After all players left the field, is there a sitch where you would reverse a bad call, if properly appealed; and does all mean all?

You really need to be more specific with your terms on a question like this...

An appeal is a very specific thing, and is not allowed after certain fielders leave the field (which fielders varies by ruleset).

A manager asking us to get help on a call is NOT an appeal. If this is what you meant by the question, players leaving the field is immaterial. Obviously, if another pitch is thrown, it's too late to fix anything. But even if everyone had left the field and the other team was warming up in the field, if it was determined (via whatever vehicle) that something was misadministered, we have the obligation to fix it, even if we look awful doing it.

Worst one I have seen was a game where I was evaluating a pair of umpires. After a lot of runs and crazy plays, defense finally records it's 2nd out. They leave the field. Offense leaves the field. Umpires do their mid-inning thing (which ... for this team was to go gab with the fans/hot-moms on the 1B side... but that's another story!). Pitcher warms up. There is some sort of hubbub in the ex-offense's dugout, but I'm not close enough to hear it. Batter settles in, and just before pitcher gets ready to go her coach tells her to wait and he starts yelling time over and over.

After the umpires discussed with each other and the scorekeeper (a neutral person in our area), they determined they'd made a mistake, and reset it all back up with 2 outs.

Next batter dribbled to the pitcher. VERY anti-climactic. :)

Technically a bad call can not be appealed. A ruling where an appeal is allowed , batting out of order, illegal sub etc. is a moot point once all players have left the field.

For a call which is questioned, and you are asked to confer with your partner, would I reverse a bad call? Yes I would (if I ever made one :) ).

Scorekeeping errors can be corrected this way , but they are also not appealls.

See thread titled "Fix this one" for more.

Your situation can't happen. If all players have left the field of play, there's nobody there to make an appeal. Read your book again - who is it that can make an appeal and when can they make it?

Steve - did you even read the question?

I believe I mentioned what you did on actual appeals.

But he is not really talking about an appeal - he says "a sitch where you would reverse a bad call". A "bad call" is not an "appeal". And YES, you can still fix a bad call if you realize you are in error, so long as play has not continued yet.

What? There are plenty of posts here where coach asks for help from officials partner that apply. OK, maybe not technally an appeal, but lets not miss the point. You guys were discussing this on another post where BU called R1 out at 1st for out 3 and didnt notice that the ball was dropped until all the players left the field and the DC asked for help from partner and PU agreed the ball was dropped.
Thats just one example of the point.
Back to the original sitch now.

MC,
I think we're OK with what each is saying. And look at the time stamps - you & JEL hit enter just a couple minutes before I did. When I'd read the post, nobody had replied. Timing is everything, once again. When Alph specifically said "properly appealed" - I go to an appeal play. Those are like magic words. The answer I gave was correct - for the question I read, but not for what now appears to have been meant.

Now, when asked to check with a partner because a coach thinks I did not see something critical - pulled foot, dropped ball, ... - sure, I'll go just about every time. Unless it's college ball, then I'll go every time.

[Edited by Steve M on Mar 1st, 2006 at 08:48 PM]

I think he said that...

One thing about alot of us here... we use the "technically correct" terminology instead of "coach speak" or "player speak" and some of us are pretty picky about it. It keeps us from confusing each other and spending the first dozen posts in a thread going back and forth on what was meant! ;)

In the rule book, an appeal is a very specific thing that must be made properly.

Being asked to go to your partner for help is not an appeal, even though coaches and players call it that.

There are three things that are too often used interchangably, when really they are quite different:

> protest - procedure from coach as to the misapplication of a rule by an official and could require game to be replayed from a certain point.

> appeal - procedure (verbal or physical) from one team in regards to a rule violation by the opposing team, like missing a base or leaving too soon on a fly ball.

> request for help - when a coach or other player asked an umpire to re-evaluate his call by getting help from his partner, like a checked swing.

I agree with those that think we as a board should be more specific in our used of this verbiage.

