Call reversed

[Jay R]

Anyone see the mess last night in the Blue Jays-Cardinals game. Blue Jay OF traps a fly ball and the 3B umpire calls the out, R1 and R2 are out for not returning to tag up. Triple play. After deliberations between the umps, call is reversed, no outs and bases loaded.

Blue Jay manager Carlos Tosca argues and is tossed. Game is protested by the Jays. Cardinals win 11-0 (I think)

I'm not sure what to think? In the end, the right call is made. Normally, I would say in a situation like that, live with the call, even if it's wrong. However, this was a triple play, a heavy penalty on the Cards if they do not reverse it.

BTW, it was the HPU (Wally Bell) who went to the 3BU with the information (no catch).

[bluezebra]

No valid protest. Judgement call.

Bob

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by bluezebra
No valid protest. Judgement call.

Bob

Depends on what he protested.

If it's changing the "out" to "safe", I agree.

But, if it's putting all the runners back, I think there could have been a protest -- R1 would have been forced out under either the catch or the no-catch scenario.

(now, it might not have affected the game, so the protest miught still be denied).

[tiger49]

This happened in the 2nd inning when the score was still 0-0 and it was a shallow line drive to left so I think R2 would be the most likey out had the proper call been made in the first place. The runner then scored on a ground ball to 3rd the next batter

[Bfair]

I once queried the WUA as to whether the base ump should approach the plate ump if he saw a pitch fouled to the catcher's chest protector and then drop into the catcher's glove----but the PU then calls it a foul tip for strike 3...............

Included in Roder's response was this statement........

However, we at the MLB level would lean toward getting the play right.
We have just such instructions written word-for-word in the MLB manual.
[my emphasis]

When it comes to reversing calls, some at times have supported a List of 5 that was advocated by some but never endorsed by any authoritative opinion. All major sets of baseball rules somewhere advocate the need for the umpire to put aside his perceived ego and "getting the play right" when it's apparent he's made an obvious error. It seems that the Roder statement provides further proof that the need of "getting the play right" is now supported by MLB's maunual (their little black book). Apparently someone forgot to tell the writers of MLB's little black book to read the List of 5.

That concept was apparently adhered to in this situation.
No doubt they would have gotten it correct initially if they were working a 6 man crew......or even a 2 man crew---like where we are expected to always get them right........LOL.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

When it comes to reversing calls, some at times have supported a List of 5 that was advocated by some but never endorsed by any authoritative opinion.

Why did I know this was coming?

Though not officially called "the list of five", the items on the list were taught as THE reversable calls at at least one pro school.

I understand that this is meaningless for some people and I am not attempting to re-kindle the debate... just explaining why some us of accept the items on the list.

Times change, opinions change, teaching changes...I don't have a problem with that.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

If it's changing the "out" to "safe", I agree.

Bob, since this reversal wouldn't fall within the once hotly debated "List of 5", your statement appears to support that your understanding would not agree with the "List of 5" as the only calls that could be legally reversed. IOW, your statement supports that it would not be "illegal" for the umpire to reverse this catch/no catch decision---as those supporting the list of 5 would consider such reversal as "illegal." Is that correct?


Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB


Though not officially called "the list of five", the items on the list were taught as THE reversable calls at at least one pro school.

The fact that things were taught at pro school was frequently used as excuse for other intepretations that were later proven wrong. (Remember...the throw must come from home plate area for a lane violation to be considered). Nobody ever provided any documented proof of that ever being taught, and it's now been proven not to be true---at least by PBUC interpretation. It seems PBUC interpretation agrees with the written rule, not with the claimed and apparently unwritten teachings of pro schools.

It sometimes appears to me as merely a fallback excuse since none have ever produced any documented proof of such teachings. It seems amazing to pay that kind of money for pro training and never receive any literature beyond perhaps a rulebook---which can be obtained anywhere......

Might you have any documented proof of such teachings, Garth?


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

The fact that things were taught at pro school was frequently used as excuse for other intepretations that were later proven wrong.

I suspect I'l regret staying in this thread, but what the hell...

It is amazing how the choice of words can colour a conversation. Having been one who was taught the old way and then lived through to the "now accepted" way, I don't regard this as the old way being proven wrong; rather the interpetation being taught has changed. Even some of those who taught that those five items were the the only proper "changeable" calls are now teaching that they are not. I think that change is wonderful.

But there are a number of items that we look at differently today than we did yesterday. It doesn't mean they were wrong yesterday. They were different, and they were accepted as correct. The fact that they may not be any longer regarded as correct does not change that they once were.

I find it interesting that many of us who have lived through the transition can accept the change from the past while others chose instead to believe the world was invented this morning and sneer at the past.

Again, I am quite comfortable with how it appears the experts wish plays like this to be handled these days. Although I still do not consider a union spokesman to have the last word on baseball rules.

There are others who have this authority and speak for MLB, not the labor union. I believe they will also agree with the newer application.

[Bfair]

Very well put, Garth..............
and I don't mean to argue.

I only meant to make the point that on the boards I've seen many say, "that's what was taught in pro school", yet when asked to verify that with a pro school document (that which sometimes contradicts the written rule of the book), it was unable to be produced. I'd certainly think that something that specifically contradicts the writing of the rulebook would be something a pro school would put in print if they wanted it followed. Too much can be erroneously passed forward as, "I learned that in pro school" if not verifiable by some means.

While I don't mean to disagree with the teachings of pro school, I only mean to say that they should provide some type of written support---such as that exampled by the PBUC manual---for some of the "added interpretations" that they advocate.......or at least are reported as advocating.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
Bob, since this reversal wouldn't fall within the once hotly debated "List of 5", your statement appears to support that your understanding would not agree with the "List of 5" as the only calls that could be legally reversed. IOW, your statement supports that it would not be "illegal" for the umpire to reverse this catch/no catch decision---as those supporting the list of 5 would consider such reversal as "illegal." Is that correct?

No.