Re: Nope...
 

Re: Re: Nope...
 

Originally posted by Carl Childress


Papa C.: Hey, lighten up. You're a constant thorn in everybody's side.

Isn't that another one of those generalisms that you disdain? Everybody...never...always??? That's an awfully slippery slope on which you tread.

Papa C.: Those aren't hypotheticals. They are the "reasons" people give for changing a call.

WCB: Try to stay on the subject. The original query asked if the call Gordon made warranted assistance. If the other official actually saw that the fielder never acquired the base, he would only be at fault if he did nothing. Don't attempt to clutter the situation with "suppose" and "what ifs". The issue regards a violation of the rules -the fielder must have possession of the ball and the bag prior to the batter/runner attaining it. He did not comply, so the umpire's assistance is not a reinterpretation of a judgement call. It is an observation of a clear violation of the rules.

Papa C.: Gosh, you're just spoiling for a fight. Of course I didn't say I'd never made mistakes. I made one yesterday. See, I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't. (grin, everybody) The point I'm making is that one man's judgment is as good as another's. The fact that a coach and your partner agree <i>does not, a priori, make it.

WCB: Flowery prose, yet no Pulitzer, how is that so? Fortunately, my education affords me the ability to uncloak the inadequacies of your logic, however disguised.

If one man's judgement is as good as another, then why do we have more than one person on juries? Why are there instant replay systems in the NFL or NHL? An experienced umpire may be looking for things that get by a lesser trained eye. Your "all things being equal" hypothesis is lacking. We may be able to make the same six calls, but whether they are correct or not remains the difference.

Papa C.: Thanks, guys, but I'll stick to the tried and true method. If I have a doubt, I'll ask first and call later.

WCB: So, rather than accede to the changes in officiating accountability we see at the professional level, you'd rather let your partner hang?!? That's not what the original post said, but you are extremely adept at putting words in other's mouths. Did Gordon ask for help? Did he have any misgivings when his partner told him that he SAW the pitcher's foot not reach the bag? The answers are no and yes, respectively. You espouse the virtues of proactive officiating, yet cower at the thought of taking some heat for correcting an improper ruling. Stand by your convictions; if you saw the violation and are certain of the merit of your call, report it. That is what an official does...he/she sees what happens and reports it.

Papa C.: Re-read my post, and you'll see I admitted the possibility (probability) that in a three- of four-man crew, when a majority of the umpires see it one way, the odds are they are right.

In a two-man crew, the odds are fifty-fifty.

WCB: I think that depends who you are working with and where. Let's see...a few years ago, I'm in "C" and the batter ropes one down the right field line. My partner lost it, but I could clearly see it just clear the fence ten feet inside the line. I'm backing to the mound prepared to watch the guys round the bags when I hear "Foul Ball". The batter is jumping up and down, the first base coach is charging in at my partner, the entire right field stands are screaming at him. I turn and look in the third base dugout and the head coach is smirking and shaking his head. His kids are laughing and telling my partner that is was a great call. This is second rate JUCO ball and I figured that the guy I partnered with must be pretty good. What should I have done, Carl? I'm pretty certain that I could have found better than 50/50 odds on whether his call was wrong.

Papa C.: Do you advocate the same technique for the man behind the plate? "Strike!" you yell. The coach comes out. "Get some help." So you ask me: "Was that a strike?" Carl: "Hell, no. It's a ball."

If you don't think that's a good idea, why is the base umpire recipient of all your largesse?

"Get some help" is a siren call, a slippery slope, a Will-o-the-Wisp, a Chimera, the Golden Chalice, the....

WCB: Boy, you sure talk pretty! I just wish that it all made sense. Apparently have never called "Ball" and had a coach yell, "Get some help...check that swing!" If you had, then I can't ever imagine you writing those words we just read. I must be seeing things...

As a seasoned official, I usually do not wait for a coach to urge me to get help (check swings may be the only exception). On the contrary, I provided a very specific example of a time when I, as the PU and crew chief, had one of my partners assist me on a call I made behind the plate. I suggest that you read it again and then pose a more appropriate rebuttal.

