While doing a 16 year old fall ball game the following play occurred. I was in the B position. Ground ball to the right side pitcher tries to field it but misses. First baseman field the ball and the pitcher is covering first but approaching from a bad angle. The pitcher from my angle may or may not have tagged the edge of the base facing second ( at this point I would have been looking to my partner for help) the pitcher than clearly tags the base a "second time" this time the runner is clearly safe. The pitchers action (tagging the base a second time) told me that he initially missed the base on his first attempt I signalled safe.

The defensive coach doesn't complain but I hear him call out to the first baseman "Next time don't tag the base twice". I got that sinking feeling that something is wrong. I waited a couple of innings and I asked my partner if he got the base the first time and he said that he did.

Here's my question.

1. Hindsight being 20/20 should I have looked to my partner for help even though to everyone watching (myself included) this game that the pitcher tagging the base twice suggested that he missed the base the first time.

2. Should my partner have come to me to let me know that he tagged the base the first time?

You did nothing wrong. You made the expected call. If the pitcher stabbed at the base twice, he DID miss it the first time, for the purposes of a call.

Your partner should keep his mouth shut, as he did. You should get your own calls, as you did.

You did good.

--Rich

I agree with Rich: When a fielder tags the base twice -- and the second time is late -- I teach and practice "Safe!"

You were in B, which means:

1. There was already a runner at first, in which case your partner should have been moving somewhat down the third-base line to cover a play at third if there's an error on the throw to first. In that event the PU may not be able to help even if you do look.

OR:

2. The bases were empty, and you're practicing the 21st Century Mechanics. A great many youth organizations around the country are doing that because it's so easy to teach new umpires how to do it.

So....?

There was a runner on first. Thanks, for the feefback.

Good luck...
 

I'm probably the biggest proponent of "Getting the Call Right" on this board. While it is true that you made the call without your partner's assistance, something must be eating at you, if you brought the matter here.

Your partner was correct in not rendering an initial call unless asked. Asking for his assistance post call is where it gets really messy. You have to have him tell you that the call was blown. Then, you have the coach to handle. This is where I disagree with a lot of umpires. I DON’T CARE, HOW IT LOOKS.

The player made your job much easier because he double clutched the tag. It was easy to sell that call. Had he not, you know what you should have done - asked “Did he have the bag?” immediately. This is not hanging your partner, it is utilizing your resources. Proper mechanics would have you point at him and ask the question. He would respond “Yes” or “No” and you would then make the call based on his input. The same mechanic is used for swipe tags, bobbled catches or a sliding tag to the back side of the bag.

Now, I have a problem with your partner who saw an obvious error and didn’t add his input when he could. Depending on the level of play and where he was on the play, this will make both of you look like a solid team. The play ends and he calls “Time” and trots out to you away from the players and coaches. He ASKS if you saw the pitcher touch first. You say “No” and ask if he KNOWS that he didn’t. He says “Yes”, you agree that the call needs to be corrected in order to be fair. You call the runner back to first and signal “Safe - No Bag”. The defensive coach will be upset, so you back-up your partner and let him explain the call to the coach. If he does this, not as crew chief - he is reinforcing your team work and commitment to getting the call right. The coach will certainly question you and your response should be, “Coach we try to get them all right, my partner had a great angle and let me know that we had a rule violation not a change in judgement. The pitcher did not have the ball and the base before the runner, so my call was incorrect. We got it right and will do our best to work together for the rest of the game. Can we get this game going again?” Now the ball is in his court. You’ve explained your intent and acknowledged how important every play is. You are a super ump and gosh darn it, people love ya’!

I’m sure that some guys are going to say, “Windy, you would never do that in one of your games!” Sorry, but I’ve been on both sides of corrected calls several times this year. Two of them happened in conference, D-1 games and a couple at the varsity high school level. We got the calls right and never heard a peep.

Keep the faith...even the guys pulling down the big bucks screw the pooch sometimes. This time, the guy made it easy. Next time, you'll be ready!

I agree. In pregame conference, I will always make sure the PU will be watching the pulled foot at 1st. If I get straight-lined by the 1st baseman where there's a chance his foot may have come off the bag, I will point to the PU for his call on the foot, then I make my call. Had one this weekend, heard some grumbling, but it was the right call.

I don't know WCB...
 

Windy,
I usually agree with you on the "get the call right" wagon but I have to question you on this one. When in the B/C positions, I discreatly check my partner for some sort of indication that the fielder was on/off the bag (we pre-game this). If I have no indication from my partner, the fielder tags the bag a second time, I have used my assets available to determine that the BR is safe.

If my partner comes out to offer unsolicited advice to me after I have made a call, we will have words about it. If I have a question about the accuracy of my call, I have an obligation to utilize all my available resources to get the call correct. I also have an obligation to be in the proper position to see the play. In this case Gordon did the proper thing.

Gordon - good call and I would have called the same thing.

Windy, believe me, I am all for getting the call right but, once the BU made his decision based upon what he thought he saw, (instead of asking for help immeaditally), he put the lid on that turkey.

This was not a flagrant drop of the ball or miss of the tag or base, it was a bang bang close play. For his partner to come out on a play like this to say that the pitcher missed the base (or something similar), I believe causes more problems and is showing up his partner.

Should we now suggest that the BU come in and ask the PU if he clearly saw the pitch he just missed?