Holy crap, I better be a little more careful with specifics.
The thing I am most interested in is the "all player left the field" part. Even if play hadnt continued yet,(between innings) where is the line drawn in the sand about that?
If they left the field because of intitial 3rd call, would you bring them back to get it right?

[Edited by alphaump on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 03:42 PM]

alphaump'

Yes specifics can be important in answering here, as well as calling games.

Your original question could be taken to mean Do you allow an appeal after all players (and I mean all) have left the field?

The answer to that would need a clarifier, and that would be Yes, but...this would mean all the defense. Offensive personell could still be on the field, so all is not all.

It can also be taken as, Do you allow an appeal of a bad call? The answer there of course is No. Judgement calls can not be appealed.

It can also be taken to mean, (as I believe was your intent), If a coach asks you to confer with you partner, would you do so, and reverse your call even after all players have left the field? Well thats what I answered. It (the answer) is still there. I even reffered you to the discussion which you later reffered to.

Nomenclature IS important on this board, as well as in the game.

Within the space of a few seconds a player can be a...

Player on the bench,
On deck batter'
Batter,
Batter Runner,
Runner,
Runner who has scored,
Retired Runner,
and maybe a couple more.

With different rules applying to each. Specifics covering a BR can be different from a R, and so forth. Coaches, players and fans don't always understand these differences, and it can cause some confusion.

Yes, you can, before the next pitch.

alphaump,

You came on this board worried about flame wars, etc. Yet, you proceed with considerable insensitivity.

IOW, I find your graphic in this thread absolutely, utterly offensive.

Yes, Alpha. I think I already answered that, and others agreed.

If what you are talking about is a simple reversal of an erroneous call or ruling, there is no time limit other than the continuation of the game. I even gave an example of about the longest delay possible.

And yes, if you are an umpire, you should be very aware of the difference between a protest, an appeal, and a simple request for help - the rules surrounding them are entirely different. Might want to read up on that if you have a chance.

PS - I agree with Dakota, and I'm not even religious.

Thank you. So do I.

WHOA! The last thing I meant to do was offend. Religious or not, Christ was a man. (I bet He would laugh) Not meant as obviously interpreted. Just fun.
Insensitivities - not to be defensive, but what else offended or caused judgement?

I don't intend to debate this issue. Your graphic is offensive to me, and apparently to several others. I also find your defense, basically that Jesus would engage in Jr Hi bathroom humor, also offensive.

This board provides tools for editing posts. If you truly regret the offense, you know what to do.

It's one thing to use a religious icon's name as an exclamation (those of that religious vein would use the term "in vain"). It offends some, but it's almost become part of our vernacular, bad as that may be. It's about 20 times worse to accentuate the use of that name in vain by replacing it with a picture.

As was said in your first thread - this forum is typically non-flaming non-offensive. Just don't push the wrong buttons, and keep your comments relevant.

Me too.

Click the edit/delete button, right-click or highlight the photo, click "cut" or press delete.


[Edited by CecilOne on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 02:43 PM]

You know, I am starting to sense a familiar theme here. NP comes in worried about trolls...etc., then begins to engage in trollish behaviors. Frequent posts with elements intended to get a reaction/rise out of board members. Hmmmm...the jury is still out, and I hope that I am wrong, but I have always believed that if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it has feathers like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

boy was I wrong

[Edited by alphaump on Mar 2nd, 2006 at 03:48 PM]

I have no problem with the post.

Yeah, but you're a long-standing heathen reprobate! ;) The only thing that offends you is baseball! :D

Thank you, alphaump. I very much appreciate it.

Me too

Moooo...

Well...at least it don't talk like a duck. :D

I believe you are mistaken, or just misusing the terms.

I am not a heathen. I believe in God, just not the bible.
And I have opinions, not preconceptions of every little thing. Well, some, just not all. :D

However, my lack of offense has nothing to do with either. I was not offended because I am a citizen of the USA and understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion or belief whether I like it or not.

