Crew Chief makes a mistake...but they got it right

[gordon30307]

Regardless of your seniority is not the PU the "Umpire in Chief" ie. your boss in that game? I agree PU gave incorrect ruling but after discussing it with him if he refused to change his call I don't think you as BU can over rule him as per Fed Rules.

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Regardless of your seniority is not the PU the "Umpire in Chief" ie. your boss in that game? I agree PU gave incorrect ruling but after discussing it with him if he refused to change his call I don't think you as BU can over rule him as per Fed Rules.

I have worked hard to get where I am. I am not going to a allow some arrogant little dog to mess it up. Had this call been allowed to stand, it would have set back my career.

Look, as a big dog, I can raise the temperature on the little dog until he changes the call. The threat of neutering (Garth's words) is all it takes. It is irrelevant as to the technicalities of who is the umpire-in-chief.

I have another story regarding the same umpire and how I changed his call but I'll save it for another time. I have told it here on the forum before. He finally quit because of guys like me picking on him.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Regardless of your seniority is not the PU the "Umpire in Chief" ie. your boss in that game? I agree PU gave incorrect ruling but after discussing it with him if he refused to change his call I don't think you as BU can over rule him as per Fed Rules.

Yep, that's what the Rules say, but the reality, from MLB on down, is that in many Assns, the senior guy is the Crew Chief [in fact, if not by explicit policy], and responsible for preventing [and correcting] obvious brain-farts.
Plus, as Peter said, "overruling" is not necessarily what is gonna happen, but the call IS gonna change, whether the little dog likes it [or actuqlly agrees with it] or not.

[gordon30307]

I understand where you are coming from, however you didn't make the call PU kicked it you didn't. Why would this reflect poorly on you? The team this call went against would be all over PU. I think your "out on this" would be to say it's his call and he's the umpire in chief. Of course after the game......

I agree this is a tough situation and if I were in the same situation I'm not sure what I would have done. Except after the game......

[GarthB]

Gordon:

The senior umpire will be held responsible for a blown call or ruling, especially one the is obvious to the guy across the street or one that may decide the game, whether he made it or his partner made it. He is expected to avoid these problems and help his partner correct his mistakes.

I agree with Peter up to a point, and at this time it is a theoretical point. I would do everything in my power to convince my partner to change his call, privately, of course. If, after all my efforts, he still refused, I would follow the rules and back off. Peter, it seems, would at that point unilaterally change the call.

I don't know what he would do if his partner, just as unilaterally, changed it back. I can foresee an ugly public spectacle that could be worse than letting the call go.

This difference is what caused me to post in this thread. In the article at officiating.com that I referenced, the author also suggests unilaterall action when a partner doesn't come around.

We will not let things go that far. My association would forgive the senior ump if his partner refused all opportunities to do what was right.

[Edited by GarthB on Oct 7th, 2004 at 05:53 PM]

[David B]

Originally posted by gordon30307
Regardless of your seniority is not the PU the "Umpire in Chief" ie. your boss in that game? I agree PU gave incorrect ruling but after discussing it with him if he refused to change his call I don't think you as BU can over rule him as per Fed Rules.

Many times the UIC is NOT the PU.

In many of our games we will allow someone else to call the PU but the UIC is in another position.

It might be for training or for other reasons, but as stated by others, if there is a problem, its going to come back on the senior official.

Thanks
David

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by GarthB
Gordon:

The senior umpire will be held responsible for a blown call or ruling, especially one the is obvious to the guy across the street or one that may decide the game, whether he made it or his partner made it. He is expected to avoid these problems and help his partner correct his mistakes.

I agree with Peter up to a point, and at this time it is a theoretical point. I would do everything in my power to convince my partner to change his call, privately, of course. If, after all my efforts, he still refused, I would follow the rules and back off. Peter, it seems, would at that point unilaterally change the call.

I don't know what he would do if his partner, just as unilaterally, changed it back. I can foresee an ugly public spectacle that could be worse than letting the call go.

This difference is what caused me to post in this thread. In the article at officiating.com that I referenced, the author also suggests unilaterall action when a partner doesn't come around.

We will not let things go that far. My association would forgive the senior ump if his partner refused all opportunities to do what was right.

That is my concern. You are going to tell me that just because you are a big dog your opinion is the only one that is right? In my neck of the woods the official that made the mistake would be in trouble and would be in even more trouble for not taking the advice to change an obvious call. I guess this is a baseball thing, because if this were to happen in a basketball game or football game, I cannot see how Peter's attitude would fly. As a matter of fact, it would not fly. We are a team and need to work together. I just see chaos if officials are publicly arguing about calls. Because he might let the change happen and on purpose change the next call. Not a good situation if you ask me.

Peace

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Yep, that's what the Rules say, but the reality, from MLB on down, is that in many Assns, the senior guy is the Crew Chief [in fact, if not by explicit policy], and responsible for preventing [and correcting] obvious brain-farts.
Plus, as Peter said, "overruling" is not necessarily what is gonna happen, but the call IS gonna change, whether the little dog likes it [or actuqlly agrees with it] or not.

I understand your point and I kinda sorta agree. However, in a Fed game if you run across a coach who knows the rules (highly unlikely) that PU is the boss and that we are not supposed to overruule one another how are you goiung to handle this?

[Rich]

Originally posted by GarthB
Gordon:

The senior umpire will be held responsible for a blown call or ruling, especially one the is obvious to the guy across the street or one that may decide the game, whether he made it or his partner made it. He is expected to avoid these problems and help his partner correct his mistakes.

I agree with Peter up to a point, and at this time it is a theoretical point. I would do everything in my power to convince my partner to change his call, privately, of course. If, after all my efforts, he still refused, I would follow the rules and back off. Peter, it seems, would at that point unilaterally change the call.

I don't know what he would do if his partner, just as unilaterally, changed it back. I can foresee an ugly public spectacle that could be worse than letting the call go.

This difference is what caused me to post in this thread. In the article at officiating.com that I referenced, the author also suggests unilaterall action when a partner doesn't come around.

We will not let things go that far. My association would forgive the senior ump if his partner refused all opportunities to do what was right.

[Edited by GarthB on Oct 7th, 2004 at 05:53 PM]

I was working an NCAA D-III game one time with a "big dog" who works a lot of college ball, including some NCAA D-I. In other words, he's available during the day

I called a balk for a non-stop by the pitcher and the batter put the ball in play and got a single, moving all the other runners up. Naturally, the single was because the fielder didn't bother fielding the ball, thinking the ball was dead. Looked really ugly.

The visiting coach tried to argue this point with me (that the batter has to come back because the ball is dead on a balk), and I started wondering where D-III schools find their coaches. By this point, the "big dog" sauntered in, I figured, to offer support, if needed. Instead, he told the coach that the offense always has the choice of the balk or the play.

Oh. My. God. And this guy works D-I nonconference games. Since I got the result I wanted (players staying on the bases and the coach disappearing) I left it go. I had a brief word with my partner at the car, but he really wasn't all that concerned with the fact he might have blown one.

You control what you can control, I guess. But would I have been willing to fight to the death had my partner said that it WAS an immediate dead ball? Of course not, but i may have subliminally encouraged the other coach to file a protest

--Rich

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by gordon30307


I understand your point and I kinda sorta agree. However, in a Fed game if you run across a coach who knows the rules (highly unlikely) that PU is the boss and that we are not supposed to overruule one another how are you goiung to handle this?

Good question. Let's start by stripping out the what-ifs and getting down to reality.

We have a big dog working the bases and a little dog on the plate. The little dog screws up and the big dog asserts his authority. In REALITY, I cannot imagine a little dog standing up to the big dog when the big dog escalates to the point of threatening to neuter the little dog. I have yet to meet a little dog that stupid.

So, in REALITY, the little dog always caves and changes his own call. Remember, this conversation between the big and little dog takes place in private. Even in the situation that I mentioned above, I was away from the players and coaches when I told the little dog that I was not going to allow him to F$$$ up a game with a call like that. The coach, therefore, sees the little dog change the call.

Let's assume a third world situation where the coach knows that the big dog really made the decision. Since there are no protests in any FED area that I have worked, the coach is SOL. I cannot imagine this happening in NCAA ball, but assuming it did, the protest would go no where. Remember, the fig leaf of a changed call was maintained because the little dog never objected to the change in public.

