jicecone,
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
The guy sounds like a Ryobi chop saw, but did you pregame who had the coverage on this play? Because normally that call at 3rd belongs to the BU (using standard mechanics), unless discussed differently in the pregame.
|
Great story, but I gotta' go with Steve. In every 2-man system I've ever seen, the call at 3B is the BU's in the sitch you described. And, I don't know what a "Ryobi chop saw" is either, but I inferred Steve was not being complimentary, and I'm with him there as well. Instant Karma can be a beautiful thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TussAgee11
I'll say it again a final time...
I'm not talking about the actual poaching on calls.
I'm talking about when a crew has to get together to "fix" something that got f'd up, and a decision can't be made. Not the decision on what the actual call was (that goes to the umpire that had the call), but a decision on how to fix something. The need to "fix" something should never happen if everyone is doing their job, but far too often at the amateur level with a new pard' a mechanically sound game is not possible.
Nevertheless, Bob shed light on my question, so I'll be done with it since I must not be conveying what I'm actually trying to say.
|
Tuss,
I think maybe the reason you're not getting the answer to your question is because you haven't framed it properly. If I understand you correctly, your essential question is:
What do you do when the umpire(s) screw up and it creates a "situation" which, by its nature, must be "fixed" - AND the crew can't come to consensus on what the "fix" should be?
I believe the answer to your question depends on what the proximate cause of the screw-up was. Usually it's one of four things:
1. Two umpires make different calls on the same play.
2. One umpire "poaches" a call that "should" have been the other umpire's and "errs" in making it.
3. One umpire is 99.9% certain that his partner is making a material misapplication of some aspect of the rules.
4. The umpire responsible for the call does not see what he needed to in order to make the call.
How you deal with it depends on which one it is.
In #1, that"s what 9.04(c) addresses. Partners get together, try to come to a consensus "best" call/result; if they can't, UIC gets to decide, announce, & explain. (Where I come from it's the plate guy unless previously specified otherwise.)
If it's #2, my philosophy is that the "poacher" gets to deal with the mess he made. His partner should be available for a private conversation if the poacher wants to. The partner should avoid recrimination at this point in time, and just give him whatever information and advice he can about how to fix the sitch. But, it's the poachers call, he gets to decide, announce, and explain.
Should #3 occur, my philosophy is to, as discreetly as possible, get my partner's attention & have a quick, private conversation and express my concern. I would try to be "convincing", but, ultimately, it's his call.
#4 could happen for any of a number of reasons - incompetence, an umpire falls or gets run into or injured, something "weird" happens in the development of the play and he gets screened/blocked out/straight-lined, whatever. In this case, the partner should give as much information as possible and suggest the best fix. But, I believe this one too is ultimately up to the guy whose call it was if the partners can't reach concensus.
I'm not suggesting this is the "right" or "only" way to deal with these sitches, it's just how I look at it.
JM