Dale Scott calls a ball foul then fair

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Ever blow a call, start to make a safe signal and realize the runner is out, call a balk that wasn't, a foul ball that wasn't, fail to call batter interference, obstruction, miss a pitch, etc etc etc.

How many of those did you go back and change because everyone thought you should?

None. See... you've actually made my point for me. He killed the ball, and runners reacted. He went back and changed this to fair ball semi-immediately, but the damage was already done. Once he killed the ball (on purpose or not!), the only solution is to live with it, and take almost all the crap from that coach that he wants to dish.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

He killed the ball, and runners reacted. He went back and changed this to fair ball semi-immediately, but the damage was already done. Once he killed the ball (on purpose or not!), the only solution is to live with it, and take almost all the crap from that coach that he wants to dish.

And wonder if in his mind he didn't kill the ball? If your statement was based upon a discussion you had with him, then by all means your right. I am given him the benifit of the doubt and that is the difference in what we surmise.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by jicecone

And wonder if in his mind he didn't kill the ball? If your statement was based upon a discussion you had with him, then by all means your right. I am given him the benifit of the doubt and that is the difference in what we surmise.

It matters not what was in his head. He signaled (and therefore called) "foul." (And then later "fair.") The benefit of doubt is irrelevant. The mechanics were poor and confusing.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

It matters not what was in his head. He signaled (and therefore called) "foul." (And then later "fair.") The benefit of doubt is irrelevant. The mechanics were poor and confusing.

No he didn't. This was MLB and according to MLB he may have signaled "time", but he definitely did not signal foul.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

No he didn't. This was MLB and according to MLB he may have signaled "time", but he definitely did not signal foul.

Okay. Right. Would you agree, or not, that signaling "time" kills the play? Whatever is meant by that signal still results in a dead ball. IMO, the crew needed to eat this one instead of trying to put the youknowwhat back into the steer.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

And wonder if in his mind he didn't kill the ball? If your statement was based upon a discussion you had with him, then by all means your right. I am given him the benifit of the doubt and that is the difference in what we surmise.

He DID kill the ball. there may be a difference of opinion regarding whether he did it on purpose or not, or was even aware he did it. But he's got 3 partners out there. I find the chances that NONE of them noticed his signal exceedingly small.