Should I Overrule the BU?

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Matthew F


This stitch happened 5 years ago before the "Get it right at all costs" mentality really took hold - we did go for "help" on check-swings and swipe-tags or a pulled-foot at 1B, but that was pretty much the extent.

The concept of "get the call right at all costs" has come into prevalence because of TV and the CONSTANT replay in Super Slo Mo of a given play.

It's funny in that ESPN or any other network will show an Umpire's miscue Over/Over and Over again but they do not show the Zillion or so calls that they got correct because it doesn't make for good TV.

I realize it's outdated and probably doesn't apply anymore but IMO especially working a 2 person crew Papa C's imfamous Fab V on when calls can be changed should be adhered to. I do not have the link or I would post his FAB V.

In the play described the call belongs to the BU Period. What you think is irrlevant. It's no different then your partner the BU seeing a pitch right down Broadway called a ball. Even though the BU thinks it's a strike again is irrelevant.

MLB has made our lives as amateur umpires more difficult, because as Peter Osborne points out Perception is reality and coaches see umpires on TV huddle whenever a coach ask him to get help.

In a 2 person system, there are calls that belong to the PU and calls that belong to the BU and that's the way it is. Do Not INTERJECT (unless asked to BY YOUR PARTNER), calls that do not belong to you.

In addition the time for "erring out the laundry" is for the POST GAME NOT DURING the game.

Pete Booth

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by Tim C
Most quality umpires don't work NFHS mechanics.

Rich is a quality umpire.

Matt:

I am not playing word games.

You were working a two man crew. Unless you can convince me otherwise, you cannot, that you can seriously think that everything you "see" is correct and your partner could error.

My point is a fact, not "word games", there is no way to define that what you saw was correct.

Therefore there is no overruling of another's judegement calls.

[Edited by Tim C on Jul 28th, 2005 at 10:32 AM]

Tim, that's what I was taught. This was the BU's judgement call and his call stood (regardless of what I saw). This call, however, fell into what Peter calls a "Gross Miss"; It was such a miss, nobody argued - they just laughed about it - both sides. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be about it.

Tim, I guess you have never told your partner that he missed a call after a game? Never told him that his strike zone was a little tight? high? low?


About BU taking a play on R1 at 3B... I think I'll start another thread.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Tim C
Most quality umpires don't work NFHS mechanics.

Rich is a quality umpire.

That is a gross generalization. Many umpires around here only use NF mechanics and they are much better than I am. Maybe that is the case where you live, but some umpires only know NF mechanics and nothing else.

Peace

[bluezebra]

"The defense then appeals to me and I tell them that the call is the BU's and that I had to get into position for the play at 3B - the BU's call stands."

The ONLY thing you say to the defense is, "It's HIS call". If they don't know how to ask the BU to ask you (PU) for your opinion, tough noogies.

"I know without a doubt that R2 left early - I think the only person on or near the field who didn't know it was the BU. The UIC of the umpire association said I did the right thing, which provided some relief."

Your UIC should have reminded you how to treat this situation.

"Should I Overrule the BU?"

By rule, you CAN'T.

Bob


[Edited by bluezebra on Jul 29th, 2005 at 02:23 AM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by Tim C
Most quality umpires don't work NFHS mechanics.

Rich is a quality umpire.

Matt:

I am not playing word games.

You were working a two man crew. Unless you can convince me otherwise, you cannot, that you can seriously think that everything you "see" is correct and your partner could error.

My point is a fact, not "word games", there is no way to define that what you saw was correct.

Therefore there is no overruling of another's judegement calls.

[Edited by Tim C on Jul 28th, 2005 at 10:32 AM]

The NFHS mechanics manual comes to me every other year, I see that they STILL have the PU cover third on a bases loaded triple, and I throw it in the trash. Call it my litmus test.

Besides that one play, the manual is lacking in other areas -- this being one of them. It is, without a doubt, the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. I'm glad to see some states moving from it (actually, I have yet to run into a good umpire that doesn't use PRO or CCA mechanics) officially.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


Besides that one play, the manual is lacking in other areas -- this being one of them. It is, without a doubt, the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. I'm glad to see some states moving from it (actually, I have yet to run into a good umpire that doesn't use PRO or CCA mechanics) officially.

Likewise, I have yet to run into a quality umpire who uses FED mechanics. They all use PRO or CCA. Rut mentioned that some umpires in Chicago use FED, but with their incessant Internet bickering Chicago umpires proved their lack of quality long ago.

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by Matthew F
I don't really understand why you are chosing to play word games Tim? I guess there has never been a "Blown Call" in the history of baseball? So, I guess I'm not "getting it". I do understand that there is only one "official" version of what happened, if that's what you are trying to say.

If it makes you happy... The BU's "view" was that R2 did not leave early. Everybody else's "view" was that R2 left early. The ONLY view that mattered was the BU's. That was my point 5 years ago and I was just curious if that's still true in this "Get it right" era that we appear to be in.

