Umpire Call Changed
 

The base umpire makes an OUT call on the basepath from home to first, the homplate umpire overules his call and calls him safe. Can the homeplate umpire overule the call of the base umpire? If so, Why?

Apparently, he can and did.

Taking you at your word that is was an "overrule", it's not proper, though.

Now, maybe it really was PU's call. In that case, his call would stand. Or, maybe BU asked for help. In that case, it should be BU who changes his call, but the effect is the same.

Could you give us an example of what happen?

Peace

Umpire Call Changed
 

Thanks,
The BU did not ask for help the HU was approached by the team's coach to appeal the call a conference of umpires was called and the call was changed.

This is what happened: A ball was hit to 3rd base, the 3rd baseman threw the ball and took the 1st baseman off the bag, and he then turned and tagged the runner as he passed him by the BU called him out on the tag.

If the call was changed because of lack of vision, I could understand the HU asking if he saw the play, but the BU said he saw the play clearly and the runner was out. What do you think? Should the call stand?

a conference of umpires was called and the call was changed.


Well that's different from what you initially described. It's probably OK in that case as infomation was exchanged and the call revised.

So we have a play at first and the BU made a call and the PU came and "overruled" the original call. Well the PU cannot do unless he wants anarchy. I guess he did it and the call was changed, I just know some umpires that might walk off the field if an umpire did that to his partner.

Peace

PU's are often asked by a coach to talk with his partner because he didn't like his partners call. In your situation I would say something like "It's his call coach."

The coach has to convince my partner to ask me for help. If he does then I tell my partner what I saw BUT I can not change his call. The BU made the call and he has to be the one to change it.

No. It's not OK.

The base umpire made the call. He saw it, he made the call.

The plate umpire was out of line.

If the BU requested a conference then, clearly, he was seeking information. Although it is the BU's responsibility to officially make the reversal - I've seen the other umpire make the reversal plenty of times. Although not technically proper, it is really rather academic if BOTH umpires agree with regards to the reversal.

So, I'm not so sure how "out of line" the PU was. It may have been "wrong" ... but "out of line" has a completely different connotation.

Everybody knows why the call is being reversed - because of the added information provided by the PU. Nobody is being fooled. There's no mystery.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The PU stepped all over his partner here. As soon as the coach came out to PU and tried to discuss the call with the PU, the PU should have immediately told him to go to the umpire who made the call. Then if the BU decided he needed help he can ask for it. After the conference it's still the BU's call to make. Also I'm not sure how you were privy to what was discussed during the conference. If a conference is done using proper decorum, it's to be held away from the coaches and players out of their ear shot.


Tim.

But he didn't. The "assistance" was unsolicited. The plate umpire was out of line. And had he done that to me he would have been told to buzz off.

Memphis, you would think it's OK because you are a rat, and you have demonstrated that you like to throw other umpires under the bus.

Eaaaasy ...

Geez, is somebody not taking their medication?

If the BU didn't call for a conference then, yes, the PU was "out of line."

My gosh, were you sexually abused by your LL coach when you were 10-yrs-old or something? Get some help, man. ;)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

It's entirely possible that BU was a rookie, and didn't know he could ask for help. PU could have simply went to BU after being asked (yes, this is not proper 99% of the time, but if BU was new, this could be the 1%). The conversation could have been, "Did you actually see the tag?" "No I didn't, I was blocked - did you have a better angle?" "Yes, I did, and the tag was missed. Next time, if you aren't positive, it's OK to ask for help after the play is over - you don't have to wait until coach complains." Or something along those lines.

I agree that in NORMAL circumstances, PU should keep his piehole shut unless asked by BU, and BU should be the one changing the call if there is a change to be made. But that doesn't mean that's appropriate in ALL cases. I don't think we have enough info on that.

But since there WAS a conversation between BU and PU, I find it likely that the right call was eventually made, even if it was done clumsily by this crew.

Congratulations. You just tied for the most ignorant response ever made on this forum.

Quite the accomplishment......and not very funny at all btw.

NO.

There was a coach driven conference - information was exchenged between the umpires - the call was changed - legit.

Sorry, Rich. You should know that this is not the proper way to discuss a call. If a coach has a problem with a call he needs to go to the umpire who made the call, not his partner. The PU was out of line by not telling the coach it wasn't his call and that he needed to go discuss the call with the BU first.


Tim.

