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.

Over 40 league, OBR. R2 on 2B, 1 out. BR hit a deep fly to F8. BU in position for catch and tag up; I'm moving to 3B for possible play. R2 leaves before F8 catches the ball and beats the throw to 3B easily. Defense appeals to BU, but BU calls him safe. 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.

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.

Granted this happened several years ago, should a stich like this, nowadays, be discussed between the umpires to get the correct call? I find this stitch akin to having the PU call a strike on a check swing and then the BU overruling the PU saying that the batter didn't go - taboo in my world.

On a side note: In my world, the base umpire would have everything on this play, including the play at third (unless there was also an R1).

I would never, NEVER insert my own opinion unless the base umpire came to me. It's not my call, not my judgement to make.

Hey,
 

Rich, in "all worlds" BU has the entire play.

Catch, tag, advance and call.

All mechanic books agree on this "non-rotation".

And to answer the original question: "what makes what you saw correct?"

I ask this everytime someone wants to find an excuse to "over-rule" another umpire.

Maybe, just maybe it was you that saw it incorrectly.

I would never over-rule a partner at any time on a judgement call.

It just ain't done.

First of all Matt, this ""Get it right at all costs" mentality " is based on the premise that we are starting with competent officials that based upon the information available, WILL get the call right in almost EVERY instance.

When due to circumstances beyond their control, they are not able to get all the information necessary to make the correct decision, then they should be knowedgeable enough to ask for help.

I agree, this is different than the mentality that previously took place, and that was "this is my call, too bad, live with it."

Now you have already been schooled on the correct mechanic by Tim and Rich. If your partner was not knowledgeable to realize his discision was incorrect, than your stuck with what you got.

This post is bizarre on many levels

You had to go back FIVE years to come up with a "stitch"... what have you been waiting for? We could have heard about this 2.5 years ago, for example.

As mentioned by others... PU has no business at third.. BU has everthing.. but LETS ASSUME you meant to say R1 and R2.. then at least your story is mechanically sound.

So.. you already SAID BU was in position for catch and tagup... we assume then that he KNEW he was supposed to see both of these...

Therefore.. the appeal made, and the proper umpire ruled, "SAFE" (he tagged up). Can we assume he ruled as such because that is what he SAW?

What in the world are you having a conversation with the team about "your positioning". They CAN'T appeal to you, and when they do you can say "B# me, or some other nicety."

Did BU come to you for "help" (The sun was in my eyes).

And please identify where in the country we have BU's overruling strike calls on appeal? Wait, that part of the post WAS the joke, right?

I agree 100% with Tee.

The only time there would be an exception is if the BU did not see the tag (meaning: wasn't watching the tag or paying attention to it or had his back to it). Even then, the BU would have to ask the PU if he seen anything to "get help."

You can't overturn a judgement call. Period.

Matt - the biggest problem I have with this is the implication that for some reason, despite your acknowledgement that BU WAS in position, you feel that YOUR viewpoint (from 90 feet away) and/or the viewpoints of "everyone else" (from 120-200 feet away) must inherently have been "better" than the viewpoint of BU --- who, again, was IN position, and had a BETTER view than ANYONE else on the field (except perhaps an admittedly biased F8!)

If he WAS in position, why do you assume your view of the play was different. Heck, since you moved yourself OUT of position (to 3rd base), you had an AWFUL angle on both catch and tag at the same time - you have a better time convincing me of your view from home plate or the working area in front of the plate - at least your angle is in line.

Sorry to come off hard on this... I just hate when someone in an inherently WORSE position to make a call finds it in them to assume that their view of a particular play is somehow better than the person in the BETTER position.

I don't care about rotation or non rotation in this stitch.
My partner is right where he should be and I'm 90' away. Why in the world would I want to over-rule him? This "get it right - let's all over-rule each other - I saw it better than you" is getting to be real BS!

Thanks for the replies guys - you regained my faith that getting it right doesn't mean at all costs. I'm in full agreement that one shouldn't overrule his partner on judgement calls (even obviously blown judgement calls) without your partner coming to you for help. It just seems this board had gone a little "wacko" lately with the judgment calls and I wanted to take a pulse.

1) MikeBran, I brought this stitch up because lately there have been stitches talked about involving appeals - I just wanted to test this one out, at this time.

2) All you guys about my mechanics, Well that's what the organization did several years ago (right or wrong) with a fly ball to RCF-RF. The PU also picked up a possible 2nd play at 3B on an infield ground ball with R2 on since the BU drifted with the play to 1B. The orginization I'm with now has the BU working the "box" behind the pitcher (minor movement for angle and pivoting) and pretty much has all plays except R1 going to 3B. I like how we do things now since we aren't moving as much and we are set for the play.

3) Those questioning whether I saw R2 leaving early - You might find this hard to believe, but it was soooo obvious (at least 2 steps) - it was a blown call, plain and simple. And I'm dead serious that just about everyone at the field knew it.

4) I thought this would be a healthy diversion from some of the other posts that were occupying forum space - at least something I thought we all would probably agree on ...except my mechanics. :p

LISTEN:
 

Matt you still don't "get it" . . . there is NO PROOF what you saw is accurate.