Again I am all behind you on getting the call right however, in this situation I have to go along with Rich.

You done good Gordon.

Re: Good luck...
 

<i> Originally posted by WindyCityBlue </i>

<b> I'm probably the biggest proponent of "Getting the Call Right" on this board. While it is true that you made the call without your partner's assistance, something must be eating at you, if you brought the matter here.

The player made your job much easier because he double clutched the tag. It was easy to sell that call. Had he not, you know what you should have done - asked “Did he have the bag?” immediately. This is not hanging your partner, it is utilizing your resources. </b>

Windy IMO, this is hanging your partner out to dry and also making the ENTIRE crew look foolish.

As Papa C stated, there was a man on first. The PU at this point is watching R1 because there is a banger at first base where the BU is. Depending upon what mechanics you use, I as PU am watching R1 Touch second base so my partner doesn't have to worry about it, and also getting ready to make a possible call at third base.

Therefore, in this play if the PU is doing what he/she is supposed to, they can't help you because they have no better angle then you do and probably worse, because the PU is getting ready for a possible play at third.

Now let's do what you propose. My partner now points to me where I am probably in a worse position to see the play then him so of course I signal safe, however, the coaches and most people KNOW that I had no clue whether the runner was safe/out because of my angle. Now the entire crew looks bad and you start hearing it.

Bottom line: I think all of us who umpire strive to get the call right or we wouldn't do it. However, in a 2 person system, umpires MUST make that tough call, sell it and stick with it because your partner cannot always help you.

Pete Booth

Here ya' go...
 

Jumpmaster,
You must have read my post wrong. In no way was I attempting to belittle him or make him feel foolish for the call. I told him that the player made the call easy for him. Then I gave him a hypothetical in which the guy doesn't double clutch the tag. I took issue with his partner, not Gordon.

I am confused, though, about what you would say to a partner that came out with unsolicited advice. What would you do?
I've made it clear that if my partner comes to me with help, I WILL LISTEN. Yes, I will try to catch a "tell" from him prior to my initial call, but failing that, I expect my partners will help me get the bad calls right. Likewise, my partners recognize that if they see me coming to them with a question, it is not for my ego or to humiliate them. (Please note: all naysayers...in my original and this post I have used the word "question". This is the best protocol for offering input...ask first, then offer.)

Gordon did not make the right call, by his own admission his partner told him so. He sold it and we've all done that on trouble calls. My advice was to be prepared in the future and know that he can do something to get the call right. I'm sure that this type of play will happen to him again. I bet the next time it does, he'll be here telling us how well it worked.

Re: Here ya' go...
 

I'm confused: Because Gordon's partner said he got the call wrong, we know.... What?

In all this romantic BS of "let's get the call right," in a two-man crew what makes us so sure the first umpire is WRONG?

Pulled foot? Maybe it didn't come off. Dropped ball? Perhaps the fielder knocked it out illegally. In a three- or four-man crew, it's possible to "get the call right" if the other umpires agree.

I make a call, out comes the coach, and my partner agrees with the coach. So what? That just means two of them are wrong.

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

Once you start down the slippery slope of getting help, God only knows where it will end.

Re: I don't know WCB...
 

I agree. It's one thing if the fielder jabs at the base once and you're not sure. At that point, I ask my partner for help. In the situation described, since he jabbed TWICE, I call "Safe", and IF, and ONLY if the coach comes out and says, "Blue, he got it on the first try. Can you ask for help?", am I going to my partner.

The coach in this situation didn't say anything, so there was nothing to change. It didn't make a farce of the game and to me, stuff like that happens in a two man crew (we want to get it right 100% of the time, but the pitcher made it so obvious), so we have to choose our battles.

Windy, I know what your saying and I agree with part of it. But if a changed call like this was initiated by the umpires and not the coaches, then you really are asking for an ejection, and I'm not in the business of ejecting coaches. Disputed home runs, misinterpretation of rules and such where the game is being compromised...then I'm all for umpires going out to their partner and alerting them to their mistake. There are ways to do that without showing up your partner. But in this case, a judgement was made and that's just part of baseball.

Golly Gee,
 

Hooray for Carl.

The issue in helping when not asked is "what makes you correct?"

We have all worked games when we saw our partner make a call that look "obviously wrong" from our vantage point. What makes us correct? Why did we see it better than the calling official?

Fact is we DIDN'T . . . we are influenced by our training and understanding of the game, HOWEVER, we have no other information that makes our call 'more correct' than our partner.

ONLY give help when asked and BEFORE a call is made.

First choice, move you butt and get your own calls!

Second choice, take information from the players and make the call.

Third choice, go for help THEN make your call.

The only situation where one should ask for help AFTER a call is something along the lines of a ball leaving the field for a home run or foul ball and some one else on your crew might have a different perspective.

I just love the tendy ones that want to "always get the call right."

Tee

Oh, please...
 

Tim C.,

The issue in helping when not asked is "what makes you correct?"

We have all worked games when we saw our partner make a call that look "obviously wrong" from our vantage point. What makes us correct? Why did we see it better than the calling official?

