How to handle?
 

Had a situation last night where a ball was hit to our 2b who bobbles the ball, gains control, and throws to our 1b (full disclosure, my son was playing 1b). 1b makes a large split reaching for the throw, catches it, and holds the position. There were runners on base so the field ump was in between the mound and first (I know there is a term for the positions of the field ump, just not sure what that is). Field ump calls him safe and motions that 1b came off the bag (for what it's worth the 3b coach and bench coach of the other team - their bench was on the 1b side of the field - both came up to me after the 1/2 inning and said his foot was on the bag).

I started to go onto the field to ask the field ump what he saw and, assuming he would reiterate his call that 1b came off the bag, wanted to ask if we could ask the PU if he had a different view (there were other base runners so PU may have been looking at them - I still wanted to ask the question though). I knew that yelling across the field "Can we ask your partner if he saw it differently?" wasn't appropriate and so wanted to have the conversation in a normal speaking voice.

Before I got 2 steps out of the dugout the PU informed me that it was a judgment call and that I cannot be on the field. Not wanting to delay the game or, more to the point, get tossed from the game, I went back to the dugout.

My question is this - when, if ever, can a coach come onto the field to discuss a play such as this? Also, when, if ever, can you request that the umpire making a call see if his partner had the same thing?

Please understand that I'm not asking this just to get the call reversed. We won the game 14-9 so there's no bitterness or anything going on here. I'm more interested in making sure I don't waste time during a game with events such as this if there is no recourse. I also realize that sometimes officials get "straight-lined" or don't see a play clearly that the other official may. My intent is to try and figure out if there is a way/time to ask their partner for their view or if I just need to get over it and play ball.

Thanks in advance.

You are entitled to ask the BU what he saw after you ask for, and are granted, time (if the ball isn't dead already). Sounds like PU should switch to de-caf.

Agree, but as BU I'm not going to ask for help on this call. You may want to ask for help but a PU should never over rule the BU on a judgement call on the bases. Now a rule interpretation, thats something else.

As long as you are the Manager or Head Coach (Scholastic ball), you have every right to properly question the call with the calling umpire.

As a side note, my son was also a 1st baseman (when he wasn't pitching). He also was able to go into a full split (God, my crotch ached every time I saw him do this) and I learned one very important thing. When a good first baseman goes into a split such as this, they are almost always anchored against the bag solidly! This is what allows them to keep their balance and goet all the way out (ouch!). They do not split as a dancer does (both feet moving away from each other). I also learned that once these first baseman go into this motion, they cannot stop it (unlike a dancer who can). So when I see this action, I am almost positive that the first baseman is on the bag.

Thanks for the feedback - I appreciate it. I had thought he was being a bit "restrictive" but, remembering that we're there to play a game and not have me get into a debate with the umpire, will always just go back to the dugout.

Ozzy - yes, it is painful to watch. The interesting thing is that he had another similar play where he stretched out like that a couple of innings later, kept his foot on the base, and the batter-runner was called out. Discussing it with my wife on the way home we thought that it might have not been called the first time because it isn't "normal" for 11U players in a rec league to stretch like that and still stay in contact with the base. Once the BU saw he could, however, maybe he looked more carefully next time? Not sure, but still happy with the result!

Oh? You're more naive than I thought if you believe this. There are certain situations where judgment calls are reversed by one umpire or the other. It happens from MLB on down, too.

We still utilize this method: The dissenting umpire, when asked, explains what he saw to the calling umpire. The calling umpire then reverses his own call.

We don't let it appear that there was an "over-ruling." That can open a can of worms later in the game. We get together and the calling umpire gets the call right, when necessary.

Indeed. I'll go one further: there is a specific play where I don't change the call; I change the umpire. When I employ this mechanic with a partner, I have never had an argument. Plus, it looks much crisper and fluid. It involves F3 pulling his foot and the base umpire quickly going to his partner for assistance. If it's done properly, it doesn't even look like a changed call or an overruling.

