The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 06, 2001, 09:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 118
Exclamation

The 2001 BRD Section 458 states that Brad Rumble made an official interpretation via the National Federation News #28, April, 1990: 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.

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

Could someone please enlighten the reasoning for these contrasting views?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 06, 2001, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 711
Send a message via ICQ to Jim Porter Send a message via Yahoo to Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
The 2001 BRD Section 458 states that Brad Rumble made an official interpretation via the National Federation News #28, April, 1990: 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.

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

Could someone please enlighten the reasoning for these contrasting views?

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!
__________________
Jim Porter
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 06, 2001, 10:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 118
[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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 06, 2001, 11:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 1,212
Send a message via ICQ to Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
The 2001 BRD Section 458 states that Brad Rumble made an official interpretation via the National Federation News #28, April, 1990: 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.

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

Could someone please enlighten the reasoning for these contrasting views?

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!
Jim: First, the mechanics manual is not a rule book, case book, posted Internet interpretation, or published News 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, published in 1989. (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.
__________________
Papa C
My website
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 07, 2001, 09:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 220
Send a message via AIM to Ump20
Question Fair / Foul Two Calls Two Umpires

Quote:
Originally posted by umpyre007
The 2001 BRD Section 458 states that Brad Rumble made an official interpretation via the National Federation News #28, April, 1990: 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.

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

Could someone please enlighten the reasoning for these contrasting views?
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1