Because of the angle! I had a catcher head back to the screen in a major college game. We are taught to watch the player not the ball. The wind swirled and before I knew it, I was completely blocked by the catcher as he “caught” the ball. I asked to see the ball and made the signal. As my hand was going up, my first base partner and the first base coach came charging in. Uh, oh...third base partner kept both coaches at bay while my first base partner asked me if I saw it skim the screen just as he caught it. I told him I couldn’t have seen it and he agreed. We knew the call was wrong, but I had made my call. A few hundred people on the first base side knew I was wrong, too. We corrected the call and heard the boo birds and cat calls for the rest of the game. Our crew met for the pre-game of the second half of teh DH and the coach who lost the call, said that that was the right thing to do. That call happeneda few years ago and we’ve kept our schedules.




ONLY give help when asked and BEFORE a call is made.

Did you miss ALL of the call reversals in the Majors this year? We had two catches, eight home runs and several foul ball calls changed. We’ve also had MLB umpires acknowledge that they were not in the best position to make the call, so don’t tell me that by hustling, you will always be in the perfect position to make the call. There is no perfect position!




The only situation where one should ask for help AFTER a call is something along the lines of a ball leaving the field for a home run or foul ball and some one else on your crew might have a different perspective.

Did you get a good bet down on the game? Why else would you decide which calls are worth getting right and which ones aren’t? Dropped catches, trapped balls, out of play calls, those aren’t worthy of your discretion?



I just love the tendy ones that want to "always get the call right."

I just love the guys that don’t work this level of ball, telling me what they would do.
BTW, what is a “tendy one”? If you are alluding to the direction that MLB is taking in making the umpires more accountable, this is not a “trend”. The NHL and NFL have instant replay because they recognize the frailty of human judgement. MLB is just taking a different tact and asking their officials to do what they can to get the calls right. If you don’t feel the need to correct a bad call, don’t do it. That just says more about you than me.

Nope...
 

Papa C. -

I'm confused: Because Gordon's partner said he got the call wrong, we know.... What?

In all this romantic BS of "let's get the call right," in a two-man crew what makes us so sure the first umpire is WRONG?

Experience...trust...commitment...I’m not sure what confuses you here. Most post games involve honest dialogue between partners. If I ask my partner(s) what they thought of my zone and he (they) say, “Man, it was awful. You were all over tonight.”, according to your logic, I’m to dismiss it because they couldn’t see what I saw.



Pulled foot? Maybe it didn't come off. Dropped ball? Perhaps the fielder knocked it out illegally. In a three- or four-man crew, it's possible to "get the call right" if the other umpires agree.

Yes, let’s confuse the issue with hypotheticals. What if a lightning bolt shattered the ball while it was in the mitt? Did he have control of the ball? Where the ball???



I make a call, out comes the coach, and my partner agrees with the coach. So what? That just means two of them are wrong.

Is that the Papa C ego talking. Are you actually saying that you have made no mistakes on the ball field? That would be the only way that your statement would hold water.



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

You better get busy writing to MLB about the calls that were corrected this year. They probably weren’t aware that this change in accountability was a poor decision. Those games should be protested.



Once you start down the slippery slope of getting help, God only knows where it will end.

Are you afraid the earth will stop rotating? Dogs and cats living together? Equal rights for all? C’mon, asking for help is not a weakness. You have a lot of rookies that read this and your message smacks of arrogance. The same character flaw that keeps our numbers low and kills our recruiting.

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.

Carl,
I appreciate the last line more than you know.

I didn't mean to slight anyone about my clinician's comment to JJ. I know him through the Illinois High School Association and meant it only as a courtesy. I was unaware of your resume or anyone else that fills a similar role.

My question was directed to JJ since he is aware of the mechanics we use here. I assumed that most states teach their umpires to watch the ball first and swivel back and forh between secondary action. I considered R1 to not be much of a threat in the original play. Gordon implied that his partner was watching the play. If I am mistaken, then I apologize.

Why are you apologizing? Papa C. has his blinders on again. God forbid that someone should actually challenge his rule interps. Gordon0307 said that his partner saw the missed tag at first. His conscience got the better of him and he came here to learn what went wrong. I told him that his partner let him down. He was screened and had to make a tough call. His partner was not and told him so. Papa C. advocates selling the tough call and living with it, even if your partner saw something that was obvious to everyone in the ball park but him. That logic says that even though they do it at the D-1, Minor and Major League levels, you should live with a sh*tty call. Remember it's all about the accolades. Oh, just in case you didn't know, Papa C. is taking credit for the tossed glove call being redefined by Fed next year. That is quite a proud moment, taking responsibility for a horrible interpretation of the rule. Did you know that he was the first clinician in Texas? I think he threw that in there just in case he thought you were bragging.

By the way, nice try with the strong arm re: Rut. They killed the thread. In case you didn't catch it, you don't have the power in UMPS anymore. Grievances don't scare me, either.

"While I'm moving, though, I am watching for a swipe tag and a foot at first."

Michael, once I head for third I hope my partner doesn't ask for help on a foot pull or swipe tag at first. I have to watch the runner from first touch second while I'm moving as well, and I'd hate to have the defense appeal a missed base while I'm watching for a foot pull at a different base. Am I saying I never see a foot pull while moving? No, but it's really poor umpiring on my partner's part if he expects me to see it. He needs to realize I have other duties and the call at first as described in the thread)is his alone. I'm running away from the play AND the angle, and my ability to sell a call there is absolutely awful. It would rightfully elicit a nasty response from the other team if the call went against them.
December it is! Then it's almost baseball season!