If something is meant to be offensive, a negative and/or violent reaction satisfies the purpose. Back when you were a kid playing outside the cave, you remember hearing the phrase, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Well, guess what? It's true and if you fail to recognize that, you are not living in a society which can tout freedom as it's tenet.

Sorry for moving to a political side.

Just curious as to how accidentally offended someone is judged as purposefully flaming.
Not withdrawing the apology, but "getting a rise" out of someone shouldnt have anything to do with morals/ethics.(which offending does) I would have thought that here, of all places, a back-bone/thick skin would have been normal. Im sure much worse happens on the field. Maybe some dont want to tolerate it here, which I respect, but I dont think it will influence the colorful nature of my humor. Yeah, a pictures worth a thousand words and to some that might have said too much. In context, the picture is of Jesus, the thinker.

Since you went there, just curious how you beleive in someone, but not there words. Thats like believing in your kids, but not their words.

I confess to misuing the terms... I was just pokin' at ya, Mike! ;)

Again, I acknowledge you removing the image, and I appreciate it. Even in light of your right to display that image, you chose not to. Thank you. Flaming / trolling is not necessarily a moral issue. It is a civil behavior issue, which is quite another thing.

I also have no problem with an irreverant sense of humor... in this very thread I "accused" Mike of being a "heathen" and a "reprobate", when I knew both to be untrue, just having a little irreverant fun. Nothing wrong with that. Well, on reflection, I'm not so sure I know he's not a reprobate! ;)

To clarify, I only objected to the image itself. Not your words, or even your humor.

Wow, that was insensitive and ignorant.

I guess some people live in a la-la land where there is only one religion. Do you REALLY think that it's impossible to believe in God and not believe in a man-made collection of fables constructed to bring power to those who collected it? Do you know ANYone who is Jewish, Muslim, etc? They all believe in God, but not the bible. Are you really trying to say that it's impossible to believe that the bible is NOT the word of God?

Or that anyone who doesn't believe in your version of God is a poor parent (via the analogy you used).

[Edited by mcrowder on Mar 3rd, 2006 at 11:18 AM]

I was talking to Irish and he started the conversation.
I will address this with you, but not here like this, because of your reaction.

This is a public forum. Your comments are public. If you choose to make insensitive, ignorant, or inflamatory comments - you are going to be called on it.

Whoever you said it to, you asked how it was possible to believe in God, yet not the bible, and then equated such to believing in your kids but not in what they say.

Perhaps overly inflammatorially (uh... is that a word?), I was referring to the fact that Christianity (and it's offshoots) is not the only religion that believes in a God, but it (and its offshoots) is the only ones that believe the bible is "the word of God."

Perhaps I was too harsh, and if so I apologize. But I found your assertion or assumption that only one religion could possibly be right, and that any other belief must mean something negative about your relationship with your children, rather callous and unthinking.

Surely you must know religion can be a touchy topic. A callous or unthinking comment about religion can be very offensive.

If you'd rather take this offline, feel free to email me (mbcrowder at jcpenney dot com). I do apologize if my initial response was too harsh - but stand by the intent of my comments.

Relax guys, it's a valid question based upon the poster's belief.

I was raised RC and firmly believe in God. However, the bible is a publication which was comprised partially based upon individual beliefs and word of mouth. Well, like any other group, when things are put in writing, it is often slanted toward the agenda being promoted. I believe this to be true of all sects, not just those involved in the bible.

If the bible is to be believed as the word of God, how can their possibly be more than one version?

Remember, the church and the tenets of a religious belief are man-made products reliant upon the belief of those involved. Hell, every time the RC convenes and ecumenical council, a saint is defrocked, a simple women becomes a whore or any number of other beliefs which those of the council deem necessary to adjust to become aligned with the teachings of their church come to being.

I have no problem with those who believe in whatever it is in which they believe. However, by they same virtue I expect not to be judged by those I do not judge.

