View source for Clipping:Experimenting with two umpires and a referee

{{Clipping
|Type of Date=Day
|Date=10/19/1886
|Title=experimenting with two umpires and a referee
|Text=<p>In the game of this afternoon Walter Spalding’s idea on umpiring will be tried in a somewhat modified form.  He proposed that an extra player of each club be chosen to do the umpiring, turn about, the man from the B. Club umpiring when the C. Club is at bat and the C. man umpiring when the B. men are at bat.  The regular umpire under this system would become a referee, who only has a voice when a decision is questioned.  Today this will be tried, except that the umpires and referee will be chosen from the four umpires now here.  The one named as referee will stand back of the pitcher, while the other two will alternate behind the batsman, as is the usual manner, changing as the clubs go to bat.  In case the man who umpires while Chicago is at bat makes a close decision, which is questioned by the other umpire, the latter throws up his hand and the referee affirms or reverses the decision.  It will be an interesting sort of an experiment, and upon the result may depend the introduction of some such scheme into the league next year.  With three experienced men, it should work well; whether it would be satisfactory were the umpires members of the contesting clubs, instead of outsiders, is a question.  Chicago Tribune October 19, 1886</p>
<p></p>
<p>[St. Louis vs. Chicago 10/19/1886] The chief interest of the day seemed to centre in the new umpiring scheme, which was to receive a trial and just before the game was started the umpires drew lots, and as a result Kelly of the Association was chosen referee.  McQuite to umpire while the Browns were at bat and Quest while the Chicagos were in.  Kelly took his place just back of the second base, and Anson, having won the toss, sent his men out...  Chicago Tribune October 20, 1886</p>
<p></p>
<p>[St. Louis vs. Chicago 10/19/1886] In the new system of umpiring it is expressly stipulated that unless the in umpire’s decision is questioned by the out umpire it shall stand.  On questions of fact the umpire is the only one who is suppose to object.  On questions of rules time may be called by the captain of either nine for the purpose of settling the point.  Yesterday the players seemed to think that any one of them had a right to appeal to the referee, and there was much needless waste of time.  If the scheme is tried again, as it undoubtedly will be, these points should be impressed on the men: That on balls, strikes, and base decisions the only man entitled to appeal is the opposing umpire.  On a question of rules the captain may appeal.  In no case has a player other than the captain a right to protest or appeal to the referee.  Chicago Tribune October 20, 1886</p>
<p></p>
<p>The supposed-to-be-new idea now suggested by Al Spalding of having two umpires, one chosen by each club, and a referee, and which received an unsatisfactory trial Oct. 19 in the second Chicago-St. Louis game, turns out to be a venerable chestnut.  Prior to 1858 that cumbrous system was in vogue, as each umpire, in a great majority of cases, decided in favor of the club which appointed him, the decision had ultimately to be left tot he referee.  The plan was consequently abolished...  The Sporting Life October 27, 1886</p>
<p></p>
<p>[from Caylor's column]  One thing the [world] series has demonstrated, viz:  The system of referee and two umpires seems to be a good one.  It originated with Walter Spalding—A. G.'s brother in New York.  Its first trial on Tuesday was decidedly successful, but owing to an imperfect understanding as to the rules there were a few errors made in carrying it through.  Kelly was the referee.  He stood behind the pitcher when no men were on bases and when men got to the bases he moved back behind the base lines.  Quest was drawn as St. Louis' umpire and McQuade as Chicago's.  Each called decisions when his club was in the field.  The captain or player had a right by raising a hand to ask his umpire to appeal from a decision.  The umpire would do this if he saw fit and the referee would at once decide.  But as I understand it the referee has nothing to say in any play upon which the two umpires agree.  The plan is to make the staff umpires referees, and let each club select an umpire for the opposing club from the opposing club's players who are not down to play.  Thus the Phillies might name Keefe for New York and New York might name Ferguson as the Phillies' umpire, with Quest as the referee.  Of course each umpire would see that his club had the doubt in all cases, but the referee would act as a check to any dishonesty or over-partiality, and much of the mob spirit against the umpire would be allayed.  The Sporting Life October 27, 1886</p>
|Source=Chicago Tribune
|Submitted by=Richard Hershberger
|Origin=Initial Hershberger Clippings
}}