2-Man crew loophole?
 

With R1 and R3, B1 hits a foul fly on firstbase side off into foul ball territory. With a lot of foul territory, the flyball carries first baseman way over by fence. My question: On a tag situation, I found myself on 3B line extended way over by dugout checking the catch/no catch on the foul ball. It then dawned on me that the runner could have advanced at third without me checking tag. Is this my responbility or BU responsibility.

The aforementioned is the PU's responsibility.

As PU you "straddle the difference" meaning you do not TOTALLY Commit either way. You line yourself up to see the catch /no-catch and also keep an eye on R3

This type play is a major problem when umpiring on fileds that have so called "imaginary lines" to define LBT/DBT. When you umpire on fields that are not lined properly etc. benefit to the defense. Outs are our friends.

Pete Booth

Catch-No Catch has the priority over runners tagging up.

A good U1 will know that UIC will have difficulty with the tag-up and help out by checking on R3 (while maintaining his responsibility for R1)

Catch-No Catch has the priority over runners tagging up.

A good U1 will know that UIC will have difficulty with the tag-up and help out by checking on R3 (while maintaining his responsibility for R1)

Good question.
Here's my take

Since BU is in B there's no way for him to line up to see both the catch and
R3s tag. You actually have the best angle since you are at a 90 deg. to ball and R3, BU is 180 deg. You just have to turn your head to pick up R3 after the catch, BU has to turn entire body.
The bigger concern to me is getting back to the plate to make an informed call if there's a play at home.

I would not try to gain distance on this play. I aslo would not be on 3BLE. Remaining on the third baseline side of the plate, I would go no more than half the distance towards the back stop. At the catch, I quickly check R3. If he's no more than a step and a half off third, he didn't leave early.

I'm still close enough to get into position for a play at the plate and I'm not in the way of the throw.

Jim teaches, "As far as the play will allow!"

And JIm reminds us to consider all plays that are imminent.

Wouldn't this be a good pregame discussion? Seems like it might be possible for the U1 to take the runner at 3rd and let the UIC switch responsibility, as far as tagging, to the runner at 1st and the catch.

Sure -- but an umpire should always know what his partner(s) are watching and look to help. Another example: R1 only. Trouble ball to center. R1 goes 2/3 of the way to second. Just at the time of the catch/no-catch, BR reaches first. Who should watch BR touch? By pure mechanics, it's U1. But, U1 is "busy" and UIC has nothing to do. So, UIC should help out and watch the touch.

Even in a Pre-Game discussion it's virtually impossible to discuss many of these type plays.

IMO, there is nothing like communication during these type plays.

Using Bob's eample below, if by chance you didn't discuss this in pre-game communicate with your partner during the play.

Example: R1 ONLY and is in a pcikle between 1st and second.

Rather than have your partner the BU work hard, you as PU simply head towards first and when you get there COMMUNICATE this with your partner.

I am not advocating having no PRE-game etc. but in the event something was not covered, then Communicate with your partner.

Pete Booth

I know a coach/ump, that has taught his kids, with a runner on 2nd to bunt on the first baseline, real close, also on the pitch r2 is stealing, they hit the cutout at third base and turn for home there, missing third by 3-4 feet, and easily scoring even if they get the BR @ 1st. His theory is there is no one there to see the touch/no touch of third. Very sneeky, obnoxious and a poor sport, but I gotta give him credit on using the two man to his advantage. This kind of Coach is bad for the game though.

Is this the same coach teaching his kids to bean the BR going to first?

This is nothing new. And it has gotten runners and coaches ejected, too.

If the BR is clearly out of the running lane, I see no problem with F2 plunking him as long as the defense is prepared for the umpire to not call anything.

Why on earth would the umpire not call anything? It is clear interference, I cannot think of a way the catcher could hit the runner with the ball and that throw not be catchable by the firstbaseman. Oh wait I lie, if the throw was low I could see it happen. Any other way??

out of curiousity, I can see ejecting the coach, but the runner seems harsh depending on the circumstances, but In this instance no umpire in the 2 man system is able to see the Runner touch or not. I see it more likely causing the ejection of the opposite teams coach, and starting a foofaraw that simply degrades the game into Craptown. Or are you making a call on the touch or lack there of without actually seeing the infraction??

You're assuming umpires are all competent. I've seen clear cut interference not called.....for whatever reason.

One doesn't actually have to SEE anything. If the defensive coach is screaming and it seems like R2 arrived way early, we all know what happened.

I am going to use whatever evidence I have to ensure the game is fair.

For my information, what is a foofaraw? I understand it in context, but what is it in actuality?

Rich, please reconsider your ruling.
 

I usually agree with most everything you post, but this is bogus. Using this logic, if R1 gets picked off and his coach is screaming "Balk," do you call a balk without having seen it?
If not, what's the difference?

How many times do you hear a hit-by-pitch rather than see the ball strike the batter?

Look, there's a difference between this and a balk. Therre are umpires WATCHING the pitcher NOT balk.

If R2 shorts the corner at third and the defensive coach screams about it, it's not likely that he's lying about it. If R2 gets to the plate a few seconds before an Olympic sprinter does, there's evidence that something isn't quite right.

I'm not saying that I'd want to do this, but unless there's someone in the stands I can trust (say, another umpire....or my wife) watching, there's little else one can do.

I will say I am aware of this situation now and I will take a glance over if I get that bunt down the line if at all possible.

"His theory is there is no one there to see the touch/no touch of third".

This should read: his theory is that no "defensive player" is gonna see.

As PU you will see this, or should IMO. The odds of a foul no foul, or even a running lane violation taking your entire attention away from you next responsibility R2, is pretty remote IMO. PU certainly won't be following the BR up the line in this case, as he/she knows their responsibilities for R2.
Ya gotta be ready for a second play on R2 at 3B also, why wouldn't ya be checking him?

I've seen this play, and was truley amazed no one (defense) saw it?
What exactly should F5 and 6 be doing on this play? They should be watching for a return throw to 3B or at the very least watching to holler if R2 heads for home. F5, was no kidding, half way to the mound, watching, F6 was standing on 2B watching. I never paid my guys to spectate.

If by some fluke PU doesn't see it, and the D appeals, well, make a budget next year for a 3 man crew, safe.

R2 is my next responsibility at the plate, but on a return throw, the BU is making that call.

This play is actually the biggest loophole in the 2 man, in a proper 2 man, the umps will NOT see this. PERIOD. Base ump is sliding to first, with his back to the play, and the Plate guy has fair/foul. the infraction should be missed by both ump if they are doing thier job. That is why this guy does it. He will even do it when the Other team has the 3rd base dugout.

Sorry Rut, I think you have to Call this safe, and explain the problem with the two man system. But to make a call you never saw, what are you going to say in the arguement with the coach? He knows you didn't see it, because HE was watching you.

It is unsportsmanlike, and I can even see you finding a way to eject this jerky coach, but to give an out when you haven't seen it, thats tough.