That is not what he said.
 

That is not what JR has said or suggested at all. He and many are saying that it is up to the calling official to change the call. Just because an official comes to you and tells you that you are wrong do not make it so. I know that in many other types of officials have been downgraded and suspended for changing calls that were originally correct. If I have to come to an official that the play was in his area and he saw the whole thing all the time, what the hell am I watching? Did I miss something in my area or that was my responsibility trying to officiate my partner's area? Not all calls can be up for debate or changed. Your partners are there to help, but they sure better help in very specific instances. I did not see the play in question and cannot debate mechanically why or why not the call could have been changed, but there is only so much help you can get. If you cannot make the call most of the time on your own, you will not be there very long.

Peace

Not so fast...
 

The guys that are working this series got there because they are the best. They have all made mistakes and worked past them. The fact was, Crawford DID NOT look for help. He made his call and had his back to the infield while signalling. When he turned around, Everitt and reliford were already coming forward. The coaches from Minnesota were coming out of the dugout and he knew that he kicked it. As I've indicated dozens of times here. The mechanic taught at the Major College level and above is what was employed here. If you see a call that requires correction, approach your partner and ask what they saw. Tell them that you saw something different. They know you wouldn't be there unless YOU ARE SURE! If you agree that the call needs to be corrected, you get it right. If an ego prevents that from happening, you walk away and let them take what's coming. There is only so much you can do on the ball field.

In last night's case, Everitt and Reliford both saw the play and knew it was wrong. If Crawford, even as the senior man had refused to change that call, it would have been his a** in the sling. His partners would have filed a game report and filed it on the request of the league. It would have indicated that he worked contrary to policy and his post game career and respect from his peers would have been flushed down the drain.

Triple H, I'm glad that we could agree on something again. You once posited that I walk the earth offering opinions that stir the pot and make the casual umpire reflect and the veteran umpire chafe. I've never asked everyone to embrace my views, just open your eyes to the way things are going. I've shared different experiences and learned a lot as I went. Next season there will surely be a new stance or way to get a better angle. Maybe they won't be your cup of tea, but umpires once wore coats and ties.

In last night's case, Everitt and Reliford both saw the play and knew it was wrong. If Crawford, even as the senior man had refused to change that call, it would have been his a** in the sling.

WCB:

That is my point exactly. It was Crawford that had to eat the call. Senior or not, it was his call. If his partners approached him and he refused to change the call, then it would have stood. But he also would have been stupid to do so. As you said, he knew before he ever turned around that he MIGHT have kicked it. He heard it from the crowd, the dugouts, probably some of the players. He probably thought, "oh S**&, did I miss that?" He welcomed the sight of his partners, and I'm sure he led off the conversation with, "Did I miss it?"

I agree, they did it right. But it was right because Crawford agreed that he needed help. As you said, if he didn't, it was his a$$. But accepting the help was still his choice.

what I learned...
 

this is what I am taking away from this discussion -
1) if I make a call, and the indications are that I missed it, don't be afraid to seek the counsel of my partner(s)

2) if I am convinced that I booted the call, change it - and be prepared for the heat. If I stick with my call - be prepared to take the heat.

3) this is applicable to players of shaving age.

Have I missed something?

Peter:

I'm curious how far you would go with "getting it right." Would you go to the point of perhaps getting it wrong to get it right?

Example:

At officiating.com there is an article in which it is suggested that if one umpire feels the other made an error, say in a base award or such, he should first go to the other umpire and explain what he feels would be the appropriate award. If, given that information, the original umpire still believed he was right and did not change his call, the author recommends that the other umpire overrule him and change the call himself.

Aside from tradition and rule (9.02C <i>No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asksed to do so by the umpire making it.</i>) I see other dangers, primarily this: this advice assumes that the second umpire is correct about the ruling, a dangerous assumption at best. The result could very well be a correct ruling changed to an incorrect ruling.

So, then, Peter, are you suggesting that to move from the Jurassic Period requires that we jump into the tar pit that this advice creates? Or is there some happy medium you're striving for?

You are making my point.
 

Garth,

This has been my point the entire time. How are we supposed to know the non-calling umpire is right? I think we all can think of situations where we basically "screw the pooch" on a call. If my partner comes to me I would have no problem changing a call that I am very unsure about. But if I was in great position and can describe in detail what I saw, my partner should not be telling me otherwise on what is a judgment call. Now if we are not applying a rule properly (awarding the wrong number of bases) or we need further information to make a final call, that is in my opinion and always has been type of calls you need to "get right."

Peace

Garth;

I do not recall the article which you are talking about and it appears to refer to a rules issue rather than a judgment call which is a horse of a different color. Let's get back to basics.

There is an issue that most of the responders seem unable to grasp. I hate to sound like Windy here, :D but I have come to the conclusion one needs to have umpired at a high level for more than 10 years to understand the transformation that baseball has undergone with regards to changed calls.

Ten years or so ago, I was umpiring a college game. I was the PU and there was a play at first where the first baseman clearly trapped the ball and quickly picked it up. I saw it, the third base coach saw it, but the BU and first base coach were blocked out. The BU called an out, the first base coach, thinking that it was the right call, said nothing. The third base coach charged across the diamond breathing fire.

When this occurred (about 1994), there was no way that I was going to go to my partner to tell him what happened. There was no way that my partner was coming to me for help. Because it was college baseball and the coaches knew the umpire protocols, the third base coach (he also was the head coach) never even asked the BU to get help. He and the BU went at it for a minute or so before he got ejected. The call never got changed and we never discussed it (until after the game.)

The evaluator met us in the parking lot, acknowledged the bad call and instructed the BU on ways to get into a better position to see dropped balls. The issue of checking with the plate man never came up. It was inconceivable to everyone (umpires and coaches) that a plate man would have an reason to insert himself into a dropped ball call at first. (Swipe tags and pulled foot were the only acceptable calls for help.)

Had that play occurred today, the third base coach would never have had to cross the diamond. I would signal my partner, wave off the third base coach, and the call would be changed before anyone had a chance to argue. Had I not done that, the evaluator would have met us in the parking lot and we both would have got an earful.

It was simply inconceivable 10 years ago that an umpire would insert himself into a play and strongly suggest that a call be changed. To quote rule 9.02c is disingenous at best. The pro rules have not undergone any major changes in 20 years, yet the interpretations and philosophy behind them have undergone radical change.

The posters here, with few exceptions, have not been working NCAA or minor league baseball for 10 years or more. They cannot appreciate the sea change in philosophy that has taken place. So, they endlessly argue semantics about who changes the call and how it is changed.

From my perspective, Reliford changed the call and initiated the change. Crawford acquiesced because he knew the consequences of sticking to his guns.

Finally, rarely are we dead sure of a call. On all close ones, there is always some doubt unless we are delusional. To raise the issue of being dead sure is another red herring. If I am dead sure, usually so is everyone else and we would not be having the argument.

Peter

This discussion leaves out one important factor -- NCAA D-I umpires and professional umpires work with top notch partners. Those of us in the hinterlands who have questionable-quality partners can't always have faith in a partner to come in at the right time.

Sorry for changing sports, but it's football season....

I am a white hat in HS football and a few weeks ago we had an unsportsmanlike penalty after a play that was 2nd and goal from the 8. After I had my umpire mark off the penalty to the 4 yard line, I told the linesman to put a 3 on the down marker. He came in and told me that we needed to have an automatic first down. I explained to him that USC was NOT one of the 5 automatic first down penalties in HS football and that the down counted since the foul was after the play.

Then the LINE JUDGE comes in wanting to tell me the same thing.

Sometimes, you ARE the one with the right information regardless of what your partner thinks. And sometimes you have to be able to trust your partner. The difficulty, even at the small college level, is knowing which way to lean.

On the play mentioned where there was a trap and a pick up -- I would step up at ANY level. In my mind this is a play where the off-umpire can help out -- a ball on the ground. It is quite different from me getting up to the 45-foot line and watching my partner call an out when the runner actually beat the throw -- I would never do anything on that. Or on a swipe tag. Or on a pulled foot. But a ball on the ground? Sure, as long as the pickup of the ball doesn't make the play at first a close play.

Despite what you and Windy think, some of us low-level officials do understand the high tide we're seeing on the sea of change.

--Rich

Peter, that was one your best posts in recent memory. Thank you!

Rich, I appreciate your insight as well, but I have a question. Why wouldn't you do anything on a swipe tag or a pulled foot at first? Those two plays (and running lane violations) are the text book examples of things that the plate umpire is supposed to help with???

I can't believe I have to do thsi again, but...
I'm going to sum this up for everyone who is having trouble with this concept. This is not about “Big Doggin’” your partner...it is only about getting the call right!

1) Pre-game : Usually there's a point where you tell your partner(s), "If I come to you on a check-swing, give me your honest call. If you see something, I miss - a foul ball, foul tip, hit batter, batted ball that hits the batter...anything, help me out. If you need help on a pulled foot or a swipe tag, I’ll help you, as much as I can.”

If you trust your partner enough to help you with these calls, why would you have a brain sprain with a possible kicked call?

2) As I’ve suggested MANY times, do not approach your partner(s) about changing a call, unless you are absolutely sure. If you aren’t, and he comes to you after his call be honest, “Your angle was better, I was screened.” or “I couldn’t see it from where I was at, you had the best look.” Then get together and support him when the sh*t hits the fan.

3) Not all judgement calls can be changed. We will not alter a call on a called strike (unless we see the ball hit the batter or it bounces in and the PU didn’t see it - God help you on that one!), but we know we may have to give our opinion on a called ball and the batter attempts to hit it.

4) The purpose of this rule is to get a bad call right. Put your egos aside and alter it, if applicable. Even the best umpires in the world kick a call every now and then. They used to eat it and were perceived as arrogant and above the game. I have not seen a level of baseball that won’t allow this. Fed has a specific rule allowing bad calls to be altered, OBR is showing us the way and the NCAA has allowed it for years.

Now that I’ve touched ‘em all, remember that the game is about the guys on the field. I conclude every umpire clinic with something like “Remember the umpire that you respected when you played. Chances are that he was on time, fair and treated you decently. Be that guy!” The next generation comes from the people sitting on the sides or wearing the uniform. Set the example now - we don’t have to be perfect, but we have to give the game our best. Work the game, like your boss’ kid was playing.

Triple H, I'm flattered. That was thoughtful, concise and logical. Exactly what I've been talking about for over 6 months. You are correct in your assertion that it is more likely to take place with two veterans working serious ball. They know that while the skills may be refined, the errors in judgement are more aggregious (and usually on video tape!)

Re: what I learned...
 

I would add as Rich mentioned that you have to be "very careful" about who you listen to.

I'm not going to seek counsel if I know that the umpire/official was not in a position to be able to help.

And then it depends on the officials. In the day to day world of non professional umpires you can't listen to very many of the guys you work with, only the qualified ones.

If you are a young umpire you might need to listen, but for a veteran be careful.

I've had to interject myself in several situations as a seasoned umpire to correct what would be a blatant error based on the disucssions of two umpires who did not know what they were talking about.

Thanks
David

Excellent writing Peter and not much to disagree with. I understand that at different levels there are different experiences, much of which is due to the capabilities of our partners.

However,my basic question wasn't answered. And for some it is not a matter of semantics, but of action.

You see something different than your partner. You go to him and discuss it. He tells you that he is 100% sure of his call. You still disagree. So would you feel free to ignore his opinion and, despite his objections, overrule him?

Like Rich, I, too have witnessed the changing tide of "getting help" over the years and I am not fighting that tide. But while it has increased tremendously, it still, in the majority of cases I've witnessed at the levels from high school to college to the pros, has been done "by the book."

Are you now promoting the thought that one umpire, believing he is right and his partner is wrong, should openly overrule his partner, regardless of his partners objections or insistence on his accuracy? No red herring, just an honest question seeking an honest answer absent of diversion.

[Edited by GarthB on Oct 7th, 2004 at 12:03 PM]

I do not think that I was ever promoting that but let me give you some examples. If I am the little dog, I would never overrule my partner. If we are of equal rank, I would not overrule him. However consider the following. I have told this story before:

FED game, three or four years ago. Bottom of 7th, 2 outs, score tied, bases loaded, and ball 4 is delivered to the batter. I am the big dog on the bases and the plate man is an arrogant little dog.

R3 comes in to score and everyone celebrates at home plate by hugging and jumping up and down. After about 10-15 seconds, the PU calls the BR out for not going to first and abandoning his effort. The home team coach comes exploding from the dugout towards my partner. I intervene and whisper quietly to the coach,

"Get that stupid batter down to first base - NOW!"

I motioned the plate man to come out and see me in the infield and asked him what he thought that he was doing. He said that the BR abandoned his effort to go to first (Everyone was celebrating at home plate) and he called him out so we had an extra inning game. I told my partner that I would not allow him to f$$$ up a game with a call like that and he was going to change it. He refused and I pointed out that abandonment could not occur until after a BR had entered the dugout. I told him to look at the BR standing on first base. The BR waved at us with a sheepish grin on his face with both feet planted firmly on first base.

The BU finally changed the call but if he had not, I would have pulled rank and changed it for him. In my association, the senior man is held responsible for screw ups like this.

Peter

Peter,

Is there any chance you can work with a guy and give them the same respect you would like in return? Is that too hard to accomplish? You are a team. Not one umpire has more power over the other.

Very sad attitude if you ask me.


[Edited by PS2Man on Oct 7th, 2004 at 03:24 PM]

Peter:

In my association, too, the big dog will be held responsible, to a point.

In your scenario, if the little dog REFUSED to change his call, our big dogs are not going to wage public open warfare on the field. If the big dog doesn't have the ability or force of personality to convine the little dog to change his call, the little dog will be taken care of off the field.

We are on board with getting calls right, but we do it as per the rules. 9.02(C).

Since you wouldn't answer my question, I will.

No.

If our partner is 100% sure of his call and, even after a consultation, refuses to change it, we will not overrule him on the field.

I will quickly add, and admit, that this is close to a third world scenario, in that I have never have a partner, once I explained the correct call or ruling, refuse to change his call. But, it has happend with a couple of others. The little dogs were appropriately neutered shortly after the game and were last seen hiding under the porch.

[Edited by GarthB on Oct 7th, 2004 at 03:23 PM]