In some recent threads, the issue of concurrent jurisdiction has come up; BU has the right, and should make calls concerning the batter. Examples are batter is hit by a pitch, and a foul ball off the batter's foot. If BU sees these and PU doesn't, BU should make the call. These are instances where the ball is dead. Is this the key for concurrent jurisdiction?

What other situations concerning the batter call for concurrent jurisdiction? Another possible situation that comes to mind is catcher's interference. When I was coaching, bottom of last inning. We're behind by 1. R1 and R2, 2 outs, 2 strikes. 2nd in batting order is batting, my 3rd batter has already had 3 hits in the game. Batter swings, knocks the glove off the catcher's hand, PU calls strike 3. Of course I say something; PU says he did not see interference. I ask him to check BU, and he says he can't do this. After the game, both umpires admit there was interference. Could PU have legally checked with BU? or could BU have volunteered the information?

Another example is a ball in the dirt on third strike. PU may not have realized the pitch hit the dirt before the catcher gloved it. Should BU volunteer the call in this situation?

Ed:

When is your book coming out?

I teach "concurrent jurisdiction" for all of these events for umpires of amateur games.

The trickiest one, where likely I'll get static here, is the catcher's interference call. The only time I think that's really concurrent is when a vastly senior official is perhaps training a young rookie. Otherwise, that event probably comes under the rubric of OBR 9.04(a) 1.

However, if the PU in your situation admitted later there was interference, then he needs a transplant of "guts." When you came out to point him in the right direction, if he had any, he would have made the proper call and taken the inevitable heat from another coach, who BTW, <b>also</b> saw the interference but won't for a second let the truth stand in his way.

You see, that's why officials have "problems" with coaches. Most coaches will argue an umpire's <b>reversed</b> call, even if they <b>know</b> the umpire now has made the right decision. If an umpire did things like that, he would be called unethical. When a manager does it, he's being a gamer, standing up for his kids, yadda yadda.

Ed
One little trick I picked up at Cooperstown Dreams Park, from Chuck Frey down Florida way, for the dropped third strike. If the BU would simply point down to the ground with his right hand for a dropped third strike or signal a safe catch by simply making a fist. (since your hands are hanging at your sides anyway it is really quite unnoticeable (sp). A quick glance down the line if you are the PU and you have your answer. Very slick indeed.

What's the secret?
 

Or the base umpire could simply signal "safe" - that way everybody in the park, including the batter, knows the pitch was uncaught.

Rich

Re: What's the secret?
 

Ty and Rich:

I first made that proposal in my association in -- I believe -- 1987 after a screw-up on a catch/no catch on a third strike in the NCAA World Series in a game involving Stanford. (I'm too lazy to go back and check the records for the exact year.) I taught it to the assembled Texas state clinicians in 1989. I know that because I see it in the Clinic Manual. In a multiple crew, I taught that the appropriate base umpire should make the signal: left-handed batter, U3; right-handed, U1.

My association still uses the mechanic. To my knowledge, we've never had a complaint.

But why <b>would</b> anyone complain? Signalling "safe" or "out" is <b>something umpires do anyway</b> as a matter of course.

So my point has always been: Which official in a two-man crew is <b>most likely</b> to view the catch in flight of a third strike?

I note that PBUC is now teaching the technique to professional umpires. They've assigned the signal to the plate umpire, which is not the best (IMO), but it's at least a start down the right road.