Come to Texas. I have an 18u double-header on Saturday and an 18u double-header at Los Fresnos (about 10 miles from the ocean) on Sunday. You let me know, I'll dump my partners. They're both dogs anyway. (grin)

Mr. Johnston,
I agree that it is not our primary duty to watch for pulled feet or swipe tags once we are on the move. However, we have both worked many a game where we have caught things because we know where to look. Strybel said, at this level, our "heads are on swivels" and I agree. That is what we were taught in Pro School and that is what we do on the field. Even the Pros watch one another's backs and have the cajones to change calls made by veterans.

But I got to thinking...I know a dangerous thing for an umpire to attempt, but I did it. A couple of people (some that take great pride in their accomplishments) have suggested that a field umpire would never change a call made by the PU. I can think of several examples that I have been involved with, where that very thing happened. Knowing how long you've been around, I'm sure that these are common to your experience.

1) The batter fouls one off his foot and the PU is completely screened. He jumps out, mask in hand and indicates "Fair" as the catcher scoops it up and fires to first. I am the BU and see it hit the batter from over 90 feet away - he's just three - how could I possibly overrule his call? Experience, good eyes and the knowledge that my partners trust my judgement.

2) The "caught" foul tip, that really wasn't. I've been on both sides of this bad boy. The PU is blocked and by the time he can get a good look, the catcher is up and firing it to third.

3) The ubiquitous check swing. The PU calls "Ball" and mumbles "No he didn't" to the catcher. The head coach asks for the appeal and the field ump (don't care which side) signals "Strike". Okay, so we chase him out of the parking lot, but from his angle, it was clear.

4) I've also had the royal pain of having a batter step into the box with an illegal bat while I'm in the field. Remember, in Fed we check the bats and hats prior to the game and I alerted the team that the bat could not be used. The smarty thinks I won't notice when he steps in the box during his second AB. Wrong! I'll bet you've never seen that one called by the field umpire.

5) I'm in "C" last year, working with a rookie - good guy, but very green. The pitch comes inside, a 40 mph curve and the kid leans his elbow into it. He calls "Time" and awards first base. The defensive coach comes out and asks him to ask me for help. Great, now I've got to bail him out! The coach was right, my partner was wrong. I talked to my partner and asked him if he thought the kid intentionally leaned into it. He said it doesn't matter. Now, I've got a headache...I tell him the rule and ask him to put the guy back in the box. Since it hit him in the strike zone, it is a strike. The offensive coach and I go way back. He doesn't say "Boo", because he knows what happened and he was up by six runs. The umps have a post game at our trunks and he says he was nervous and wanted to impress me. We've all been there.

These are just acouple of examples. For all of those members that feel that the boys from Illinois still have some learnin'...read them again. This wasn't one-upsmanship...it was getting the call right.

JJ - please ask the NFSHS to dump the tossed glove ruling. It is a joke and flies in the face of sportsmanship and gamesmanship.

1) The batter fouls one off his foot and the PU is completely screened. He jumps out, mask in hand and indicates "Fair" as the catcher scoops it up and fires to first. I am the BU and see it hit the batter from over 90 feet away - he's just three - how could I possibly overrule his call? Experience, good eyes and the knowledge that my partners trust my judgement.

A batter being hit by a ball IS a shared call. And it is still NOT the BU's call of fair or foul, ONLY of TIME! It's still up to the PU whether the ball was fair or foul.

2) The "caught" foul tip, that really wasn't. I've been on both sides of this bad boy. The PU is blocked and by the time he can get a good look, the catcher is up and firing it to third.

A specific example as listed in the MLBUM where a BU may step in and help.

3) The ubiquitous check swing. The PU calls "Ball" and mumbles "No he didn't" to the catcher. The head coach asks for the appeal and the field ump (don't care which side) signals "Strike". Okay, so we chase him out of the parking lot, but from his angle, it was clear.

If asked, of course you give an honest response. But suppose the PU or the coach never ask. As BU, do you step in and announce a strike anyway?

4) I've also had the royal pain of having a batter step into the box with an illegal bat while I'm in the field. Remember, in Fed we check the bats and hats prior to the game and I alerted the team that the bat could not be used. The smarty thinks I won't notice when he steps in the box during his second AB. Wrong! I'll bet you've never seen that one called by the field umpire.

Another case where you are not overruling your partner. If ANY ump sees illegal equipment, then by all means, call it. And you are right, I have never seen a BU call an illegal bat, but if he does, I have no problem with it, unless I have already said it's legal. Now we have to have a talk.

5) I'm in "C" last year, working with a rookie - good guy, but very green. The pitch comes inside, a 40 mph curve and the kid leans his elbow into it. He calls "Time" and awards first base. The defensive coach comes out and asks him to ask me for help. Great, now I've got to bail him out! The coach was right, my partner was wrong. I talked to my partner and asked him if he thought the kid intentionally leaned into it. He said it doesn't matter. Now, I've got a headache...I tell him the rule and ask him to put the guy back in the box. Since it hit him in the strike zone, it is a strike. The offensive coach and I go way back. He doesn't say "Boo", because he knows what happened and he was up by six runs. The umps have a post game at our trunks and he says he was nervous and wanted to impress me. We've all been there.

You had to rectify a RULE mistake. As soon as he said "it didn't matter", now you have a rules issue. If he had said, "the ball did not hit the player in the strike zone and he made an attempt to avoid", you're stuck, because it's HIS call!

