Originally Posted by traderumor
This is silly. The nature of the call and the controversy, did you expect a Jim Joyce type apology? A protested game upheld by their employers, you would expect them to admit it was a poor call?
Brutus, your continued condescension in this discussion because you have umpired Legion ball is over the top in a Tracy Jones "I played the game" kind of way. I have seen those who disagree with you demonstrate an understanding of the application of this rule, and you continue to argue from authority, claiming to be the expert in the discussion. Now you're counting heads on who agrees with you--more arguments from authority.
First, please spare me the lecture about condescension considering your first reply to me in this thread was essentially pointing a finger and accusing me of arguing just to argue. That kind of reply is inherently full of condescension, so I don't think there's any grounds to call me on that from you. Especially since people have been coming at me with "contrarian" telling me how wrong I am and how awful of a call it was, I think I have a little right to bite back... especially when not the whole world actually does think it was the wrong call after all.
Now that's out of the way...
Umpiring legion ball was not meant to be some kind of notch on the bedpost. It was only brought up because legion ball uses the same rules as MLB and umpires are taught to umpire games, when possible, just as MLB crews work (except unfortunately many times its' a 2-man crew instead of 4-man). The point was not to act like "oh wow, he umpired legion ball" but rather to merely point out that as far as rules are concerned, legion and MLB are apples to apples because legion uses the MLB rulebook. If it had been any other level, I might not have brought it up, but I had to know and understand the Major League rulebook for several years and infield fly rules was always a huge point of emphasis during various clinics. It's a lot different when you're not only reading the rules but being instructed on how they're to be interpreted.
You can call it arguing from authority or whatever you want. But the premise on why this was a bad call has been wrong on several levels from the very start of the thread because whether you want to hear it or not, the public's understanding of the rule has not been very good. And that's why umpires are standing behind the call... not out of a sense of some imaginary brotherhood for their comrades but because the public doesn't know this rule very well. If they did, no offense, there still wouldn't be issues about how 'late' the call was or how the 'spirit' of the rule means it shouldn't have been called. Those things are, frankly, immaterial.
The gist of the rule comes down to this and only this: did Pete Kozma have to exert more than "ordinary effort" to make a play on the ball. People here are basically suggesting that umpires are only sticking up for each other. I'm suggesting that perhaps it's what I was saying all along: there is essentially a loose standard for what constitutes ordinary effort by umpires (though as I said last night, it is by no means hard and fast), and because of that, a lot of umpires would make that same call if not most. But already now that McKean has spoken up, he's just 'sticking up for one of his own.'