Now, we get down to what happens if the big dog is wrong when he overturns the little dog. Simple, the big dog's career is OVER or it's back to kiddie ball for him.

I once had a big dog BU overrule me on a rules issue where I was 100% sure that I was correct. Because I knew my place, I quietly acquiesced to the big dog and subtly informed the offended coach that he could protest if he wanted. The offended coach did not protest (he was winning by 5 runs and did not want to unnecessarily antagonize a known big dog) and the game continued.

After the game, I called my assignor about the situation. The big dog quietly retired at the end of the year and is now coaching.

Peter

[GarthB]

A reality check.

A forced overruling is at best a third world event that occurs primarily in the games of some of those writing at officiating.com If one cannot convince a partner that he has made a mistake (we are assuming, of course, that he HAS made a mistake) by intellect, a persuasive discussion or force of personality, he should not take matters into his own hands and begin a public war of wills with his partner. It will forever tarnish both umpires and it is prohibited by rule. Even in the recent MLB examples the original umpire was convinced (coerced?) to go along with a change.

Most often, in my personal experience, the game is being worked with dogs of the same calibre. One will award bases based on TOP when it should have been TOT.

The other umpire will call time and they will meet halfway.

"Uh, Spot....that should have been two from time of throw."

"You sure, Rover? I could have sworn that was a TOP."

"Trust, me on this one. If I'm wrong you can piss on my porch."

"Okay, but let's take another second here so it looks like we had to both think about it."

"Fine...see that BILF in the third row...I think she's in heat."

My argument was never about changing a call, or a partner initiating the change. My argument has been regarding what would be a tragic public spectacle should umpires accept the advice of the author at officiating.com who stated that when your partner refuses to change his call "change it anyway."

My disagreement with Peter is not in how he personally handles these situations. I just believe that sometimes Peter makes statements that come across as universal. Not everyone reading his posts has his experience, his skills, his games or his partners. 90% of those reading his posts never will. Peter knows how to manage his games and how to work with umpires with similar backrounds, but his posts, at times, should come with a caveat, "Don't try this at home."

[WindyCityBlue]

Great dialogue...this is what I've been after for months, now.

We have gotten away from the topic though. We are more concerned with ego and the Big Dog/Lil' Pup mentality. We've all worked games where we've kicked calls and seen calls kicked. How we handle them starts with the pre-game. If you can accept the help of your partner for some calls, why be so pig-headed that you can't accept it for another. As I've said before, thsi is not about looking good...it's too late for that. It is about getting the call right and that is the bottom line!

Even new umpires can set the tone at the pre-game.

"Jim, I'm glad to finally get the chance to work with you. Give me what you've got on check-swings, foul balls and and the like and I'll try to help you out on swipes, the lane and pulled feet. I want to get 'em all right today. After the game, I'd appreciate any input or advice you've got."

I've worked with some of the best I'v ever seen. We almost always have a pre-game that involves assistance, coverage and what to do when the pooch gets screwed. It's totally CYA, but has worked for more years than I'd like to admit.

As the veteran working with a rookie, establish the rapport and let him/her know that if you are coming to him for something, it's for the good of the game. The coaches know who the Big Dogs are, but they will respect the guy that makes a mistake, fixes it and learns. The next time out, you'll be the pro.

[JRutledge]

I do not know if I am considered a Big Dog or a little dog and I really do not care. I know that I am usually put on games as the senior umpire. When I am dealing with a really young official, I have no problem stepping up and helping them deal with coaches and situations. But I never make calls for them. There is a reason they got assigned to the game. Unless an assignor has made it clear I need to take an official under my wing or help them out in a way outside of normal situations, only then might I do more than subscribed. But that is what pregames are for. You have a good pregame to judge your partner's ability and philosophy. I always address "help situations" so that I can know who I am dealing with. I just to not preoccupy myself with "who is the big dog" in the games I work. Like I have said, maybe this is a baseball phenomenon because in the other sports the so called "big dogs" do not treat you anything other than a partner on equal footing. At least as it relates to letting their partners call their game.