The MLBUM lists certain instances where a umpire may OFFER help to a partner:

-Deciding whether a fly ball that left the playing field was fair or foul
-Deciding whether a batted ball left the playing field for a home run or a ground rule double
-Cases where a foul tip is dropped by the catcher, causing it to become a foul ball
-Cases where an umpire clearly errs in judgment because a ball is dropped or juggled after making a tag or a force
-Spectator interference plays
-Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher's foot was off the rubber

It also goes on to say:

"Some judgment calls are not subject to reversal. These include: Steal and other tag plays (except where the ball is dropped without the umpire's knowledge); force plays (when the ball is not dropped or the foot is not pulled); and balls and strikes (other than check swings). Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems. An example is a catch/no catch situation with multiple runners."

It also says: "Managers are not entitled to a second opinion just because they dispute a call."

Put the shoe on the other foot. You are the plate ump, I am the BU.

1) Pitch comes in belt high, splitting the plate. You call it a ball. I KNOW it was a strike. I call time and come tell you you missed it, I SAW it split the plate at the belt.
2) You call a runner out at the plate on a banger, but I saw the runner sneak his foot in. I call time and tell you the runner is safe.
3) You have a possible OBS play on the catcher at the plate. You decide it was not OBS as the catcher was in the act of fielding the ball. But I KNOW the ball was at least 20' away from the catcher at the time. I call OBS from B on your play at the plate.
4) Or the one we have discussed at least twice: checked swing. You, the catcher, nor the coach ask you to ask for help. But I KNOW he went around, so I chime in "Strike" from my spot down in A.

Are these ridiculous examples? Of course, but so was the original premise: the BU called the runner safe, but you, the PU KNEW the F1 touched the base, so you come down to tell me I missed the call, and in the interest of "getting it right", we need to change it.

Get out of here - it's not your call. If I need your help, I know where you are.

Regarding whether to call a runner out at 1st if the pitcher makes a second touch of the base. I would say if you see a touch of 1st the first time, then I have an out. If I'm unsure if he touched the first time and then he touches again, I would probably call him safe.

It's kind of like if there's a swipe tag. If you're unsure, the tendency is to call safe because he swiped it around. But if I see a touch, I'm going to call him out.

This may sound ridiculous, but don't give up free outs when there's a fair out made.

Jeremiah

ATL?:

Thank you for illustrating my point. Several members have said that a field umpire would never dream of correcting a Plate umpire's call. I disagreed and gave examples. I was very aware of the MLBUM and what it said, since I work about forty Minor League games a year, as a local umpire.

As with all rules and laws, good arguments can be made either way. Some of yours were logical, others ludicrous. Of course I am not going to try to correct a called strike that was off the plate. But I have certainly corrected calls when my younger partner flinched and called ball - missing the swing.

Don't tell me to get real unless you work my schedule and have done what I have done. My career highlight wasn't being a scorekeeper for the Olympics. Nice try, but as they say..."Walk a mile in my shoes, before you judge me." It was a noble attempt, but you didn't stick the landing.

The Russian judge gives you a 8.5

Atl Blue hit the nail on the head, IMHO. There are calls which help may be rendered - even unsolicited - but the specific example given in the thread is not one of them. I don't want to irritate anyone (Windy), I'm just passing along the way I learned things in Pro school, clinics, from other more experienced umpires than I, and from 20+ years of doing it. If you want to do it a different way, that's why God invented pregames. Have at it!

You say "get straight-lined" as if it is a fact of life. It isn't. Get the right ANGLE and you will see the foot.

I've asked for help at first once in about 15 years. It was on a 3-1 play where F4 ran right in front of me at the time the ball arrived. I saw my partner out of the corner of my eye.

But I've had too many partners ask my help and then I recognize that the umpire is in the SAME SPOT as when the ball was hit. Too many people substitute help for "WORKING the bases." It is work and you do have to fight to get the best position.

Re: Nope...
 

Windy:

No, you get a lot of umpires who think "I don't have to hustle because my partner will help me when I'm not in a great position."

--Rich

Maybe it isn't a fact of life, but when I've got a potential play at 3rd and one at 1st, there really isn't a whole lot of room to move without being out of position for potential plays at one of those bases. And I sure can't predict where the throw from the shortstop is going to be, either to third or first, on target, high, low, up the baseline or wherever. I could move anywhere on or around the mound and if it's a throw causing the 1st baseman to stretch in my direction, I CAN'T SEE HIS FOOT and the separation between it and the bag. That's when I go for help.

Sure you can make this call. You step up into the working area behind the mound and when F6 throws to first you take a couple of quick steps towards the 45 foot line between home and first. No way you get straightlined. Umpires get straightlined because they run straight towards a play rather than getting an angle.

Ask me for help on this play and my response would likely be, "Yup, R2 touched third." THAT is my primary job. Yours is making the call at first base. Or third base.

--Rich

Just asking.
 

Oriole,

Depending on the play, your partner is going to be over at 3rd base. How is he going to see a play at first when he is watching something else?

Peace

You guys are correct, PU SHOULD BE ready for a play at 3B.

I'll try moving a bit more and see if that helps on the play at 1st.

You've got to be kidding...you've cluttered the example
 

OHMYGOD!!!!