That is why the rule is written as it is . . . no one umpire can be assured that what he saw was what really happened.

Think about what I am saying . . .

It Does not matter that you think "it wasn't even close" . . .

That is simply your view.

Re: LISTEN:
 

Actually, there is something fairly close to proof that Matthew was right and his partner who made the call was wrong and I'm not talking about videotape either.

In my very first umpire article which I believe was about 10,000 words and still over on umpire.org, I put forward the proposition that the goal of an umpire should be changed from getting more calls right to avoiding getting calls wrong in such a way that everyone knew they were wrong. In other words, the umpire that misses 20 pitches a game by one or two inches is better than the umpire who misses three pitches a game - but those misses are by 6 inches so everyone knows that they are misses. I called this concept the "gross miss." Carl has since called it my most important contribution to the advancement of umpire knowledge.

Given that perception is reality, where does this leave Matthew. Simply this. In the same article, I made the observation that the best way to identify a gross miss is to look in the dugout of the team that the call went in favor of. If they are smiling or have a look of disbelief on their faces, you have a gross miss. So Matthew does have a way of knowing that his partner was wrong. If he had glanced in the dugout of the batting team, their faces would have told him that he was right and his partner had a gross miss. If the team that the call went in favor of perceives that you are wrong, THEN YOU ARE WRONG 100%. You have your proof.

Gross misses are caused by being close to plays. We get close to plays to see the little things, but in the process the play sometimes explodes or we fail to see the whole picture. People 45 feet or more from a play, almost never make a gross miss. Gross errors in judgment are the exclusive territory of the calling umpire, the batter on balls and strikes, the runner being tagged out, or the fielder making the play. The other umpires, the personnel in the dugout, and the fielders not involved in the play, do not have gross misses. That is fairly solid information that Matthew was probably correct in his judgment.

Peter

Re: LISTEN:
 

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.

Rich,

The NFHS umpires manual says that U1 has the call at 3rd unless he goes out to rule on a fly to right. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
MJ

Yeah,
 

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]

Re: Yeah,
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tim C
[B]Most quality umpires don't work NFHS mechanics.

Rich is a quality umpire.


I totally agree, that is why I asked.

<i> Originally posted by Matthew F </i>


<b> 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. </b>

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

Re: Yeah,
 

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.

Re: Yeah,
 

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

"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]

Re: Yeah,
 

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.

Re: Re: Yeah,
 

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.

Re: Re: LISTEN:
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: LISTEN:
 

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.

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?))

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

Re: Re: Re: Yeah,
 

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

Amen, preach on, brutha.....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah,
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah,
 

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

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.

Well
 

Matthew:

We aren't saying it wasn't a BLOWN CALL . . .

What we are saying is that you can't testify that what you saw was correct.

Let's reverse this . . .

What if SMITTY says YOU missed the call because he SAW IT DIFFERENTLY! And then he reverses your call (which you know you got correct).

Do you understand this at all?

I know, you don't want to join in the logic parade, and that is why after 20 years of umpiring you will have one year of experience 20 times.

Re: Well
 

Reverse it?!?!

Smitty can't do that. I didn't do that then and I don't plan on doing that now. I simply advanced the question because of late, we have seen and heard a lot of "got to get it right". I'm in firm belief that the call my BU made was BLOWN, but I'm also in firm belief that his judgement call STANDS. If he comes to me for help, I'll give my opinion (in private), but it's still his call.

When you guys say the PU can't reverse a BU's judgement call because he saw the play different, I'm in agreement, 100%.

If I'm relegated to 20, 1-year of experiences because I notice what goes on field, learn from those mistakes (mine and others), make adjustments and yes, even entertain different mechanics to improve performance, then so be it - at least I'll be eligible for rookie of the year 20 times. :D

Yet another example of you completely missing the point.

I choose to stop beating my head against this rock.

WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM!

I can say the same thing about you and your comments.

Get over the god complex - blown calls do exists. Appealed properly and if, and only if, the umpire making the original call chooses to change his call, they can be corrected.

I guess it's pretty useless to go to you on an appeal for a pulled-foot or swipe-tag, since you definitely couldn't get the call right - being so far from the play. Maybe a check-swing, but then again, that's doubtful since you would be "90 feet further from the play" since that's one of your criteria for not being able to see "the right call".

Two thirds of this post is taken up by this irrelevant nonsense and I'm sorry to the people who read through this crap. The question posted was answered by the first few replies - thanks guys. It then went south with nonsense very quickly.

Matt;

The posters here are big dogging you. This is their way of putting little dogs in their place and you are definitely a little dog. Your original post posed a question which is legitimate and which I reprinted above since most posters seemed to have forgotten it in their attempt to put you in your place.

10 years ago, the BU would have to live with the call and you did the right thing in making him suck it up. Today, depending on the circumstances, you can get away with a conference and change the call.

Yes, you can be reasonably sure that your partner screwed the pooch. In my first post, I described methods by which you could be certain. If you believe that the team in whose favor the call went does not believe the call was correct, that is a good time to get together with your partner and have a discussion. Make him be the one to change it however and get ready for an ejection depending on how you handle it.

