Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1904-08-03
DECISION WAS WRONG.
So Says Base Ball Expert If the
 Peenix Enterprise.

That base ball row which b. oke up game between Prescott and Nhipple a short time since, starting over 9 disputed decision of the umpire has been fruitful of a large amount of base ball lore. The base ball expert of the Prescott Herald took a run and jump at the point at issue and in a very lengthy dissertation on the sub ject and copious quotations and in terpretations of the rules arrived at the same decision as the umpire and sustained his conclusion. Coming from such high authority on all manner of sports as this was it should have set tied the point for all time to come. But it did not. \ modest correspond ent, signing himself GA Fan" replied to this decision taking issue with the Herald expert and showing where the umpire was wrong, using sound logic and good argument to sustain his position.
 The expert of the Phoenix Enter prise takes a hand in the argument, also taking the same view as "A Fan" and knocks the proPs from under the umpire and the Herald expert. After quoting the rules advanced by the Herald, the Enterprise says:
 "This is all very we'll as far as it goes. But the Herald's expert over looked the very important fact that instead of fielding the ball so as to catch either Of the runners forced from first, second or third, the pitcher fieIded the ball to first and retired the batsman, thus re-enlisting each of the runners to any base they co1ld occupy, either by advancing a base or by returning to the bases they were forced to vacate when the ball was hit. It is therefore obvious that in order to put out the man running from third to home it was necessary to touch him, since, after the bats man was retired, he was no longer forced, and had the right to either try to reach home or return to third base. It is very plain that if the pitcher, who felded the batted ball, had field ed it home instead of to first base, the runner would have been forced, end it would then have been unnecessary for the catcher to touch the runner, and the double play desired could then have been completed by throw ing either to first or third to catch one of the runners advancing to those bases. We hope the Herald is set right. and We hope Prescott will not feel called upon to win any more ball ga nes under the interpretation placed upon the ''force rule by the Prescott umpire and the Herald's expert.
 We wish to say, too, for the benefit of the upmire, that it is always in order for an umpire to change his decision when an interpretation of some disputed rule is the issue, and he finds that he has made a mistake. It seems that in the case above cited the Prescott players were willing that the umpire should change his de cision, in order that the game might proceed, but the umpire preferred to stand on his dignity, regardless of the rules, and declared the game of. To our mind the umpire was more at fault for the game breaking up as it did. than either of the teams. If, on the other hand, the dispute is simply over a question of judgment, the um- pire should brook no interference or delay, but make every man play ball or get off the ground. He is the sole judge of play, but the rules laid down are as much for his guidance as they are for the players. ''