|
After reading some posts thorougly and merely scanning others, I'm decisively split on who to agree with......
First, while I agree that the PU should be making his way toward 3B for a potential second play in the infield, he need not "bust a$$" since, indeed, it's only his responsibility when it's the second play. The time taken by the first play allows him to read his need of proximity at 3B. IMO, he can "cheat" his way toward 3B while watching the play, determining if it's a likely trouble play. Frequently no runner is ever breaking for 3B. I've seen too many rookie (and some vets) bust a$$ for 3B for a play that never occurs. In fact, I've seen it occur with a runner never leaving or attempting to leave 2B. A good official can read the play; a mechanics book reader will bust a$$ to 3B.
As an official that has read the play and merely "cheated" toward 3B to cover it should a play occur, the PU is still in much better position than his partenr to see a potential pulled foot or swipe tag that his partner may need help on. That is, if BU is in trouble due to angle, then the PU likely has a somewhat reversed angle and a better look.
On those issues I agree with Windy...........
I strongly disagree with Windy on the issue that a PU should offer what he saw to the BU when not asked. While I am a strong advocate of getting the call right, this is one not to be jumping into unless asked because of.......ACCEPTED PRACTICE AMONG OFFICIALS!!!! No differently than what you would do as BU if you saw the batter bunt the ball after stepping outside the box. That call belongs to PU.....keep quiet unless asked. Why???........accepted practice amongst umpires.
The BU knows that if he is in doubt he has the option of coming to you before (preferably) or after his call. Note that the MLBUM disallows reversal of force play calls UNLESS it involves a dropped ball or a pulled foot. Well, it seems to me this entire discussion has evolved around the issue of a potentially pulled foot. Obviously since the MLBUM acknowledges it as an exception, it certainly means it is not illegal to change that call after it has been made (which was a postion once advocated by Carl). Most of the time any ensuing action will not be affected by a later changed call at 1B, however, be aware of the possibility that the wrong call at 1B may have had an affect on the pursuing action. If it did, then correcting the call may be doing more harm than good to the game.
As for Rich who says the BU should always be in position to see this and should never get straight lined.......I say hogwash. IMO, that is mere arrogance of perfection when working in a 2 man crew. Because of the need to stay clear of all possible throwing lanes, and because of the velocity of some errant throws at upper level ball, it remains possible to get straight lined as a result of a poor throw. You can't predict when those errant throws will arise, and there are times when you cannot move quickly enough to eliminate the poor angle caused by the errant throw. Don't feeled demeaned if you admit to having been straight-lined in the past-----it happens to all of us, even to those not willing to admit it. It's a flaw within the 2 man system. Jon Bible, a highly respected official, even offered to us a passage about his need to seek help on such a call after he made his original call.
In summary, I believe in getting the call right, but it needs to be done with respect to both accepted practice and with consideration of whether that changed call would have impacted post action of the actual play (which is not usually the case). Don't over-hustle to 3B for plays that never occur. That action may result in abandoning your partner on difficult plays where he may need your input. You can still see the play at 1B, be ready to support your partner if needed, and still adequately cover a play at 3B.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|