When you decide to make a change, go over to the coach that the call will go against and explain the change to him before you announce it. I have never seen this bit of diplomacy fail to defuse the situation. Ejections have never been necessary.

The tag up play is one type of call that is best seen from a distance. A bigger field of vision is critical to getting this kind of call right. Regrettably, umpires are so hung up on mouthing pro-school pabulum, that they fail to experiment with and to investigate ways of bettering their games. I doubt that there are more that a handful of umpires out there that realize that there are several types of calls that can better be seen from 45 or more feet. Since this runs counter to established dogma, their brains do not allow them to consider the possibility.

Peter

Matt,
I see what you are saying. I don't see what mcrowder is beating his head for???

I was not going to respond anymore, but am being dragged back in kicking and screaming. I'll make one more attempt to make my point. First let me assure you that I get YOUR point. I'm not obtuse - your point is that calls are blown (true) and that there was no question this one was blown (this is where I have issue).

Second, let me reiterate that there are cases where someone 90 feet away DOES have a better view (usually because of angle). Check swing, pulled foot, swipe tag, etc. Perfect examples of that, and I fail to understand why you felt I could not make these calls when called upon to do so.

Third, not sure where I drew such ire from you. I've been completely civil here trying to explain my point, where you've been nothing but hostile. Completely undeserved, IMHO.

Now - my point. For the last time, I hope.

Yes, calls are blown. Often because an umpire was out of position (whether because of his own mistake or because the fielder's went somewhere he didn't expect with the ball). Often because of poor knowledge of the rules.

But in this case, you STARTED by telling us he was in the right position. He made a call, from a good position. You seem to be under the impression, for some reason, that since you saw something different than he did, from an admittedly poorer position, that YOUR viewpoint was correct and his was wrong. (Please don't use input from the offended coach/fans as "proof" or even "supporting evidence" that your viewpoint was right - I think we all know where a coach's viewpoint comes from.) That's where I have the problem. Why do you assume, solely because you saw something he didn't, that you are right, when you admit his positioning was better than yours. It baffles me. You say the call was obviously blown. Had this been your call, he would probably feel that your call was obviously blown, since he saw something that caused him to rule the way he ruled. I'll ask it simply... What Makes You Right?

Agreed,
 

mcrowder is saying exactly the same thing.

Let's ignore for a second HHH's tremendous broad brush (that is his "gig" and that is what he tries to sell) and silly post:

All some of us have asked is how do you know what you saw is correct?

Ignore the bench reactions, ignore Pete's silly retoric --

AS noted your partner was in position and he just saw something different than you -- again what makes what you saw correct?

What if you're the "Smitty" and not your pard?

Peter:

Most of us recognize far more in umpiring than you give credit. Your attempt to lift up the "small dog" becomes tiring after awhile.

T

Sorry.

What makes my judgement right? Absolutely nothing.
What makes my judgement wrong? Absolutely nothing.

You had to be there to see, that's pretty much it.

Fastball comes in a PU's eyes, he blinks/moves, batter swings and catcher comes up; PU calls ball (Don't laugh - seen it happen). Fortunately, after a little defensive banter, PU came to me on that one.

(edit: added questions)
TimC and mcrowder: What do you do if the PU doesn't come to you for help? What do you do if the PU does come to you for help.


It's not that "he saw something that caused him to rule the way he did", it something he didn't see that caused him to rule the way he did.

[Edited by Matthew F on Aug 2nd, 2005 at 01:09 PM]

"What do you do if the PU doesn't come to you for help?"

Nothing.

"What do you do if the PU does come to you for help."

Give him the "He Swung" sign, just like it was a check-swing appeal.

Not sure this applies at all, as PU is asking in this case, and BU was not in the original.

That's my case!

BU didn't come to me, I did nothing.

If BU had come to me, I would have said he left early.

How do you know that the batter really swung? How did I know the runner left early?

Your case for what?

I don't think anyone was saying your ACTIONS were wrong at the time... just your assumption that since you thought he blew the call, then obviously he blew the call.

(Note that if he'd come to you, then in my opinion he, himself, felt that he had missed something, which changes EVERYthing in my previous posts. Since he didn't, not only does his call "stand", but further I'm inclined to assume he did NOT, in fact, blow the call.)

So (using the example of my previous post) if the PU doesn't come to you, you say the ball call stands - we agree.

If the PU doesn't come to you, does that mean you didn't actually see the batter swing the bat? By your logic, that batter's swing didn't happen!?!?! Yet, you would have said "He Swung" had the PU asked for help. Can't have it both ways!

Just because one umpire makes a judgement call and doesn't ask for help, doesn't mean it's the correct call; it just means it's the call that stands on that play.

Reminds me of a story I was read when I was a child about Little Black Sambo and the tigers. The tigers ended up chasing each other around a tree until they turned into butter. Maybe it's the going round in circles part that reminds me of this childhood story.

quick, grab the happy sock
 

this has turned into mental masturbation...or even better, one of Roland's articles. :D