Jim Palmer trying to match Tim McCarver

[lawump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

1) He was obviously not safe. If you think so in spite of video evidence, I don't think we can help you here.

2) You're missing the point. You don't overturn a call because you THINK it was wrong - you can only tell your partner he missed a pulled foot if you KNOW it. If you can be certain of something that didn't happen, again, I question whether you should be out there at all. If you are not POSITIVE, you don't change the call.

As an attorney, I have seen numerous law journal articles about eyewitness testimony. There are numerous studies addressing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Without going into all the details, the general gist is that there are numerous studies that have shown that eyewitnesses can be "certain" as to what they saw, and as they are questioned more and more about what they saw their mind makes them "more certain" as to what they saw. The problem? In these studies what these eyewitnesses saw was also video recorded and what these eyewitnesses were "certain" they saw simply did not happen as shown on the video tape.

People can be "certain" as to what they saw all the time and the idea that they may be "guessing" never enters their mind. Yet, they are still wrong. I've even heard persons say "I don't care what the videotape shows, that's not what I saw!"

I am "certain" (LOL) that the home plate umpire was "certain" that F3 had pulled his foot. I'm sure as the argument escalated on the field, he became more and more certain in his mind as to what he saw. The only problem is that the video tape does not corroborate what PU was certain he saw.