Rollie's Latest

[GarthB]

In his latest collection of thoughts at officiating.com, Rollie attempts to justify his habit of publicly asking his partners "Would you like to know what I saw?" on close plays by equating it with Dave Yeast's positive comments about a play in which the umpires, without fanfare, without one yelling to the other, get together to get a play right at first.

Either Rollie is being purposefully deceptive in attempting to equate the two methods of getting/giving help, or he really doesn't understand the difference between throwing a partner under the bus and getting the call right.

Getting the call right does not involve calling everyone's attention to you. Getting the call right does not involve announcing to the world that your partner should check with you.

Earlier in this "piece", Rollie intones reasons for umpires to come together and chat between innings: "His purpose is to remind his partner, or even teach him for the first time, how to cover a play."

Well, this may explain somethings. It would seem from this that Rollie is continuing to work with rookies game after game. If that is indeed his experience, I guess that training partners bewteen innings might work for him. For those of us who work with qualified umpires, it doesn't.

Another possible explanation of some of what Rollie writes might be contained in the logo on his cap.

(Edited to add):

Having now read Blaines portion of this point-counterpoint article I see the problem....the two writers are mismatched. They are not writing from the same point of reference so their points/counter points don't align.

One writes from and for the LL frame of mind. The other writes from and for the experienced upper level 90' diamond frame of mind. There isn't as much a collision of thoughts, there's several near misses. The opinions of the two writers pass each other by without so much as a friendly "howdy".

If you're just starting out at the LL level and want to stay there, trying fighting your way through Rollie's ramblings. If you're experienced at upper levels, or have ambitions to work there, read Blaine.

[Edited by GarthB on Jan 19th, 2006 at 03:22 PM]

[Tim C]

"Rollie intones reasons for umpires to come together and chat between innings . . ."

That would be difficult in my games as I do not speak with my partner between innings unless it has been requested by one of us to speak to a specific issue.

I'll bet that I don't meet with a partner between innings more than 2 or 3 times over a complete season.

Hey GB, the only thing missing from the hat is "you."

Tee



[Edited by Tim C on Jan 19th, 2006 at 04:30 PM]

[jxt127]

I can see a need for new umpires to occasionally talk briefly between innings. Generally to just make sure they are on the same page for a situation that happened. As I learn and grow I find the more experienced blues can teach as they go, we don't need to talk about it between innings.

Personally there's enough to do between innings without having a partner who likes to chat.

The only two conversations I had this year were
1) A funny play at 1st, The BU called safe on what looked to the rest of us like a routine out.
2) A partner who wanted to tell me I could not eject someone for something since the protest committee would overturn it.

[mcrowder]

I think we have definitely reached the point now where the instruction offered by this site (via their avatar Rollie) is not productive in the training of most umpires. Quite frankly, I would not steer newer umpires to read anything posted on the pay-side of the site anymore (or at most, steer them toward Tim, and ask them to read Rollie as a primer on what NOT to do). The "insight" given by this site (via their avatar Rollie) is counterproductive to training umpires.

Quite the embarrassment, actually. And getting worse each month. What's left now... I guess I have to steer my guys toward the error-prone (but at least not counterproductive) Referee Magazine. Yes, they tend to get at least one rule interpretation wrong per month... but at least they aren't trying to teach mechanics that actually make umpires worse.

PS - with the sole exception of very rookie umpires or umpire training scrimmages, I think the most I've said to my partner between innings is, "Jerry, you need a water?"

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by jxt127

Personally there's enough to do between innings without having a partner who likes to chat.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. As an umpire your job is not put on "pause" on the half inning. You still have a job to do whether you're on the dish or in the field. As a PU you need to be out on the foul line counting warm up pitches, checking the card, etc... As a BU you should be out in short right ensuring you have 9 players on the field, and ensuring there are no conflicts between the two teams coming on and off of the field.

Getting together between innings especially after a close or disputed call makes you both look like rookies who are unsure of themselves. The same thing goes for standing on the fence BSing with spectators. Get your butt where it belongs and do your job.

Tim.

[Mike Walsh]

Originally posted by GarthB
In his latest collection of thoughts at officiating.com, Rollie attempts to justify his habit of publicly asking his partners "Would you like to know what I saw?" on close plays by equating it with Dave Yeast's positive comments about a play in which the umpires, without fanfare, without one yelling to the other, get together to get a play right at first.

Either Rollie is being purposefully deceptive in attempting to equate the two methods of getting/giving help, or he really doesn't understand the difference between throwing a partner under the bus and getting the call right.