What are they teaching in Wisconsin? I have several Master level friends beyond the Cheddar Curtain, so I know what's up. The original post - the same one that I have referenced in everyone of my replies - talks about a ball fielded by the first baseman. We don't know where, but the let's assume that the PU actually understands that he handles the Fair/Foul call up to the base. His first commitment isn't to charge up to third because R1 might pass second and head there, it is to insure whether the ball is Fair. Remember, Gordon said he was in "B", so he does not have an angle. Next, we are taught to follow the ball. Who has it? The first baseman scoops it up and flips it to the pitcher who is running to the bag. I think it is safe to assume that these were not professional athletes, so they probably aren't handling this like Greg Maddux. Now, assuming the finest conditioned umpires in the world, how many steps can he get after he sees that the first baseman will not be throwing to third, but will go to first? Again, logic dictates, that it won't be more than a couple. So, one guy is looking at a nearly perpendicular angle to the play and the other is looking almost directly up it a**. Who has the better angle? Not what should Gordon have done to get a better angle, but who can see it better? We know who is responsible for making the call, but if he can't tell what happened with the attempts to tag the base, his partner can certainly correct his error. Some of you are arguing that this is not a rules violation but a judgement call. All six calls made by umpires (Fair/Foul/Safe/Out/Ball/Strike) are judgement calls that can be corrected by consensus of the crew. We have referenced Foul Balls being corrected at the MLB level for the last two months. Two catches were corrected, what more do you need to see? The real problem here is how people handle it. The play ends, I call "Time" and head over to my partner. I ask him if he is sure that he saw the pitcher touch first. If he is adamant, I will back him and we will talk about it after the game. Most of teh guys I work with know that I would NEVER ask them that question unless I absolutely saw something different. If we agree that the play was kicked, we will announce the decision and correct it. No plurality, no correction. I am not a god on the field and I've made my share of mistakes. Knowing that Fed allows corrections and OBR is SHOWING US WE CAN AND SHOULD, is all the proof we need. If you can't or won't that is up to you. I prefer to walk off the field knowing that I earned my money.

WOW!
 

Windy:

I like you.

You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.

Tee

Re: You've got to be kidding...you've cluttered the example
 

Master level, huh? 8 varsity games, attendance at the rules meeting, and 90% on two open book FED exams. Impressive. One of the "master" crews at this year's sectionals all still use a balloon behind the plate. That said....

Listen, bub, I was responding to a guy who was talking about a possible play at 1st or 3rd on a ground ball to short. If you could take a deep breath and read with comprehension, you'd notice I even quoted that poster. I wasn't even addressing the first play in this response. I already addressed that earlier -- if the fielder stabs a second time at the base, he's telling the world he missed it. Why would you even think of getting help in this situation?

You are peeing in the wind and are doing it alone. Keep bringing up unrelated esoteric ML plays as "evidence." We don't really care.

And I'm not from Wisconsin, I just live there.

I'm sorry that you live there, did someone have to read this to you?

Oriole 35 mentioned a play that similarly involved being unable to determine if the guy had the bag or not. You came back that in 15 years you've only had to ask for help once. Then you chastised him by telling us that all you need to do is move for a better angle. That's the magic??? I'm jotting a note to MLB to tell the guys that blew their calls this year, that they just need to hustle more and get in a better position.

BTW, what level umpire are you? I used to live down south and when it was 95 degrees, I would see a whole bunch of veterans break out the outside protector. I laughed until I almost died of heat stroke one brutal day.

Lastly, there are only a handful of us here that actually attended pro school and were hired to Minor League rosters. Don't pretend that your real world experience compares. I work with some of the best guys in the country and learn every day. These guys aren't afraid to make tough calls, becaus ethey know that if it is kicked, we will help them out. This is not about pride, it is about doing the job that is allowed by the rulebook. No where does it say, "Don't correct a blown call." On the contrary, FED is explicit about bad calls and insists that we do whatever we can to correct a bad call that puts a team in jeopardy. MLB has already shown us the light. If you choose to let bad calls stay, good for you. That is just another reason I'm glad I live in Illinois.

No one cares. No one cares what Minor League umpires do. This question was not asked by a Minor League umpire. It was not asked about a pro game. Amateur officials cannot look to any of the pro levels for guidance on officiating. Not only do they come from a different philosophy, their mechanics and practices are vastly different. We do not care what level you work or how pro umpires handle situations. It is not at all relevant to this discussion. I have said before, I have no intention on attending a pro school because I do not want to achieve that level. If you have and others have attended those schools, more power to you. I hope you accomplish everything you set out to do in umpiring. I have worked with guys that have attended pro school and they cannot put there hat on the right end of their body. That does not make you a good umpire and does not translate into being a successful as an umpire. I know many umpires that go to these schools and cannot get basic plays right. If an umpire cannot get a basic call right at first base, why are they there? All umpires have responsibilities on the field and we cannot be there to bail out our partner to make their calls right. This pro issue you have is really getting old.

This is not an attack on you personally. I think you need to realize that everyone does not care what level someone works. And in baseball is definitely a sport where the amateurs do not care what the pros do. Remember, MLB umpires were so arrogant they actual thought they could resign and no one would take their place.

Peace

Yowza !!
 

I worry about even joining this raucus party... :D

Windy, many of the things you have said above are what I would consider blatantly wrong. I would not want to work with a partner that has the attitudes you have espoused above.