Matthew - you ARE completely missing the point.

We aren't saying "BU's bad call is the only view that mattered." We're saying that BU was in the right position to make the call, and in a better position than ANYBODY ELSE. We're not saying his call was right because it was his call to make. We're saying that in all likelihood, his call was right because it WAS RIGHT, and everyone else's was wrong.

Even if you "saw" something different, you were not in position to see it better than BU. BU was. THE POINT is that just because you saw it differently from him doesn't make your call "more right" than his, and in all likelihood, his call was right, and yours was wrong.

[Matthew F]

YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT! I was there and unless you have some psychic abilities I'm not aware of, you are in no position to contradict me. This was not a bang-bang play; it was not a close play; it was not a case of R2 "possibly" leaving a tad too early.

You are correct in saying BU had the best position and view of the call. You are correct in saying BU's position was better than mine. However, when I, in said "poor" position, clearly see the runner take at least two running steps (ie. at LEAST 6-7 feet from 2B) before F8's glove touched the ball, he left early. When I say "everybody" knew it, I mean it literally, not figuratively.

I'm sorry if you find it hard to believe me, but it was a blown call - not even close.

[mcrowder]

Point completely missed again.

Umpire A is in the correct position to make a call, sees what he sees, and calls one thing. Umpire B is not in correct position, and is 90 feet further from the play than Umpire B. B sees something different, and feels A blew the call. Who is most likely right?

Him.

Had you discussed this with him after the game, you might find him saying that your version of the events were as bad as you are now saying his version was.

(Also --- when you saw the runner 6 feet off the bag, how did you also see the catch? From your angle, this play was peripheral to your line of sight on the runner (or were you looking at the catch and THEN the runner?))

[DG]

The question has been answered, several times. The person who asked it does not like the answer. It is pointless to continue this discussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle

Likewise, I have yet to run into a quality umpire who uses FED mechanics. They all use PRO or CCA. Rut mentioned that some umpires in Chicago use FED, but with their incessant Internet bickering Chicago umpires proved their lack of quality long ago.

You reading skills really need to improve. I never mentioned Chicago or referenced an area in my comments. I have worked in two different states and worked in and outside of the area I currently live. For the record the mechanics that the IHSA uses are a combination of NF and many CCA philosophies.

I have also yet to see anything from the NF or NCAA that is drastically different from each other. The CCA books go into much more detail and give many different plays and situations to adhere to. NEWSFLASH!!!!! That happens in all the sports I work.

Peace

[LMan]

Originally posted by DG
The question has been answered, several times. The person who asked it does not like the answer. It is pointless to continue this discussion.

Amen, preach on, brutha.....

[Rich]

Originally posted by JRutledge

You reading skills really need to improve. I never mentioned Chicago or referenced an area in my comments. I have worked in two different states and worked in and outside of the area I currently live. For the record the mechanics that the IHSA uses are a combination of NF and many CCA philosophies.

I have also yet to see anything from the NF or NCAA that is drastically different from each other. The CCA books go into much more detail and give many different plays and situations to adhere to. NEWSFLASH!!!!! That happens in all the sports I work.

Peace

There are some very basic coverage differences between CCA mechanics and NFHS mechanics. All, ALL of the NFHS differences are completely stupid.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


There are some very basic coverage differences between CCA mechanics and NFHS mechanics. All, ALL of the NFHS differences are completely stupid.

I agree. I was just saying the differences are not earth shattering. And if I watched umpires working, I would hardly notice they were using a very specific NF or CCA mechanic. It is not like basketball or football where the differences are glaring.

Peace

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Point completely missed again.

Umpire A is in the correct position to make a call, sees what he sees, and calls one thing. Umpire B is not in correct position, and is 90 feet further from the play than Umpire B. B sees something different, and feels A blew the call. Who is most likely right?

Him.

Had you discussed this with him after the game, you might find him saying that your version of the events were as bad as you are now saying his version was.

(Also --- when you saw the runner 6 feet off the bag, how did you also see the catch? From your angle, this play was peripheral to your line of sight on the runner (or were you looking at the catch and THEN the runner?))

Generally, you are correct - closer and better angle almost always gets the call correct. But it you can comprehend this, IT WAS A BLOWN CALL. If you choose not to believe me, so be it. It must surely be a blessing to never have a partner blow a call or miss a ball/strike.

I did discuss the call with my partner after the game and he just shrugged it off and basically said, "Oh well, I guess I missed one." And I think he even brought the play up before I said anything to him.

Do me a favor. Next time you visit a ballfield, stand about 25 feet from 3B (towards home) and take a look at 2B. F8 caught the ball at about 250' (300' field) to the right of center. I seriously hope that being able to see the catch and R2 is within your capabilities.