While I agree with your conclusions, I'm not so sure Rollie was wrong to compare the two. From what I saw of Dave Yeast's description, the PU did step on his partner publicly. Yeast was positive in his analysis, but in part I think it was because Yeast himself did not want to throw the PU under the bus. He was glad to see the call end up correct, but even Yeast said it would have been better if the PU waited to be asked by the BU. And Yeast carefully worded his praise of the PU by limiting it to how well he got down the line.

I am confused about one aspect of the play. It involved a swipe tag at 1st that the base ump missed. The BU ruled safe, and the PU went to him and told him there was a tag. In trying to justify the fact that the PU did not wait to be asked, Yeast says, "I think the best situation would have been to wait for the base umpire to ask him for help. However, #9, the first base coach, would have surely asked the base umpire to go get help"

Did I miss something, or is Dave Yeast really suggesting that the base coach would argue a safe call?

Mike

[BigUmp56]

In the video in question there was little doubt that the PU stepped in and ate his partners lunch on the call. If Yeast didn't want to throw the PU under the bus then he should have found another clip to analyze. I don't see any justification for saying it's acceptable in any way to poach a call like that. The PU was out of line. No way I want to work with a partner who likes to make my calls for me, and in essense that's exactly what he did.

Tim.

[GarthB]

Unless I'm looking at the wrong clip, although PU went to the BU, there was no prior announcement for all to hear.

And I agree, one part Rollie left out was that Yeast, while praising getting the call right recommended that it be handled differently. But an accurate reporting of the events would not have supported Rollie's point.

One wonders if Officiating.com needs a fact checker to help prevent deliberate deception in its articles.

[Edited by GarthB on Jan 19th, 2006 at 11:21 PM]

[Tim C]

I have an e-mail from Yeast, Garth, that says exactly what you intone. He says he "wishes" he had a better clip and he ALWAYS points out that the PU should have waited until asked.

Two things tht have been accredited to Yeast that I found "not quite true":

The above referenced clip and his reaction and,

A bogus report that last spring during a college clinic Yeast told umpires to "Balk" a hidden ball play after a dead ball as soon as they found out the incorrectly put the ball into play. The post on this site went on to say that Yeast said: "They were trying to show the umpires up . . . balk'em for that!"

-------------------------------------------------

Note:

Tim:

In 99.9% of the situations I don’t think a coach should be near a conversation of this type between umpires. In the situation on the video I would have preferred the coach not be involved by it was quick and did not cause a problem.

Dave

Dave Yeast
National Coordinator of Baseball Umpires
572 Oak Valley Dr.
Frontenac, MO 63131

And:

Tim

In response to your question concerning Dave's comment to a group in Texas:

I am certain Dave's words were misinterpreted. As you well know, umpires should never react in that manner to a player or coach and Dave would never suggest any type of retaliation be a part of an umpire's enforcement.

Please continue to instruct your umpires in this manner as far as the NCAA rules are concerned.

"When the umpire realizes his mistake of putting the ball into play improperly, he should rectify his mistake because we all know that a ball cannot be made live until all the proper elements are in place; the pitcher, with the ball, gets on the rubber, the batter assumes his normal position in the batter's box and the catcher is within the lines of the catcher's box."

Neither team should ever be put in a position of disadvantage because of an umpire's mistake. Whenever possible, the umpire must take whatever steps needed to correct his error. It will take some explanation to both managers and in your words, " a do over" would be the appropriate way to handle the error.

I hope this clarifies this situation for you.

Jim Paronto
Secretary Editor
-------------------------------------------------

Tee

[Kaliix]

After having viewed the NCAA Video Bulletin #6 I have a question. What happens if the 1st base umpire doesn't ask for help? As the plate umpire what do you do?

What do you do if the defensive coach starts vehemently arguing with the BU about the swipe tag? Do you the PU, knowing you clearly saw a tag and will have an out when asked just let the argument escalate? If the BU has your information, a $h!thouse could possibly be avoided and the right call made.

I am not sure I understand why you as the PU must wait to be asked to give the information you have, particularly when a swipe tag is one of the reasons you trail up the line in the first place.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I am just trying to understand the logic behind waiting to be asked on this particular play?

[Tim C]

I always ask the following:

What makes that (the other umpire) correct. What if he is the "Smitty" - - what makes an umpire "not involved" any more right than the calling umpire?

I really don't care about angle, distance and pecking order . . . my question remains:

"What makes what the "other umpire" sees CORRECT?"

I agree the information could be different, I just ask, "why is it deemed "CORRECT?"

Tee

[Kaliix]

Well Tim, if we are talking purely hypothetically then there really is nothing that says that one umpire sees is correct. And if we talked about it in theory, or hypothetically, then we really have no where to go.