Your difference from the rest of the crowd appears relatively slight, if not subtle. It is obvious you understand mechanics. However, perhaps you don't understand the idea of teamwork and different responsibilities for each teammember - the umpiring crew is a team. I think the concensus is that you respect your partner's judgement and thereby, the team, above what you are calling "getting the call right."

Plainly stated, the consensus is: YOU DON'T IMPOSE ON YOUR PARTNER'S JUDGEMENT CALLS.

If the base ump missed the call but called him out anyway (he guessed the BR out), YOU CANNOT IMPOSE what you saw. PERIOD. And if you go out onto the field to discuss, YOU HAVE ALREADY IMPOSED and you have embarrassed your own teammate.

Your partner screwed it up to begin with by guessing and making the call without consulting you first. If he wants to eat crow and embarrass himself by asking for your assistance after he made the call, that's his own deal. He looks the part of the rookie and now you are doing your part to get the call right.

But if he has already called it one way and now you interupt the game to go out and give your two-bits, then you are introdcing the pluralty. And you are imposing where you should not.

Embarassing your partner lasts a long time for both yourself and for your partner (years - I've been there). A single close call is generally done and finished with the next pitch. I suggest that you place higher priority on protecting the relationship with your partner, than on what you consider getting the call right.

Re: Re: You've got to be kidding...you've cluttered the example
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
[B]</b></quote>Rich, et. al.: I've been following the Forum for years, and I've observed some pretty peculiar and/or exceptional posters.

But since May 2004 the linchpin of crapshooters (or shooters of crap, if you prefer) has been WCB.

I cannot imagine what took me so long to deduce the truth. WCB is nothing more than a successful Eric Redfern -- in reverse. Eric pretended to be a rookie with questions; WCB pretends to be a veteran with nothing but answers.

And he's been "successful" -- until this unveiling.

The original "Eric" was trapped because he inadvertently included his "real" email address. That won't ever happen to WCB. But the sheer numbers of his posts, along with their content and tone, trapped him; i.e., his insistence that <i>he, and he alone,</i> is the repository of truth, justice, and the Illinois way just finally rings false.

I imagine him laughing every time he sits down to the keyboard to create another of his outlandish yarns.

My advice: Leave him alone, and he'll go home, wagging his tail behind him.

BTW: Tee, you may have been that young, but you were <i>never</i> so stupid as the character our anonymous friend has created.

This was the only thing worthwhile in the whole post cause it made me laugh.

The rest? Where's Tee when you need him....

I'm finished responding, too.

--Rich

Re: You've got to be kidding...you've cluttered the example
 

Windy:

I have debated with myself and others for the past three or four months as to whether or not you are real. At times, as Peter has pointed out, you have made some observations that usually only umpires who have worked the upper levels would make. Despite some questionable opinions and your provocation of Jeff, your posts had the semblance of being written by a real veteran.

Until today, that is. You have at the very least shut off your brain when you engaged your fingers in response to Rich Fronheiser. Or, you just weren't up to the task of maintaining the visage you created.

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 <u>should a play occur</u>, the PU is still <u>in much better position</u> 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 <u>offer</u> 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 <b><u>UNLESS</b></u> 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 <u>after he made his original call</u>.

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

Are you high?
 

Look at this post you wrote, Windy. It has no paragraph breaks and is almost unintelligible. This isn't up to your normal high standards of English composition. Were you drunk when you wrote it?

Let's see, you've recently had trouble with separating truth from fiction. As another umpire has posted, you've been illogical in your arguments. Now your English writing skills have gone into the toilet. Hmmmmmm. Who do we know with those three problems? You've taken on all the characteristics of your nemesis.

Re: For Windy
 

You, OTOH, are a wannabe like Jurrassic Referee or any of dozens of anonymous posters.

[/B][/QUOTE]A "wannabe" what,Peter? Just exactly WHAT do I aspire to be? What claims, resumes,etc., etc. have I ever posted? I yam what I yam- no more no less- and that's all I've ever claimed to be on these forums. If someone disagrees with something I post, big deal. Who cares?

I know what you are too- just another one of the petty "Observers" of the world. If somebody doesn't agree with you, hey, quote 'em your resume, tell 'em what a big dawg you are, call 'em some names and then tell 'em they sleep with farm animals. Your act is old, Peter. That's why you're not writing for this site anymore. Sorry, but I can't even get a l'il bit upset with a goober like you, no matter how hard you try.

I'm relatively new to this forum. And as you all know I started this thread. The main reason I joined is to get different view points on rules handling situations etc. I thank all of you for the constructive crtiques that were presented. Some I agreed with and some I didn't. But all had points worth considering.

Personal attacks name calling etc. are not how we learn from each other. I enjoy debating and defending "your position" etc. I would like everyone to treat each other with respect.

Have a good week-end everyone.

Re: Re: For Windy
 

The truth could never be stated any better.

Peace

And then...the gavel comes down
 

I will address your post, since it contains the least amount of vitriol and directs charges that can managed without the thread getting locked.


From Peter:
I usually can get a fairly accurate impression of an Internet umpire from his writings. However, there are a number of things that have started to bother me about your postings.

1. For someone who remains anonymous, you have made an lot of claims about where you work/what kind of ball that you do. I assign 300 umpires directly (within a 50 mile radius of where I live) and have access to an additional 150 or so umpires for high level ball from a 200 mile radius. If one of them were to get on the Internet and anonymously make the claims that you are making, I would be able to identify that person. You have simply given away too much information not to be identified. That fact that you have not been identified indicates to me that you are not telling the truth.

