how would you fix this?

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

WHAT?

It was called foul. The runner stopped. The craphouse happened because they saw the foul call.

It wasn't "called foul" it was signalled foul I don't know about you but I'm going to be yelling foul on close ones down the line. Both teams expect this. BR may or may not have seen ( he probably did but he also could have been throwing a hissy fit because the first baseman made a great play) the signal and we know for a fact the first baseman did not see the signal. If the ball was clearly fair (which it apparently was) have the balls to make the correct call. Admit your mistake and play on.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

It wasn't "called foul" it was signalled foul

You are missing the point.

Whether you call FOUL or SIGNAL FOUL = FOUL

Example: PU puts the "stop sign up" towards F1.

That means we have TIME and DO NOT PITCH. The PU does need to say anything.

Bottom Line: Rightly or wrongly when the players hear or see an umpire signal FOUL they STOP.

There are those rare instances (in both the LLWS and a ML baseball game) where a FOUL call was changed to fair.

The ball in this play is FOUL. BU admitted mistake (hey it happens) now time to move on.

Pete Booth

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

It wasn't "called foul" it was signalled foul

This man doesn't.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

This man doesn't.

You are correct. The sooner he gets off the 'fairness' kick, the better off he will be.

'It aint fair!' is a whiny coach's crutch. Don't use it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by LMan

You are correct. The sooner he gets off the 'fairness' kick, the better off he will be.

I disagree. He's right to insist on fairness, but wrong in his understanding of what fairness requires.

BU signaled "foul," so BR stopped running. It's unfair to the offense to change the call at this point.

Gordon is concerned about fairness to the defense: how can you take away an out? You take it away because it was obtained unfairly due to an umpire's mistake.

Fairness--providing no advantage not intended by the rules--is the justification for the OBR ruling I posted in post #2 above.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree. He's right to insist on fairness,

Fairness has nothing to do with it. The rules aren't fair in numerous places. Our job is to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by the rules, not to decide what is fair and what isn't.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Fairness has nothing to do with it. The rules aren't fair in numerous places. Our job is to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by the rules, not to decide what is fair and what isn't.

Ah, now we're just quibbling over 'fair'. All I mean is, unfair="advantage not intended by the rules." In general, for any game the rules define fairness (that's why "life is not fair"). You must have some more substantive notion of fairness in mind.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Ah, now we're just quibbling over 'fair'. All I mean is, unfair="advantage not intended by the rules." In general, for any game the rules define fairness (that's why "life is not fair"). You must have some more substantive notion of fairness in mind.

No. I'm using and responding to the word "fair" as it is commonly defined and used by the population in general, particularly whiny coaches, players, fans and misunderstanding umpires. You seem to be attempting to create a new defintition of the word.

The rules do not define "fair". They define accepted and required practices and observances of a game, some of which are not "fair."

The role of the umpire is not to decide what is fair, but to enforce the rules, whether they appear fair or not.