However in practice, there are times when we know that we, as the other umpire have seen something that our partner has not. Two examples illustrate this. The swipe tag call on NCAA Video Bulletin #6 and the A-Rod interference play in the playoffs a couple of years ago. In both of these instances, the PU was doing his job and trailing the play, looking exactly where he is supposed to be and he sees either a swipe tag (NCAA) or interference (A-Rod). In both instances, the PU saw information that the BU, by the way the play developed, could not see.

The PU in both cases, correctly viewed the play and had the right call, unlike his partner. It should be noted that in both instances, replay clearly shows the information that the PU has is correct.

So the question remains, what do you as the PU do with the information you have, particularly if your partner doesn't come to you for help and/or if a firestorm is starting to erupt.

Do you approach unsolicited and if so, how?

It should be noted that a couple months earlier, I posted about a play in which I screwed the pooch on a pulled foot at first, my partner confirming that he was 100% certain that F3's foot was clearly off the bag. Yet he didn't give his information and an obviously blown call that was correctable was left on the table.

I honestly wish there was some protocol in place so that the call could have been corrected. I also want to know how to handle such a call in the future if I am the one that is 100% certain that my partner missed a call because he got straight-lined and I have information to give.

I am looking for solid advice from the senior umpires on this board as to how to handle one of the most delicate situations that we as umpires have to face. My quote below was never more applicable.

[mcrowder]

One solution is to not get straightlined.

The next best is to know when you've been straightlined - and don't be too arrogant to ask for help when it happens. The phantom tag in the NLCS at 2nd base is a perfect example of this. The umpire HAD to know that despite the fact that he called an out, he did not actually see a tag. There should be nothing wrong with asking for help on an odd-angle play like this in situations where it's correctable.

The WORST thing, to my mind, would be an umpire 90 feet away interjecting himself when he wasn't asked. Like Tim said, what makes that guy "right". If two guys see something differently, my money is on the guy on the spot, not the guy 90 feet away. You infer that you've had situations where you KNOW, from 90 feet away, that partner botched a pulled foot. Now switch bodies - you are BU and you KNOW that the ball got there before the foot was pulled. Joe PU, from 90 feet away, disagrees with you, but you know what you saw. Who is right? Again, my money is on BU, with the proviso that he is not too arrogant to ask for help when he DOESN'T know what he saw. (In other words, if he's the type that WILL ask for help on those 1-2 times a year that he's straightlined, then if he DOESN'T ask for help, then he is sure of what he's calling, and I trust him first, ahead of PU).

PS - I think the ARod situation is different. Interference (or OBS) is not necessarily one person's call. It's more like football - whoever sees it calls it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Do you approach unsolicited and if so, how?

Generally, eye contact and a step or two toward the partner at the time of the contact will convey that there's information to add.

[David B]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Well Tim, if we are talking purely hypothetically then there really is nothing that says that one umpire sees is correct. And if we talked about it in theory, or hypothetically, then we really have no where to go.

However in practice, there are times when we know that we, as the other umpire have seen something that our partner has not. Two examples illustrate this. The swipe tag call on NCAA Video Bulletin #6 and the A-Rod interference play in the playoffs a couple of years ago. In both of these instances, the PU was doing his job and trailing the play, looking exactly where he is supposed to be and he sees either a swipe tag (NCAA) or interference (A-Rod). In both instances, the PU saw information that the BU, by the way the play developed, could not see.

The PU in both cases, correctly viewed the play and had the right call, unlike his partner. It should be noted that in both instances, replay clearly shows the information that the PU has is correct.

So the question remains, what do you as the PU do with the information you have, particularly if your partner doesn't come to you for help and/or if a firestorm is starting to erupt.

Do you approach unsolicited and if so, how?

It should be noted that a couple months earlier, I posted about a play in which I screwed the pooch on a pulled foot at first, my partner confirming that he was 100% certain that F3's foot was clearly off the bag. Yet he didn't give his information and an obviously blown call that was correctable was left on the table.

I honestly wish there was some protocol in place so that the call could have been corrected. I also want to know how to handle such a call in the future if I am the one that is 100% certain that my partner missed a call because he got straight-lined and I have information to give.

I am looking for solid advice from the senior umpires on this board as to how to handle one of the most delicate situations that we as umpires have to face. My quote below was never more applicable.

Good communication really can only come from working with someone several times and then several years - however, when working with advanced "senior" partners If I have nothing to add I'm heading back to home.

If I have something to add I will usually just stand my ground, give eye to eye communication and see if they need any help.

But I'm not offering anything unless I'm asked and then its going to be officials only, no coaches even within earshot.

Thanks
David