You asked, I answered and see no reason to carry this any further.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:09 PM]

I would add that even if you believe the bible to be the full truth, much of the bible has nothing to do with "the word of God". In fact, I think there is only one specific quote attributed to God in either testament, and that has to do with the Commandments (interestingly, there are two completely different versions of this supposed quotation - odd since this was supposed to be a Direct Quote From God)

Why, thank you CecilOne. I've never been to that board, but when (or if) I get in the mood to discuss religion, I think I will.

For now, I think I'm going to check out some softball discussions. All, y'all come join me if you want. There really are a couple of good posts going on.

Well, since we are now deeply into this, let me explain what "word of God" means, and how that relates to the different translations / versions of the Bible. This is entirely from an evangelical Protestant perspective. Your views may (will) differ.

"Word of God" means the original (human) author was inspired by God in the writing of scripture. Some is nearly literally spoken by God (in the prophets), some is inspired by God in content. This "word of God" aspect applies ONLY to the original autograph of the scripture, none of which still exist.

This leaves the Bible scholar with a problem... namely to determine which of the various ancient manuscripts are the "closest" to the original. Obviously, when there are differences in the surviving ancient manuscripts, it is wise to not be dogmatic about those areas. That, however, does NOT mean the scripture as a whole can be dismissed as mere human writing, since the ancient texts agree in the overwhelming, vast, almost all, parts of the scripture. Plus, even where they disagree, it is generally NOT in areas of theological importance.

Now, as to modern "versions." No English language translation of the Bible is considered to be inspired. They are all scholarly attempts to translate the original languages, and some do suffer from theological agendas. So, people who are not fluent in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek need to approach the translated Bibles with some caution, and should compare the different translations in particular parts of the scripture that they may find troubling or confusing.

I'm done with this side bar in this forum.

IOW, the "word of God" is whatever anyone is inclined to believe when a human claims to be inspired by God.

However, you then state that any English version is considered to be inspired. Are you insinuating that God has gone out of the "inspiration" business and that any writing, telling or translation of scripture is invalid if presented in the English language?

Hey, I didn't post it, you did. :) This could be another one-year thread.

Can you point me toward the scripture that tells us that the 4 gospels hand-selected from the numerous writings of the time were "inspired" while the others weren't? I can't find that.

I will admit that my "cynicism" (as it's been called by the best of friends with the best of intentions) stems more from the editors of 300 ad than it does from the numerous original writers of the scripture. I do believe that these folks were relating events as they recalled them. And I do believe that the people who finally put these words on paper many years later after numerous tellings and retellings thought that they were divinely inspired in their writings. My "cynicism" is directed more at those folks who seemed to have an agenda when putting together the very first bible. It's obvious to the unbiased reader (hard to find one of those, I suppose - self included if I am forced to admit it) that the writings were intentionally skewed to present a particular image. Whether they did this from the POV of trying to portray what they thought was the truth, or for less altruistic reasons, is lost to the ravages of time.

Lost and word of God just dont go together. Kinda like a Ford Corvette. No, I dont live in la la land, nor am I delutional (sp), but as far as Im concerned, if you cannot believe that the bible is the unadulterated word of God, "you" are certainly lost to the ravages of time, not the word. Im done with this thread.

No, only that the biblical translations from one language to another are not considered inspired... IOW, the choices of how to translate ancient Hebrew into modern English has all kinds of issues, including punctuation, capitalization, trasnaltion of idioms and other figures of speech, sentence structure, and even in the case of ancient Hebrew is that character a letter or a numeral? These choices were made by theologieans, scholars, and linguists, not by prophets of God operating under direct inspiration.No, only that differences between the King James Version and the New American Version (for example) represent differences in scholarship, time, choice of what is the "best" manuscript, or, perhaps, theology, but do not result from the inspiration of God. Therefore, people who claim the inerrancy of scripture need to recognize that inerrancy does not apply to a translation. The translators have erred in many instances. If a particular scripture is being studied, the student is well advised to use several translations, compare them, understand what was behind the differences in translation.

If you compare the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will discover there still is not total agreement on the canon.

