity around here back then, having been promoted directly from the Pawtucket Red Sox at McCoy Stadium in Pawtucket, RI, where I saw him pitch on several occasions, just 20 minutes from my home. The call should never have been changed. I remember getting the feeling from this play that the Red Sox got away with one. The replays did not conclusively show whether Joyner had been tagged in time or not. As to whether or not this changed call was legal, no one was able to find out. The Angels did protest, but since they eventually won the game, the protest never made it to the Commissioner's Office. By the way, this series was one of the highlights of my childhood relationship with Major League Baseball. It was a good one. Oh, how I wish now, looking back on it, that Bill Buckner had pulled a hammie or something in this game. Concerning Buckner's infamous misplay in Game 6 of the World Series against the New York Mets in this same year, rumor has it that he was so distraught over making that error, immediately following the game he walked out onto Yawkey Way and stepped in front of a bus. The bus went right through his legs.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Mon Feb 26, 2001, 02:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim writes: "Heaven forbid but this seems to support the EWS crew in that the call was made after a final judgment and based upon a managers complaint."
Heaven forfend, Jim...but no, this isn't support for that position anymore than saying "the fact that there are thousands of murders each year supports some groups premise that killing is justified." Just because something improper is done, it doesn't change the fact that that action is improper. Umpires make mistakes. GB
__________________
GB
|
|
Mon Feb 26, 2001, 04:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill Buckner
Quote:
I agree with you on that one. Quote:
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 02:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know, now that I think about it, this is an excellent example of why you shouldn't change certain calls.
There was already a big mess with the animated Oil Can gyrating in his displeasure, and Johnny Mac coming out onto the field (this probably made an impression on Terry Cooney and influenced his decision to seek help - - Johnny Mac was pretty low key and rarely entered the field to argue.) All changing the call did was make a bad situation worse. It led to an uglier mess on the field, and Angels' Skipper Mauch hittin' the showers early. It also placed the crew under intense scrutiny. The replay did not help Cooney's case, since it was inconclusive. The play was close, so close that, like I said, I felt the Red Sox got away with one. I thought Joyner was safe. Yep, he should've stuck with his call, alright. I wish now this had gone to protest. It might've set a precedent, and that other changed call thread would never have happened.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 05:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who knows, at the protest committee they may have said Cooney acted within the intent of the General Instructions to Umpires which state it is more important to get the call right. Look in the book, the General Instructions are still there. If you have lost your rulebook, you might buy a new one---the General Instructions should still be there (at least the last time I looked). I consider that to be at least "authoritative opinion".
Don't forget, the protest in the Pine Tar incident went way of "intent" of rule vs. the actual verbatim wording and black & white print. I guess the commissioner's office must have seen some fine print between the lines that others couldn't see. It seems some may not have lost sight of the actual purpose of an umpire.......to be an impartial judge for fairness and balance...... Just my opinion, Steve Member EWS
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 06:52am
|
|||
|
|||
No, no, no, no, no.....
Quote:
1. A Protest Committee can NEVER legitimately decide that an umpire "acted within the intent of the General Instructions to Umpires", as claimed by Mr Freix. Why? Because they derive their charter from OBR 4.19 which says, specifically, that they are only to decide "that an umpire's decision is in violation of these rules." It has been pointed out continually to Mr Freix that, while the General Instructions to Umpires are physically part of the rule book and provide valuable guidelines for officials, they are neither a part of the rules themselves (which are clearly numbered using a decimal numbering system) nor of the incorporated casebook notes and comments. Further, it has also been pointed out that the General Instructions are considered outdated by the very professional umpires for whom they were originally written, and so have been reinterpreted in the light of contemporary professional umpire practice. 2. The "actual purpose of an umpire", is NOT as Mr Freix claims "..to be an impartial judge for fairness..." either! For a full explanation of the umpire's responsibilities one need look no further than OBR 9.01. The words FAIR and FAIRNESS do not appear ANYWHERE in OBR 9.01. In fact those words don't even appear in the General Instructions to Umpires, of which Mr Freix is evidently so fond. Umpires have many duties and responsibilities, but being the arbiter of "fairness" or "justice" is NOT among those duties and responsibilities. Mr Freix also used the word "balance" in connection with his version of the umpire's true purpose. In this one word he has offered the only small measure of truth in all that he has posted here. Where the umpire has no specific rule to enforce, and is required to make a choice between two or more possible outcomes, he should choose the outcome which best maintains the "balance" between offense and defense. 3. The Commissioner of Baseball was NOT usually a part of either league's Protest Committee, to the best of my knowledge, at the time of the pine tar incident. I suspect he became involved in the now infamous George Brett pine tar incident only because it was a case of a rule being found to be so obviously out of date, and the punishment for a breach being found to be so grossly inappropriate to the offense, that urgent and extraordinary attention was needed to correct the inequity in the system. I seriously doubt that the commissioner had ANY regard to the General Instructions to Umpires in making his decision in this matter. Umpires are generally charged with:
There are some more specific responsibilities outlined in OBR 9.03, 9.04 and 9.05. The General Instructions to Umpires that are continually reprinted in the rule book have not been altered since 1955. The actual General Instructions themselves have been expanded and changed by NAPBL (see Section 7 - Instructions to Umpires) and MLB (Instructions not available except to MLB officials), each for their own particular purposes. Without wishing to devalue the old General Instructions to Umpires, and their laudible ideals for approaching the task of officiating baseball, they are far too simplistic to be useful for mature officials. St Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians said, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways." [13:11]. Steve, with all good intentions and in the positive spirit of this passage, I suggest to you that it is time to give up your "childish ways" and instead seek a more mature approach to officiating this great game of baseball. Cheers, [Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 27th, 2001 at 06:07 AM]
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 09:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
-- Indulging in conversation with players or base coaches (Judgment of umpire whether "conversation" was taking place) -- Not having uniform in good condition -- Not being active and alert -- Not acting courteous to club officials -- Visitng club offices -- Failure to carry rule book -- Failure to keep game moving -- Failure to keep your eye everlastingly on the ball while it is in play -- Calling plays too quickly -- Not calling your own plays -- Calling plays correctly -- Hesitating to consult another umpire (waiting until after the play is hesitating) -- Failure to be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. The only items I see Cooney guilty of is not calling his own plays, and hesitating to consult another official. If he couldn't see a tag and really needed help, he should have asked immediately. Of course, the replay is still inconclusive on whether they eventually got the call right. Now, since you believe the GIU to be a part of the rules, do you feel the game could have been protested because he hesitated to get help? Do you think a game can be protested because the umpire failed to carry his rule book with him? If the commissioner does see some "fine print between the lines that others couldn't see" concerning the legality of changing calls and rules otherwise, that's his job, not yours. Until then, call it the way it's written, at least that's what the Pine Tar crew did. Dennis
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 09:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
On The Merits
Warren,
Once again you have served us with an outstanding and thoughtful post in response to Bfair's one about the General Instructions. I am sure many lurkers and other "peasants" who frequent these Boards to learn the art and science of umpiring will appreciate the fact that you suspended your practice of no longer commenting on Bfair's posts. I cannot keep you from engaging in point counterpoint when he issues, as most surely he will, a reply to your post. I would urge you to resist the temptation knowing full well he appears to be most set in his ways and will not change on this issue. Your posts should be judged by all in context with those of others such as Carl Childress and Jim Porter and in light of their own personal experiences. Although everyone is equal umpiring is not a vocation in which the rules of how an umpire is to act is decided by popular vote. The reader must decide the credibility of each presenter. I would remind anyone who is a new member that your thoughts are fully appreciated. I have seen a number of recent posts from newer members albeit not necessarily newer umpires. Finally, I will remind others that I posted this play simply because it seemed an aberration of the List of Five exceptions to umpires changing judgment calls after the fact. I do not agree with Terry Cooney seeking help on his call. In my humble opinion I do not think that MLB at the time should have reversed the George Brett call. The rule was unmistakably clear and the umpires ruled within the context of the rules as then written. Change the rules -- don't overrule the umpires. Jim Simms/NY
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 09:59am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No, no, no, no, no.....
Quote:
Finally, concerning the Commissioner: Two years ago he convinced the owners to dissolve the Office of the President. For many years the major function of that dignitary had been to oversee the umpires hired for that league's games. In an interesting development, however, the Rules Committee refused to modify OBR 1.11(i), 2.00 League President, 2.00 Manager(a), 3.01(c), 3.10(a), 4.13(c), 4.18, 4.19 (the critical section for this thread), 6.06(d), 8.02(a) Penalty, 8.02(d), 9.01(a), 9.04(c), 9.05(a), 9.05(b), 9.05(c), 10.01(a), 10.01(c)(1), 10.02, and 10.21. Not so curiously, the League President is not mentioned in the "General Instructions to Umpires." It's always difficult when someone posts without knowledge of history or the rules, for we never know what lurkers may be irrevocably influenced by such blatantly false information. While, I too, have generally taken the Freix-pledge, I simply had to expand slightly on your demur.
|
|
Tue Feb 27, 2001, 12:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
Re: No, no, no, no, no.....
Quote:
Thank you for clarifying that point. I had forgotten, until you posted your reminder, that it was indeed AL President Lee McPhail and not the Commissioner who actually made the ruling on the George Brett pine tar incident. Cheers,
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