No, he just naturally expects you to read what was actually said before responding.

I'll be damned if I let a coach drive me to a conference. The PU had no business calling for a conference upon request by the coach. Only the BU should be asking to confer, and then only if he is requesting help. If the BU is so new that he doesn't know to ask for help, and allows the PU to overrule him, he has no business on a baseball diamond yet.

What the heck is a "coach driven conference?"

Then I'll apologize.

I'll only mention that my response was provoked by what cannot be interpreted as anything other than a completely inappropriate shot at myself ... for no particular reason that I can discern from the thread other than this individual's obvious disdain for me. The coach bashing and personal bashing was completely unprovoked, on the other hand. You didn't find that the least bit inappropriate?

Can you tell me what I said that deserved the comment made?

Also - my comment <i>was</i> somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Really? You thought this thread developed in a way where it was obvious as to how the conference was initiated between the two umpires?

I think not.

It has since been made clear, however; but not at the time I made my initial input.

Oh - I read what he said; believe me.

Sounds like he harbors a lot of pent up anger, if you ask me.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Dave:

Above you'll see the fourth post in this thread quoted. This made it pretty clear that the coach went to the PU and the PU inappropriately conferred with his partner without solocitation. I would imagine he was upset that you would even think about defending such an act by another umpire. I do agree with you that his comments were harsh and uncalled for, but is there a possibility there's a history between the two of you?


Tim.

OK, fair enough. I missed that. No big deal. I would have thought he could have pointed that out to me in a more civil manner, much like you are doing.

Yet, my post began with this sentence: "If the BU requested a conference then, clearly, he was seeking information. Although it is the BU's responsibility to officially make the reversal - I've seen the other umpire make the reversal plenty of times. Although not technically proper, it is really rather academic if BOTH umpires agree with regards to the reversal."

It seems to me all he had to say was, "The BU <i>didn't</i> request a conference!"

My comment on the subject was rather general, anyways.

I'm not sure his personal and caustic remark was appropriate. It certainly didn't have anything to do with what we were discussing.

Is there "history" between us? Heck, I don't know. Apparently so. I don't keep track. But comments like that always seem to come from a select group of umpires who simply can't stand coaches. Why? - I don't know.

I thought the thread was progressing rather civilly until he made those remarks, wouldn't you agree?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David, I believe the only thing any of us are questioning is the sexual abuse comment you made. It did not add to the discussion, and quite frankly, we have come to expect a bit more from you.

Coach, it's his call and he made a convincing call from what I saw. He had a better look at that play than I did, and I don't have anything to add. I'm not going to go down there and discuss it with him.

Then we have a postgame discussion. Make the call if you are sure. Come to me for help if you are not. This should be a very small percentage of the time, and BEFORE an out call is made. If you made an out call it should be because you are sure.

As a BU I have never asked for help after making an OUT call and the last time I asked for help on a call that was mine to make was on a play at 3B.

Sometimes things don't come across in writing as they would if you were talking. I thought my comment was so completely overboard, with the smiley face at the end, that everybody would have known that I was just being a smartass.

C'mon - really - do you think for one second that I actually thought that he was sexually abused by a LL coach? Now, if I had said "Catholic priest" ... that could've been taken seriously! :)

Oops! Now I've gone and done it! Now I've offended all the Catholics.

I guess I should have finished that 12-step-program on political correctness. Dang!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I wouldn't put anything past a coach!:D

Oh, come on I was just kidding!!!

It works but...
 

The proper way to handle these type of situations is when the coach comes to the PU, he should be sent to the BU.

Then if the BU wants to seek further information he can ask for a conference with his PU.

Some are too quick to point out the haste the PU had and thats legit.

Sounds like the BU was out of position (big mistake) or a young umpire who didn't know what to do next.

But its so easy for spectators to jump to conclusions. Heard the exact same thing on the radio the other night as I returned from my playoff game.

Announcer: throw to first and the BU doesn't see the play and asks the PU to make the call (ugh)

Either bad mechanics or as usual the announcer didn't know what he was talking about.

WHat do they say, perception is sometimes reality...

Thanks
David

Problem is, so many (including umpires) think it shows a willingness to work together rather than a deficiency in the other umpire.

I had a home run ball down the line. Plate umpire called it foul. Right at the time it crossed the fence I glanced down to make sure that the BR touched first base. The first base coach couldn't BELIEVE that I wasn't looking at the home run ball. We were working 2-man and the ball was NOT a slam dunk over the fence ball.