Peace

[WindyCityBlue]

Jeff,
I will try to be polite here, but I can't help asking, "What?".

We don't care about labels or towering our mastery of the craft over newer umpires. Several of us have used the Big Dog reference simply to establish that veteran umpires sometimes act more important than they should. We know that each official is equal, that is not a phenomenon unique to baseball. I have witnessed poor officiating and communication skills between officials in many sports.

What we are talking about here is how to work together to get the right call made. No one has suggested that the protocol involves belittling one official and taking the glory as the senior partner. Look at the example that started this. MLB has set a larger than life example of how to get the call made correctly.

High school baseball has one or two umpires charged with watching many things. We certainly won't see every call the way we would with one or two more partners. However, we can and do see flagrantly inappropriate rulings and judgement calls. (Crawford's foul ball is a perfect example.) When this happens and we can get tgether and avoid making a mockery of our job, we should make every attempt to work together and accomplish this. That is all that this discussion is about.

If you don't feel that you can work this way, fine. If you have the opportunity to work at the next level, it will certainly be the way it is done. No one likes having their judgement questioned, it's humiliating. But we've all been in the car for the ride home, kicking ourselves because of a call we made. If I can do something about it on the field, I have saved myself from another drive of shame. I'm sure you are the same way...we are harder on ourselves that any guy with an evaluation form.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Jeff,
I will try to be polite here, but I can't help asking, "What?".

We don't care about labels or towering our mastery of the craft over newer umpires. Several of us have used the Big Dog reference simply to establish that veteran umpires sometimes act more important than they should. We know that each official is equal, that is not a phenomenon unique to baseball. I have witnessed poor officiating and communication skills between officials in many sports.

I have only heard this term as it relates to baseball umpires. I have worked with some very successful basketball officials and I have never heard them even try to refer to themselves as "bigger" than anyone. Of course there are egos with other sports officials, but they seem to treat their fellow official as an equal while they are on the court. I worked a basketball game with two State Title Basketball officials in a very big game that was on TV. Neither treated me any differently than an equal. They did not try to minimize my accomplishments or pump up their abilities over me. I was just another guy (at least that is how they treated me).

Now I think about it, I can think of one basketball officials that treated me like a pee-on and no one wants to work with him. He has worked basketball for almost 40 years and he has more enemies than I have friends. And his enemies are not "lightweights."

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
What we are talking about here is how to work together to get the right call made. No one has suggested that the protocol involves belittling one official and taking the glory as the senior partner. Look at the example that started this. MLB has set a larger than life example of how to get the call made correctly.

I understand that, but it always seems to come back to "who is the big dog?" I have not problem with coming up with solutions to get calls right, but who the hell cares if the big dog is on the game. It seems to me if you have the respect of your partner than your opinion might carry some weight. And your reputation will be very obvious.

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
High school baseball has one or two umpires charged with watching many things. We certainly won't see every call the way we would with one or two more partners. However, we can and do see flagrantly inappropriate rulings and judgement calls. (Crawford's foul ball is a perfect example.) When this happens and we can get tgether and avoid making a mockery of our job, we should make every attempt to work together and accomplish this. That is all that this discussion is about.

You could have fooled me. Because I have heard people make constant comments of which Crawford is and what his experience means. I have barely read anything about the actual call. More, "if I am the big dog, I am changing a little dog's call."

Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
If you don't feel that you can work this way, fine. If you have the opportunity to work at the next level, it will certainly be the way it is done. No one likes having their judgement questioned, it's humiliating. But we've all been in the car for the ride home, kicking ourselves because of a call we made. If I can do something about it on the field, I have saved myself from another drive of shame. I'm sure you are the same way...we are harder on ourselves that any guy with an evaluation form.

I am very critical of my own performance on the field. I also know of situations where I might not have made the best call. But I do not see how my partners could help me out one what is my judgment. Most of those calls my partner (if they are doing their job) are not watching me or my call. I have had post game talks about calls and situations I did not see that my partner did not feel good about.

I am not telling you that I feel you are right or wrong. I think there is some truth to what you guys are saying. But I guess there seems to be too much preoccupation to who is on the game. We should go into games seeing each others as equals.

Peace