Umps reverse foul/fair call in Friday’s A’s/Royals game...

[bob jenkins]

It seems to be consistent with the new rule. As I posted elsewhere, someday this will bite them in the a$$. I agree that they have gone too far (imo).

[jicecone]

Lets see here , the manager decided he should come out of the dugout to try and show up U1.

Was it Fair or Foul?

I think when an official is able to put his self-ego aside and correctly make a ruling by the book rather than some preconceived macho idea of how he is being perceived, then he truly understands what he is out there for.

If the ball was truly fair, and it could be confirmed, then this was the right call for this situation.

[Stu Clary]

If this wasn't the first batter of the game, the call would not have been reveresed. What I mean by that is, the field was still perfectly groomed, and all parties could clearly see the ball mark on the line.

Another point: The Oakland manager and firstbase coach DID NOT protest vehemently or "show up" the umpire. Not at all. In fact, they were low-key and professional about the whole thing.

The correct call was made. Great job, Blue.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Lets see here , the manager decided he should come out of the dugout to try and show up U1.

Was it Fair or Foul?

I think when an official is able to put his self-ego aside and correctly make a ruling by the book rather than some preconceived macho idea of how he is being perceived, then he truly understands what he is out there for.

If the ball was truly fair, and it could be confirmed, then this was the right call for this situation.

Frame that!!

Great stuff.

[RadioBlue]

I don't have a rulebook in front of me, but most codes have some sort of verbage that states runners may be placed on bases, outs may be assessed or erased which put a team at a disadvantage in the event an umpires' decision is changed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I don't have a rulebook in front of me, but most codes have some sort of verbage that states runners may be placed on bases, outs may be assessed or erased which put a team at a disadvantage in the event an umpires' decision is changed.

We are not talking about a situation where any change is made, we are talking about a play that stops everything like a foul call. And at least the NF says that once a ball is called foul, you cannot take it back. I cannot off the bat speak for the other codes at this time. And other than this situation I have never heard anyone consider this kind of play to be up for debate even if it was wrong. This takes that power too far in my opinion.

Peace

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It seems to be consistent with the new rule. As I posted elsewhere, someday this will bite them in the a$$. I agree that they have gone too far (imo).

When you make the big leagues you can obviate your opinion to all whom it may concern. As long as they are consistent, I don't see where there is any problem at all. My thoughts and opinion are (deleted).

[JRutledge]

This is the reason baseball is going to the dogs. This is ridiculousness to make this call and arbitrarily decide that a runner would had been. What do they do if there were runners on base, just decide who what have been there on a missed call. This has nothing to do with ego, this has to do with common sense. Because who is to say the runner would not have made third.

Peace

[DG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Because who is to say the runner would not have made third.

Every right fielder in ML baseball.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by g3464123

Excellent list! I've learned more from this forum in about 2 days than I have at any other forum community.

Odd. A spammer, but no spam link.

Edit: Oh, there it is. In their profile.

[Fan10]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is ridiculousness to make this call and arbitrarily decide that a runner would had been.

I don't know what you think they do on spectator interference.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Fan10

I don't know what you think they do on spectator interference.

Yes, but it's two completely different plays...changing a play from foul to fair on a non-homerun ball is unprecedented.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Yes, but it's two completely different plays...changing a play from foul to fair on a non-homerun ball is unprecedented.

Are you sure?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Are you sure?

no

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Fan10

I don't know what you think they do on spectator interference.

Not the same situation at all. Spectator interference involves the time of the infraction and what the play prevented from happening. Calling a foul ball and then deciding that it would have been a double is just plain silly. Actually I think the NF got this one right, because if you are going to call a foul ball in that code you cannot take it back. They created that rule because to do would be chaos. This to me just went too far and assumes a lot of things.

Peace