If you put your cynacism on hold and actually looked into the topic of the establishment of the canon, you will discover there were sound standards that were used to distinguish inspired writings from other early Christian writings.

There is 100% agreement in the universal church on the canon of scripture contained in the Protestant bible - that is all demoninations of Christianity agree that all of the Protestant Bible is the inspired canon.

There is partial agreement in the canon of scripture contained in the Catholic bible. Most of the disagreement centers not around the content of the books, but rather such issues as were they in the Jewish canon (for Old Testament) or were they treated as scripture by the 1st century church.

There is near 100% agreement (allowing for the occasional critic and sensationalist) than none of the remainder of the 1st century writings belong in the bible.

Apparently, not since there remains more than one version for Christians.

Also, have a hard time with a logical conclusion that the verse recognized by those who ceded from the "church" would be accepted as THE bible.

You misunderstand what I said... I said that the Protestant Bible contains only books that are ALSO in the Catholic Bible. That is, the Catholic church agrees that all 66 of the books in the Protestant Bible belong in the Bible. The disagreement is over what is NOT in the Protestant Bible but is in the Catholic Bible.

The Catholic Bible includes books that the Protestants do not accept as part of the canon. Examples: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, etc.

But all books that the Protestants accept are also accepted by the Catholics.

The Catholics don't accept the Protestant version of the bible any more than the Protestants accept the Catholic version. Trust me ... before I woke up, I was raised Catholic. There are many pieces of the Protestant bible that are not accepted, but the most glaring would be the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. I think you're looking at this through one-sided glasses if you think that non-Protestants accept the Protestant version as 100% inspired.

For the love of God, I'm a pastor and even I want this thread to die!

Never said that. For that matter, I haven't said much of anything in my last few posts.

It's just fun seeing people defend their beliefs.

Point being that people can believe whatever they choose to believe. Someone disagreeing doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make it right. However, the same should be true on the other side of the coin. Those who choose to not believe shouldn't be judged simply because they question the basis of another's belief.

Okay, alph, since you are done with this thread, you just as well lock it up.

Of course you didn't. Dakota did. Humming a little Carly Simon lately? :)

You guys are reading things into what I said... things I didn't say at all.

I said in the very beginning that translations were not inspired. And, I never said the Catholics accepted the Protestant translations.

I said that all of the books (you know, Genesis, ... Paslms, ... Revelation) that are in the Protestant Bible are accepted into the canon of the Catholic Bible. I did NOT say they were translated the same.

I also never said the Protestant translated Bible was inspired or inerrant and the others were not. I merely said the Protestant's do not accept some of the books in the Catholic bible into their accepted canon.

I was stating history of the bible as we know it today, not my beliefs. The history of the canon and when and how the split happened between what we now know as the Catholic and Protestant bible is just that... history. Relating that history is belief-neutral. It is merely fact.

You people that enjoy being skeptics are the ones with a belief system to defend in this topic of the canon, since your belief system seems to focus on differences. For me, it is merely interesting history.

I'm not a church goer, but can y'all tell me if there's anything in there (Old or New Testament) that says if we have to make them tuck in their shirt tails?

Good perspective SC Ump! You will find that verse in the second chapter of Jude (hee hee).

I am a "churchgoer" am an elder also. I would that all share my beliefs. I will glady discuss my beliefs with anyone, as Paul told Timothy to "be ready always to give an answer TO EVERY MAN THAT ASKETH YOU a reason of the hope that is in you with MEEKNESS and fear:" I Tim 3:15.
If one asks, we'll talk!

I also hold to Phillipians 2;12 where Paul told the Phillipian Church to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Again I'll be glad to share my beliefs, (and hear yours), but if we don't agree, thats OUR choice. (heck, some of you may even be Democrats! uh-oh, another can 'o worms!).

Bottom line is; We all believe something...even atheists and agnostics, and all are responsible for our OWN beleifs. The right to believe as ones faith directs is a right which I believe is God given, as well as in this country a right which many have fought and died for.If my faith leads me here, and yor faith leads you there, so be it....PLAY BALL>>>