As I told Tim C., if you see a flagrant violation of the rules or a judgement call that puts a team at a decided disadvantage (high school rules) and do nothing about it, then you are showing us more than bad judgement. I kick calls and I have been on the field when others have. My partners and I aren't too proud to correct them when we do. I'v read enough of your threads to see that ego is big part of your world. You have certainly earned the right to brag once in a while. But, I teach all of my clinicians to leave theirs in the trunk when we head to the field. Do what you can to get the call right...but be humble enough to recognize that the game is not about you. There are no standing ovations for great calls. Just little kids watching...and hopefully learning.

I suspect a few of them might be reading these messages. I'm not trying to teach you, Carl, but the class is watching your every move. I don't have anything to lose here. I've stood by my opinions from day one. I've encouraged and chastised. I've made enemies and received kudos. But, I'm not the poster boy for this site. I'm just the guy that knows what makes a good umpire. I've seen a few around here. It's up to you to learn how to keep them. My grandfather told me to never get in a pi**ing match with a camel. Do you know what he meant by that?

Report it? Why report it? Why don't you just OVERRULE him/her instead? That's what you advocated before, isn't it? :D

I agree with Carl, Rich, Tee, and Peruvian. The closest person to the play was the pitcher covering, who told everybody, even grandma in the upper deck, (sorry Carl), that he believed he missed the bag. On the second attempt, if runner beats it, he is safe, unless as a BU you take a dive and go to PU to avoid making that particular call, or are 100% sure he got bag the 1st time, and make correct call. Somehow, I don't see very many umpires not making that call, and relying on PU. Coach was also absolutely correct in telling his player to never stab at base twice, no matter if he missed it or not. He has a good chance of getting call with one attempt, and currently less than 20% (1 of 6) chance of getting the call with the double attempt. And the one will probably result in an ejection of someone. If you're into ejecting early and often, overruling, or going for help on this play will get you started. Make your call...live with it...when you talk to PU a couple innings later and find out pitcher got base 1st time by, figure out where you need to be to see it next time. BU must make this call and live with it. Windy, with all due respect, when baseball mandates instant replay, then we can have a discussion, like NFL refs, on every play to make sure camera didn't see something we didn't, so we get it "right". Until then, make your call and live with it. Also let your partner make his call and live with it. Absolutely discuss it in postgame to figure out how to get better.

Re: Golly Gee,
 

On this one, I am in the Carl Childress / T. Alan Christensen camp, all the way.

Lah me! :)

Jurassic,
If you want to put the gloves on, let me know. In the mean time, go back to the basketball board where they make fun of you with words and pictures. From what you say, you actually know something about that sport.


TBBlue, Hensley, et al.

You probably need to read the original post again and my first response. Gordon asked how the play should be handled. I told him that based on the pitcher's double clutch, he made the call easy. Barring that, when he asked his partner what he thought and his partner admitted that he saw the pitcher fail to touch the base, I took issue with the partner. I then offered him advice on how to prevent thsi from happening in the future. Again, he told Gordon that the play was blown. What part of that is difficult to grasp. He saw it happen and turned coward. Instead of assisting his partner, he let him hang. We've seen the best umpires on the planet correct bad calls. If you let your partner hang and job a player because you are afraid to rock the boat, then you should probably revisit why you officiate. I was at an umpiring clinic and Tim Tschida said that the next generation of umpires are watching the current ones. They don't remember the great calls, but they don't forget the bad ones. When you let those plays stand, imagine the future umpire watching you and shaking his head.

Enough said on this subject. His original question was answered. Gordon, do whatever you think will take you to the next level. Good luck!

Gee, I'm sorry, Windy. I have this terrible social problem; I like to bait/chastise weaker officials. I'm trying to get help for it though. I just joined Trolls Anonymous.

Hmmmmm, come to think of it, aren't YOU currently being chastised in this thread,as well as another one? Maybe a few more of the better umpires need to join TA too.

Lah me! Poor Windy! :D

That would be a nice reply, except for several inaccuracies.

