The 2001 BRD Section 458 states that Brad Rumble made an official interpretation via the National Federation News #28, April, 1990: <b><i>A call of "foul" may be changed to "fair." When that occurs, the umpire must decide what the outcome would have been if he had ruled correctly.</i></b>

The 2001/2002 NFHS Umpires Manual, page 18, Section 27 states: <b><i>Calling "Foul!" halts all play. It is <u>not</u> [my emphasis] reversible.</i></b>

Could someone please enlighten the reasoning for these contrasting views? :confused:

Ummmm, try asking the National Federation. It was their publication which circulated the original interpretation, and it is now the same organization circulating a contradictory interpretation.

As far as the BRD is concerned, with the sheer magnitude of that book, the number of rulings in four different organizations, and the evolving nature of baseball rules themselves, sometimes some things can be overlooked.

If that is the case here, I'm sure Carl Childress will include it in the changes that he plans to send out to registered owners of the BRD, which I believe will be April 1st.

I suppose none of this precludes the possibility that something is amiss, and Carl has the answer. So, I suppose I'll shut up now, and I probably shouldn't have posted all this to begin with.

C'est la vie!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

Ummmm, try asking the National Federation. It was their publication which circulated the original interpretation, and it is now the same organization circulating a contradictory interpretation.

This is kind of what I thought. Perhaps the interpretation was changed back in 1990 but went overlooked in the Umpire Manual all these years.

Jim: First, the mechanics manual is <b>not</b> a rule book, case book, posted Internet interpretation, or published <i>News</i> interpretation.

Second, and even more importantly, the sentence quoted ("Calling 'Foul!' halts all play. It is not reversible.") also appears in the very first NFHS mechanics manual, <b>published in 1989</b>. (In that edition it appeared in Section 33, p. 22, for anyone who is keeping score.) You'll note that date PRECEDES Brad's official interpretation. Consequently, the 1990 Rumble interp effectively reversed that.

BTW: That erroneous sentence has appeared in every subsequent mechanics manual. I pointed out the contradiction to the NFHS in the summer of 1990. Since Rumble never rescinded his posted official interpretation, the Manual error is not worth losing sleep over.

I trust this makes everything clear. I certainly appreciate -- and applaud -- the diligence of those umpires desperately searching for errors. So far, two reports have proved correct.

Fair / Foul Two Calls Two Umpires
 

I read my "old version", the 1999 Seventennth Edition of BRD Section 449 pg 81. I was aware a call could immediately be changed in FED but was unaware that PRO interpretations permitted same. I find it difficult to envision a single umpire screwing up FAIR / FOUL especially since one is verbalized and one is not (Although I had several STRIKES last year that I just vapor locked and called BALL). What I can see is Crusty Veteran as PU with a R-1 pointing a ball down the first base line as FAIR and having NEWBIE BU in "B" or "C" position yelling "Foul Ball". What then? Does PU remphazise his call if no one has reacted to the "FOUL" call? If so, how? And if we live with FOUL how do we explain the WHY when Offensive Coach comes out to challenge. I know, I know NEWBIE better have brought the Fosters, or in my case the Coors Light. Jim/NY