That must be the reason two members of one of my groups, contacted me about filing grievances! At least a few people here, know what I do and who I am.



For instance, you have told us that you are a member of UMPS. I do not know how big that organization is but it cannot have more than a dozen super big dog members unless it is unlike any umpire organization that I have seen. Add to that all of the specifics that you have given us over the last three months and you are down to a very short list at best. Even someone of limited intelligence who lives in the Chicago area should be able to identify you. (like you know who.)

Ibid

2. I do not know any senior umpire that would take your position that you have taken in this thread. PU's will not overrule a BU on the type of play that you describe at any level above coach pitch.

I don't recall using the word "overrule" in regards to this thread. You know better than to put words in my mouth. Read it again, carefully - I suggested that Gordon’s partner ask if he SAW the pitcher’s tag of the base. If he was adamant, you don’t have a consensus, leave it alone. Otherwise, you may have the opportunity to get it right. I fault any umpire that sees a blown call and doesn’t at least talk with his partner about it after the game. Too many members have suggested that they would keep mum, that’s sad.


3. Top level umpires are usually too busy to post at the rate that you post. We have games to work and jobs to do. You have made over 300 posts here in less than four months and that does not count the ones that have been deleted. You are posting as fast as Rut. Your posts are not one or two sentences like what Mick posts; they are lengthy epistles.

Ah, here we go with the suppositions. My business is not a desk job. I am on the road an awful lot and usually have time to surf. (These Starbucks are amazing - wireless technology and awesome lemon bars!) If my free time bothers some of you, I suggest a career change that affords you the same luxury. It doesn’t take long to formulate my thoughts and put them into text. Again, I can’t help being efficient.


There are several other things that are starting to bother me, but I will leave it at this. We use to have a poster here from down under. He was able to get away with all sorts of outlandish claims because there was no way that anyone could check up on him. You are from the center of our country. It is time for you to come clean so that we can verify your credentials.

Why? So that the same people that find my opinions to be caustic can f*ck with my life. You should know better than that.


Carl's credentials are easy to verify. You can do Google searches and verify the levels that I work. Likewise, the other senior posters here have people that can vouch for their authenticity. You, OTOH, are a wannabe like Jurrassic Referee or any of dozens of anonymous posters. Until you come clean, I will join Carl, Garth, Rich, Tee, etc. and assign you to the wannabe tribe.

Stop...the flattery is making me blush. If you need an identity to support the advice or opinions I offer, then that is your dilemma. Dear Abby and Ann Landers seemed to do alright without using their legal names. Come to think of it, much of Hollywood manages just fine with pseudonyms. My nom de net was borrowed from someone already using it on McGriff’s a few years ago. In fact there is an organization called Windy City Blues in our area (nudge/wink). Those are the only clues I will provide.


My operating assumption from now on is that you are a Chicago area umpire with an axe to grind against Rut. Or perhaps you are in a political war with local organizations and are using the Internet to settle scores we know nothing about. You are one or two rungs below the top of a local organization with access to senior umpires. Therefore you know what to say and what not to say. Maybe you are an assignor, so you get constant insight into the game without having to work the top levels.

That is an excellent deduction, Clouseau! I couldn’t possibly be someone who currently sits or did sit on a Board that runs one of the groups in Chicagoland. It is a near impossibility that I have current and past minor league experience. Who would even suggest that I work for any major college conference? I am aghast at the thought that I even know what an indicator is. As for Jeff Rutledge, I’ve actually met him at a meeting a year ago. He’s a nice kid and from what I gather, a pretty decent basketball and football official. I took to busting his balls when he made a couple of missteps. It became a self-perpetuating dramedy. Jeff and I share a few commonalities and I have tried to let the past slip away. He too, has learned to judge the thread on its merit. I may disagree with him, but I admire his tenacity.


I am willing to be proven wrong but until then, I will operate under the assumption that you are a JUCO umpire who may have worked a couple of D1 games and perhaps went to pro school. Along the way, you may have filled in with the minor leagues when someone got sick. That is the best that I think that you are. At worst, you are a FED umpire who hangs around with a lot of college umpires at the local watering hole.


Okay. Can I go cry on my giant pillow, now? This war of words has me tied in knots.


You are not an NCAA D1 conference umpire with extensive minor league experience. You are not the top big dog or even a top 10 big dog in your local group unless your group only has 20 umpires.

You forgot to number the last few graphs. But I was able to follow along anyway, HHH. ;)
I’m not sure that “top big dog” isn’t a tad redundant, but I may be wrong. I hope that my use of language has impressed Mr. Lyle this time. Papa C. won’t reply to me, but feels comfortable quoting my words. Lah me!

Finally, this really didn’t take that long to answer. Illinois baseball is damn near nil at this time of the year. But, that doesn’t mean I will disappear, much to some member’s chagrin. Take your best shots when you disagree, as I will certainly do the same. Until then, this umpire has no problem having my crew assist me when I have blown a crucial call. The MLB boys seem to have adjusted, as well. If you choose not to follow the course, don't ask why you can't get my schedule.

Gordon, you started a great dialogue. I've been known to toss some zings and barbs :) Name calling doesn't bother me, I'm an umpire.

Yes it did
 

Yes, it did. This post was up to your normal high standards. I'll attribute that other post to one too many beers.