No matter how you measured your talents versus mine, you will never be the better official. So keep dreaming, the elderly need to have reasons to get up in the morning.

I'm being chastised, by whom? Papa C. sought to twist the original query by adding suppositions and ifs. TBBlue and Henley are entitled to their opinions, but I would hardly argue that what they said qualified as "chastising". They agreed with another opinion. I did my best to explain how that play would be better served and they felt contrary. Oh, well...I won't lose sleep over it. Even Papa C. backed down when I supported my position with experience and actual plays that involved requiring assistance to get a call corrected. He realized the folly of continuing his argument, when I exposed the smoke and mirrors.


Try to stay on topic and be careful picking battles you can't win. You don'y have an opinion about the topic and can't add to the discussion, so you attack like a sissy. Usually people of your generation are smarter than that.

Windy,
The call that Gordon made was not a rules violation. It was a judgement call. In his judgement, the pitcher did not tag the bag the first time. The rule states that the pitcher has to tag the bag. It is up to the umpire and his judgement as to whether or not the pitcher in fact did tag the bag the first time. Please don't play word games and try and turn it into a "violation of the rules" thing. It is not.

If there had been no runner, then proper two man mechanics dictate that the PU move down the first base line to look for runner lane violations/swipe tags/pulled foot. Since there was R1, the PU better be watching to runner touch second and be moving down the third base line for a possible play at 3rd. There is no way the PU should have a good angle on this play, as mechanics dictate that he should be 10-20 feet down the 3rd base line and is most likely watching something other than the play at first.

In this instance, the BU should know that the PU has other responsibilities on this play and that he won't have help. Gordon used all the information and made the right call, given the circumstances, ie. a double clutch of the bag. If he is going to look for help, it needs to be before the call is made. After that, unless he asks his partner for help, the PU should STFU.

The play is a judgement call on the BU part. The PU shouldn't be in position to help on that call in the first place, if he is doing his job correctly.

Getting the call right is fine, but not in this instance.

OK, no baiting, just a disagreement. If you are not asked, it's not your call. Stay out of it.

In your example, it is a judgment call, not a rules violation. The BU judged that F3 did not touch first before the runner arrived. If the PU "knows" that F3 did touch it, that isn't a misinterpretation of the rules. Both umps agree with the rule that says if F3 touched the bag first the runner is out; what they may disagree about is whether or not that actually happened.

Suppose you are BU in A, and there is a check swing. The PU calls a ball and does not ask you for help, nor does the defense. But you, the BU in A, "know" that the batter went around. Do you call time and come trotting into the plate to confer with PU about the swing? Of course not! It's not your call unless asked.

Of course we want to get things right. And there are certain situations where we can offer information to our partners. But this isn't one of them.

I have never understood what "getting the call right" has to do with "telling your partner is wrong." Getting it right to me has always meant making sure we apply the rules properly or not nitpicking obscure rules. In other words, not being a maverick about a rule that no has ever heard of or do not use common sense. When did "get it right" mean tell your partners that you saw something when they were in position to make the call to begin with?

I know in this situation, it would be unlikely that I would even know what my partner saw, let alone tell him what he was right or wrong on the call.

Peace

Over-rule versus assisting
 

The difference between over-rule and assiting can be subtle. And it has much to do with the strength of your partner.

Number one. I'm the base umpire. The play at first is mine to call. Period. A weaker BU may want help and may readily acquiesce to whatever the veteran/strong plate umpire suggests. If it's my call, I'm going to be in position to see the play and make the call. Period. If there is any doubt in my mind about whether he touched the base or not, I'm going to ask immediately (after I have decided that my partner can actually offer help) and then I'm going to make the call - IMMEDIATELY. The more likely situation is I'm going to ring him out on the first attempt to touch the base - before the second attempt to touch is even made. So in either case, I'm going to either ask for assitance or I'm going to ring him out BEFORE the second attempt to touch the base is even made. This is when the decision needs to be made - not 30 seconds later when the veteran PU wanders out to straighten out me and my call.

