Anyone see Jerry Crawford (the Crew Chief) in last night's Yankees-Twins game?

Ruben Sierra hammered one down the left field line. All of the white shirts jumping up in down in the background made this tough, but Crawford signalled it fair, for a home run when he was less than 90 feet away. Santana and Blanco immediately asked the PU, Charlie Reliford and U3, Brian Everitt to change the call. Replays clearly showed it foul and the guys got together to get it right. Big game, big call...it was blown, but egos got out of the way and they did the right thing. In front of over 55,000 unruly hometown fans, they took away a home run and got the call right. I'm proud to see that the MLB continues to demand the best from their staff. We can all argue about getting a better angle, hustling or selling a call. Tha fact is that one of the best in the biz, did all of those things and still was human. What made him standout was how he handled it after the original call!

P.S. Even Torre said that changing the call was the right thing to do.

it was impressive to se no ego involved. i have no prob w/ human mistake and then after considering and consulting to get it right. sure, he make take a little today but just think if he stuck to his orig call.

That is one of those calls that is allowed to be changed. I have still not seen the crew get together to change a called third strike (looking).

Get the call right has it limits.

The other thing about getting it right was that Crawford went to his partners. No PU or U3 came running in saying the call had to be changed. Crawford made a call because he had to, knew from the reactions that he might have missed it, and called in the crew to discuss it. It was handled correctly.

But Crawford initiated the meeting. Until he asked for help, it was his call.

And Crawford changed his OWN call too, after getting input. The PU or U3 didn't overrule him. That's the proper procedure for all sports.

Nice try...
 

Jurassic -
Still pretending to do professional baseball, I see.

I have the game on Tivo and the call was correctly signalled by the home plate umpire, reliford, not Crawford. As he ran back to his position he was jeered relentlessly.

Watch the play again, I just did. The call was made and he had his back to the infield. As soon as he made it, Santana and Blanco turned to Reliford and you can see Santana say, "Now way, go help him." Reliford started towards Crawford and Everitt nodded to him. I took this to indicate that he saw it, as well. The place was going crazy, but not because it was a bad call. The crowd wanted the home run! Crawford saw his crew coming to him and got together with them. Gorman and Wegner kept the coaches and players at bay. That is how it worked and that is what I have proposed all along. Make the call, if it is wrong and your partners can help, put your ego aside and get it right. I have never said that every call is reviewable, so don't tread that slippery slope. I pointed out that we should recognize the need to fix poor calls when it is allowed and applicable. This was a pefect example of one of the best umpires in the world needing help because he kicked it. It looked good and worked!

Re: Nicer try...
 

Windy, still pretending to be an umpire, I see.

Yes, that is what I expected from you. You made a statement that proved wrong and your only means of defense is personal. Once again, you've shown that you opened your mouth without engaging your brain.

I just watched the play again and am trying to see how Jurassic could have interpreted that Crawford corrected his own call. Charlie Reliford was wearing the plate gear and he made the signal and explained it to the benches. replays are a beautiful thing.

Jerry Crawford was interviewed after the game and he offered these fifteen words. "We work to get every call right. It didn't happen, so we made it right." Uh, oh...that sounds an awful lot like what I've been saying for six months now.

Finally,
Basketball - big orange thing
Baseball - small white thing
Don't confuse the two or I'll be forced to pummel you again.

Papa C & HHH...
 

Carl and Peter,
I know you have avowed never to speak to Windy again...however, I am curious to hear your thoughts on the situation in question. After all Peter, didn't you say "real umpires talk situations?" ;)

That call was an obvious miss that never should have happened. Watching it on TV I was embarassed for the profession. However, I was happy that it was corrected.

Re: Papa C & HHH...
 

I did not know that I ever made a vow about Windy but to answer your question:

Jurassic is right regarding officiating from the past. Jurassic's name says it all. The Jurassic period in Earth's history was 80 million years ago and Jurassic's officiating philosophy is ancient.

Windy is correct for the way that things have changed in the last five years of baseball umpiring. Today, we have to get it right while custom, pride, and procedure take a back seat. I trace this change to the destruction of the MLB union after the ill conceived strike. The process was well under way before the strike, but the strike was the final nail in the coffin of the old way of doing business.

The argument that Juarassic tries to put forward that the original calling official changes the call is a red herring. In a perfect world, he may be correct, but that is only window dressing. Other officials are seeing missed calls and one way or another, calls are being changed. Jurassic keeps blowing the horn for an ancient way of doing business, but the argument has already been lost. Today, we have to get it right no matter how it looks. The 2nd base umpire has yet to change a ball/strike call but that day may be coming. :D

Peter

Don't know if Jurrasic started this one, Windy.

The argument that Juarassic tries to put forward that the original calling official changes the call is a red herring

I just don't believe this is true. If Crawford had insisted he were right last night, the call would not have been changed, especially since he is the crew chief here. Do you think Charlie Reliford would have "overruled" Crawford if Crawford insisted he got it right and didn't need help? Not if he wanted to work in the MLB again.

In the words of this board, Crawford is a big dog, Reliford is a (relative) pissant. If Crawford said it was fair and Reliford said it wasn't, it was going to be called fair.

But thankfully, Crawford is a bigger man that heard the reactions and knew he might have missed it. So he got help. If Reliford "announced" it, OK, but it was Crawford that was convinced to change his call. And if he hadn't been convinced, it wasn't going to get changed.

Amen!

This misses the point, actually two points. Suppose that Reliford was the senior official and Crawford was the little dog. Would the call be changed even if Crawford was insisting that it was right? In the Jurassic age, no, today, probably yes. That is because calling officials are very receptive to change which leads to the next point.

The second point is what happens the next day in the press and with the supervisor of umpires. If they change the call, Crawford is off the hook, even if it turns out he was right. However, if he insists on staying with the call and it turns out he was wrong, his career is over.

In other words, if multiple umpires come to the calling official and insist that he got it wrong, the calling official will defer to them. His job is on the line if he does not defer to them. Their job may be on the line if they insisted and the cameras show them wrong. That is why a smart calling official will defer to other officials who insist that he is wrong. He has just been given a free pass.

In the Jurassic age, this scenerio would have never played out, in today's climate, it has become the norm. You can debate semantics on who changed the call all you want, but the bottom line is that Reliford changed the call. If he had kept his mouth shut, we had a home run. Reliford made the decision to open his mouth and initiate the change. In the old days, he would have kept silent even if he saw the miss.

Peter

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]

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.

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 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......

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]

UIC not always ...
 

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

Pure chaos!!
 

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

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?

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

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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."

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

With all due respect, I work NCAA Div. I conference baseball here in the Midwest and I work with guys that have less experience than me and guys that have more experience (D-I Regional, Super Regional and College World Series Umpires). The whole "Big Dog" term you guys use gets thrown out the window when you work at the higher levels. The reason is the experience and maturity level of the officials at that level. They don't have egos - they have a mature sense of confidence. Moreover, they are not afraid to admit mistakes or seek help when necessary. Perfect example is the "take your hat off" mechanic if there is a contraversial call on the field where another partner feels like he could add some useful information. Another point is the crew chief on some conference weekend series is NOT always the most experienced umpire on the field. Regarless of your experience level or title (crew chief or not), everyone working on the crew for that particular weekend is on the same level.
By the way, the NCAA is probably the first organization that adopted the "get it right" philosophy. Unlike many other trends in baseball officiating that start at the MLB/Pro level and work their way down into amateur ball... it seems like this time the big leaguers are getting a page out of the NCAA book.

They don't have egos - they have a mature sense of confidence

I have also worked D-1 baseball (can no longer due to work schedule). Believe me, there are PLENTY of egos among D-1 umps.

Good grief, at last year's clininc in Atlanta, the testosterone was so thick it would have frightened NFL players. One ump had just worked the 2003 CWS. He had a chip on his shoulder so big it took a number of umps to knock it off (but they tried!). There were so many "big dogs" I thought they were going to have to bring fire hydrants to p*** onto into the clinic rooms because of all of the "territory marking" that was going on.

Atl Blue,
I don't know if that's Tony Thompson's group your talking about but that's not the case in Fetch's group. Also, the egos tend to come out a little more at off the field events (camps, get-togethers) but for the most part, that stuff is fairly minimal on the field or in the lockeroom. Usually, the first pregame of the series sets the tone for the weekend and you get a pretty good idea of what your partners are like. Remember, in college baseball, especially at the Div I level, you have a wide variety of backgrounds (ie, 30 yr old guy just out off AA pro ball to 56 year old man with 20+ yrs of NCAA experience).

Personally, when you get to a certain level, you can pretty much tell within the first couple innings whether your partner has "skills" or he's full of $hit. Guys that talk a big game don't last long at the higher levels. I believe in letting your work on the field do the talking and that is what will get the respect from your peers and supervisors. Just my opinion

Yes, it's Tony's group. Yes, they have the skills. I have met and worked with virtually no one in the association that does not have the skills and knowledge needed. If they didn't, they wouldn't be tolerated.

But there are egos. Never to the point where they would step on your calls (at least not in a big college game), but there are a number in the association that let you know they are the "Big Dogs".

And yes, it is worse at clinics/meetings than on the field.

And the CWS ump with the chip mentioned above was NOT one of Tony's umps.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Quote:

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.

You must live in a perfect dog house. In our area the Big Dogs continue to umpire big games and perpetuate rules and intepretation myths. :D

U7

...and now, the end is near...
 

Sal's comment was dead on...I've been trying to say this for some time now. Thank you!

Apparently, some of us are hung up on the term Big Dog or having our calls questioned by a partner or partners. I suggest that we get over it. We are out there to get the calls right, not to do them to the best of our ability. Too often you get guys that believe that, "Hey, I did the best I could." That may not be enough.

Since the convesation has turned form the intent of this dialogue, I will lock it up and wait for the next example of officials getting together to help each other get the call right. Until then, I hope that we are starting to see that while we take great pride in our training and abilities, there are always times when we need an assist. Some times we can take advantage of it, other times we are left holding the bag.