An umpire in A should never need to get help on a pulled foot, swipe tag, or any other squirrel. I wouldn't even entertain asking the plate umpire, even if asked in the nicest possible way.

David, how can you assume that the BU was out of position on this play? The original post states that the BR was called out on the tag, and that the U1 called it as such. Sounds to me that the coach was just trolling for a "second opinion", he set the hook and he caught something. That's bad!!!

This brings up the importance of a thorough pre-game meeting between partners. Make sure you both ( or all of you) know that no one will approach a partner without being asked by the partner.

I reiterate that in the pre-game plate meeting . " If you want to discuss a call, ask for time, when it is granted, go to the umpire who made the call. We want to get the call right." If they forget (they always do), and if they come to me on my partners call, I redirect them.

Something I also discuss in the partner pre-game is the concept of asking for help on plays where my partner might need it, before the coach even asks. This saves a lot of time and eliminates problems. It goes something like this, "partner, if you need my help, just ask, but do it before the coach says something".

Now, if my partner has a good look at the play, and he/she is convinced they got it right, how can I jump in and "over rule" that? Do other's have a different approach to handling this?

Bob P.

Rich,

I'm having a hard time picturing this the way you have written it. You were the BU, correct? You went out on the ball down the line from A? The PU called it foul? How did you glance at 1st base if you went out? Why did PU make the call? I am really confused on this one.

The original sitch had the BU in B or C (I believe). You are right. Nobody should ever need help on their calls at 1st base when working in A.

And after re-reading, it did not specify the position of the BU, but where else but in the middle could he be and still not see the tag properly?

The home run ball was down the THIRD base line. Sorry I left out that most important detail.

Because
 

If you are in position you will never have to ask anyone about a call.

The only way you have to ask is if you are out of position. I'm not saying that I've never asked for help on a play, but out of many thousands of calls, I can count on one hand the number of times (with the checked swing being the exception)

The BU is to call the bases and its his call, not the PU.

I've had several instances this year when even with a good pregame I've had the BU out of position and looking at me as PU for help.

Make the call and live with it (that will make you a better ump down the road)

Thanks
David

I will agree that knowing how to get into position, and how to swivel or lean once in position, will keep you out of trouble 99.99% of the time. But this still leaves the 1 in 10000 where something odd happens and you do NOT see everything that is relevant (this percentage varies by size of crew and size of diamond, of course).

Case in point would be the tag/no-tag at 2nd base in the NLCS. The MLB umpire absolutely missed this call, as weird things caused the tag to be 180 degrees away from him. And he was too proud to ask for help (on a 6 man crew, where at least 2 if not 3 of the umpires COULD HAVE had a better angle). This tag was missed by at least a foot and a half - but even with perfect positioning, he couldn't see it.

David B:

For the most part I agree with you. On plays where you start in A position, you should be able to get 99.99% of your calls.

The 2 man system is a series of compromises. If we worked 3 or 4 man the majority of our games then I would expect the instances of asking for help at 1b would be virtually non-existent.

I believe that to assume that we should never ask for help, and that we live and die by an erroneous call, where our partner might have the perfect view, is a fallacy that does the game a disservice.

Bob P.

I think we're on the same page
 

I think we agree a lot more than you wrote. As I stated "if the BU gets in position then he doesn't have to ask".

Therein lies the problem - we have way too many officials who are lazy and simply don't work hard to get in position.

That is why we have so many threads on getting help.

Certainly there are times we will have to ask, but as i mentioned in my first post, they will be very few and far between ....

I think we do young umpires a disservice if we don't state the obvious. Its the BU's call, make the call.

Someone mentioned a play in the MLB last season, there is no way they are going to ask for help on that play, and no way I'm going to ask for help on that play. (Sometimes you just have to umpire, its not a perfect science)

thanks
David

I can see (in the MLB play I mentioned) him not immediately going for help.

But when the coach came out to ask him to get help, he HAD to know that he did not actually see a physical tag, and just assumed one (he didn't see one, because one didn't exist!). At that point, an umpire has an obligation to the game to see if anyone else had an angle. At least 2, possibly 3 umpires hand a better angle on this than him, and would EASILY have seen the missed (by 18 inches minimum) tag.

I once had to attend a 12-step program for Type-A personalities.


In an hour, we had it down to 4. :cool: