After reading some of the posts, I think we are all forgetting something. One of the most important things to consider on this play (and all plays for that matter) is the "division of responsibility". This is one of the main things that separate experienced and inexperienced umpires.

On this particular play (regarless if it's 2,3,4 or 6 man mechanics) U1's primary responsibility is safe/out call and the tag/no tag call at first base. The PU's primary responsibility is to trail the play at first and watch for running lane infractions and interference/obstruction calls.

With that said, the reality of that play was it was supposed to be a routine field and flip from the pitcher to the firstbaseman. The play obviously blew up into something totally different. Marsh's primary respnsibility on that was to see if there was a tag or not. In my opinion, the correct mechanic should have been to signal safe and vocalize "No tag" because it was not a legal tag (I've never heard of "no ball"). West, on the other hand, had nothing else to do on that play but to follow it up the first base line and look for the interference/obstruction. He is the one who should have banged the interference call immediately because he had the best look at A-Rod slapping the ball out of the glove.

Don't you guys think it's unfair to ask Marsh to be responsible for calling tag/no tag as well as interference/obstruction. After all, why have the plate umpire trail the play if he's not going to call anything? Personally, umpire pride wants us to get in the best angle to see the entire play and make the call by ourself. But the reality is we can't see all the angles of the play at one time. That's why we have "division of responsibilites" on the field - each umpire know's what to look for/at on any particular play.

Ofcourse, hindsight is 20/20 and while they may not have umpired that play by the book, atleast they did what the league asks of them - that is to get together and get the play right... and that they did. Personally, if West did what he was supposed to do, we wouldn't have had a 5 page discussion on this play. But as I said earlier, West sucked it up and went to Marsh and they got it right. Sometimes, it may not look pretty but they got the job done in the end. Just my amateur opinion.

I agree........Why does the plate guy move up the line anyway....for his health. He/she should be lookin' for odd
stuff, like Sal listed. It may of looked better if Joe immediately called time, got Marsh, gave him the run-down, and made the call. They got the call right anyway, IMO.
Chris....oh BTW, http://www.wasupply.com has the new Reebok Vero turf shoe for $35.00!!! CHEAP!. The shoe reminds me of the Pro-Hex Trainer. I picked up a pair and they are nice!

Sal,
I'm fairly certain that this was my contention for the last month. We may differ of the vocalization ("No ball." versus "No tag"), but the thought remains the same. There is a reason why six officials are assigned to those games. The more eyes the better. West was doing what we teach first year guys to do...trail the play and be ready for something out of the ordinary.


BTW, the reason they teach "No Ball" instead of "No Tag" in school is because "No Tag" is the same as "Safe". If the player wasn't tagged by the ball before he gained the bag, he is "Safe". By saying "No Ball." You recognize that the defender did not have possession and control when he tagged him. For the play in question, of course he tagged him. Contact between the defender and offender caused the ball to come lose, so we KNOW their was contact between the mitt and offender. They might not teach it that way in your area, but if there is a tag, then we have an optional call. If their is no tag, you may not even have to make a call; not on this play but we know which ones require calls.

<i> Originally posted by Sal Giaco </i>

<b> After reading some of the posts, I think we are all forgetting something. One of the most important things to consider on this play (and all plays for that matter) is the "division of responsibility". This is one of the main things that separate experienced and inexperienced umpires.

On this particular play (regarless if it's 2,3,4 or 6 man mechanics) U1's primary responsibility is safe/out call and the tag/no tag call at first base. The PU's primary responsibility is to trail the play at first and watch for running lane infractions and interference/obstruction calls.

With that said, the reality of that play was it was supposed to be a routine field and flip from the pitcher to the firstbaseman. The play obviously blew up into something totally different. Marsh's primary respnsibility on that was to see if there was a tag or not. In my opinion, the correct mechanic should have been to signal safe and vocalize "No tag" because it was not a legal tag (I've never heard of "no ball"). West, on the other hand, had nothing else to do on that play but to follow it up the first base line and look for the interference/obstruction. He is the one who should have banged the interference call immediately because he had the best look at A-Rod slapping the ball out of the glove.

Don't you guys think it's unfair to ask Marsh to be responsible for calling tag/no tag as well as interference/obstruction. After all, why have the plate umpire trail the play if he's not going to call anything? Personally, umpire pride wants us to get in the best angle to see the entire play and make the call by ourself. But the reality is we can't see all the angles of the play at one time. That's why we have "division of responsibilites" on the field - each umpire know's what to look for/at on any particular play.

Ofcourse, hindsight is 20/20 and while they may not have umpired that play by the book, atleast they did what the league asks of them - that is to get together and get the play right... and that they did. Personally, if West did what he was supposed to do, we wouldn't have had a 5 page discussion on this play. But as I said earlier, West sucked it up and went to Marsh and they got it right. Sometimes, it may not look pretty but they got the job done in the end. Just my amateur opinion. </b>

Sal in a nutshell I do not pay too much attention to PRO Mechanics because 90-95% of the time I umpire with just ONE partner and the PROS have at a minimum 4.

If I remember the play correctly, there was a man on base, I can't remember which base so the BU in a 2 person system, would either be in "B" or "C".

If the BU is in the "B" position he should have a good angle on the AROD type play because he is right there. If the BU is in "C", then the PU would have the better angle PROVIDED there was no one on third base attemtping to score.

Therefore, in a 2 person system, for the MOST part the umpire that sees the infraction calls it. Utilizing PRO Mechanics can actually hurt you when working 2 man because the responsibilities change dramatically.

Pete Booth

I believe that we have all advocated using the mehanics that befit the level of play and are appropriate to the situation. No one has suggested that in a two man system, with men on base, that the plate umpire would have a perfect view of it. However, he may have glanced over and witnessed the illegal act. In that instance, it behooves the amateur umpire to assist his partner - especially when asked.

They got the call right and that's what matters the most