Number two. If you come to me after I have made my decision that on the first attempt he did NOT touch the base, and now you try to assist me... by telling me that he did touch on the first attempt... I might knock you on your effin' ***. As pointed out by several, decisions are made by one person. ONE and only ONE. If you seek the input of more than one, you are likely to get more than one answer. Now how do you decide which answer is correct? The solution is DON'T SEEK INPUT WHEN YOU DON'T NEED IT or when your partner cannot offer it.

When the game is played in the fringes and in the margins (the close calls), the teams have given up all opportunity to take charge and control of their own destiny. They have turned over the results to me and yes I will make the best calls I can make AND THEY WILL BE MY CALLS. If you are relying upon me to determine your destiny with those close calls, you may well not like the results. If any team thinks we should make decisions by committee, so that we get the call right, they are going to be sorely upset in the end. In my opinion, committees can't decide crap; committees are just a way to avoid responsibility and thereby, blame.

If I know of your penchant for assisting by over-ruling, and I see you coming, you, as the BU, are going to have to chase me into the outfield to make your point. And then I'm going to curse you for the rest of the game. Routine calls? I'm going to make sure all of my decision meet your approval... we'll committee everyone of them and all the crowd will know that the committee is run by the PU.

I agree with Pete - if the PU is doing his job, moving toward third for the runner going first-to-third, he won't see the stab at first - or a foot pull, either. As an experienced umpire I know enough not to even ask my PU for help on this play. If the coach complains, I'll think "Get a third man and we'll get it every time". A good coach will already know that.

A question for JJ
 

JJ, it's good to see another clinician on this board. I agree that it would be great with three good umpires all of the time, we just need to get them used to working that system. This one got me curious enough to actually ask a question, I hope I do this right.

If you assume the original play - R1 and the BU @ B - batter hits a knuckler down the first baseline with F3 picking it up and flipping to F1 for the put out.

If I'm the PU, my first concern is Fair/Foul and a swipe tag prior to the 45ft line. After that I will tuck toward the front of the mound for R1 possibly avancing to third. While I'm moving, though, I am watching for a swipe tag and a foot at first. Why? Because the first thing we teach our umpires is to watch the ball, follow the play and let the ball take you to the next play.

I'm sure that you do this, too when working 2-man. It is a mechanic that a lot of veterans will do almost subconsciously. I'm not trying to do my partner's job, I'm just following the ball. My head is usually on a swivel when I work.

Good to see your name again. I'll see you at the December meeting!

Fair/foul is the first concern. That wasn't an issue in the enciting play since it was a footrace to the bag.

So, assuming it's clearly foul....

The plate umpire has two bases, second and third: R2's touch of second (always) and any subsequent play on him at that base! U1 is stuck at first: He will P2R, see the play is going to first and move at once to a good position for the play there. That means he cannot backpedal for any play at 2nd should R1 overrun that bag.

A good plate umpire can get into position between the mound and third such that he has a reasonable, two-man look at the third world that happens when....

The crew must prepare for a collision and a ball that's jarred loose. (On a side note: PBUC and Evans say when the fielder beats the runner to the bag, he's out instantly; Roder says if the ball is jarred loose, "Safe!" is the call.)

BTW: I was the FIRST certified clinican in Texas and trained the first class of clinicians. So there are at least three in the Forum.

We teach our plate umpire to focus on the following plays: "Everybody's got to get his own" in that instance.

There's an important psychological reason for not involving the PU, which is: R2, R1, same play. U1 cannot abandon second but he is responsible for first. That means the plate umpire MUST hit the road for third. It's a force play, to be sure, but runners have beat the force play and become over-zealous.

The alternative is to leave poor U1 out to dry: "Hey, Bubba, you got all the bases while I read the stock market report."

Psychological? A field umpire who becomes inured to getting his own calls is likely to ask for help when EVERYBODY's mechanics have sent the PU away from any reasonable angle.

On maybe foul/maybe fair, what I do when I'm the plate umpire is start cussing the assignor for sending me to that game.