My association recommends this mechanic in these situations:

Play happens at 1B, BU in infield, has some doubt about a pulled foot.
BU (to PU): "Did you see a pulled foot?"

PU: "No."

BU: "Then the batter's out!"

This question gets a yes/no answer, and it's about what PU saw: if he was watching something else (OBS/INT, for instance), he can still say no, he didn't see a pulled foot.

I'm not certain I like the mechanic overall -- I was trained to get my own call first, and ask for help later -- but I understand its rationale.

[QUOTE]Technically speaking the only time you have a RIGHT to come onto the field is to question a rule interpretation.

Example: using FED rules

B1 is obstructed rounding first base. After playing action ends BU simply protects the runner back to first only.

According to FED rules this is a mis-application of the playing rules ( In FED B1 gets second base) and you as manager have a RIGHT to request TIME and get an explanation.

After the explanation if you still do not agree you can then lodge a protest (assuming the HS district you play in has protest procedures)

For JUDGEMENT calls of which safe / outs are includied technically speaking you have NO such right.

Now it's been accepted practice to Grant the manager TIME and allow him to question the umpire who made the call, however, the Umpires do not HAVE to honor this request since it was a judgement call. It's similar to calling balls/ strikes. No matter how upset the manager is, we do not allow the manager to constantly question the strike zone.

In your situation, the umpire should have granted you time to speak to the BU.

However, keep in mind that the BU is under NO obligation to check with his partner. He may or he may not it's still his call.

You can also write a report and submit to the umpire association about the conduct demonstrated by this umpiring crew.

Sounds like what I do and what I recommend. I'm probably in the minority, too, regarding this mechanic--indeed, at the Cleveland NCAA meetings when this play was discussed in a breakout session, the 2 gents leading the discussion were vehemently opposed to this. I don't see why, either. If it's done correctly, meaning quickly and emphatically, it looks good and accomplishes the same thing as calling time, discussing it, then changing it. Granted, we're there to get the call right, but if we can do so without a typical committee meeting on the field, is that not the best way to do it?

I am not aware of any rule that authorizes any umpire to over rule another umpires judgment call. Perhaps incorrect rule interpretation may be corrected by the UIC.

As plate umpire I have no problem allowing the head coach to go onto the field and speak with the umpire who made the call.

As base umpire I have no problem speaking to the head coach, but I will not change a judgment call. "Coach, in my judgment he was ..."

If I am going to get help on this play it will be before I make a call .... if possible .... if not possible to ask my partner " was he on the base?" because of action of the other runners, I make my call and move on.

Those looking for perfection need to find a different hobby.

I had an umpire come up to me uninvited a few years ago and tell me the running lane interference wasn't called in that league. He was an old guard and so I gave in. Now I'd be either ejecting him from the game or walking off the diamond.

True, one umpire can't overrule another's call. That does not mean the calling umpire can't ask his partner what he saw and change his orginal call based upon that information.

As long as a coach asks the calling umpire to consider getting help in a calm, respectful manner, I don't have a problem with it. Now if this is a regular occurrence after every close call, I'm not as likely to consider going for help.

c-ump6, umpires don't eject each other from the game.

What a piece of work. I really have to remember to log in before reading these threads.

In all fairness to you, Its not worth much! It doesnt really matter, as its easy for them to say/be gracious since they got the call. Plus the bench coach wasnt even close-in the dugout, and the 3rd base coach was across the diamond, so the BU had the best view.
Any decent official wont make a call safe/out based on a "weird" split stretch-his foot is either on or off. And the comment from another poster about a "splitters" foot always being on cause thats how they stretch--- well, I'll take that with a grain---again its either on or off......

those not striving for perfection need to find a different avocation.

the game has changed over the years and so has the umpiring. certain things used to be done certain ways in the bigs, and they have gotten vastly different as the game has evolved. my question to you is; why would you not try to evolve as an amateur umpire as the professional ones do each year?

there are guys every year that go to one of the umpire schools and either already are frequent posters on sites like these, or become frequent posters after they are introduced to the umpiring world and find their way here. furthermore, there are guys on these boards that currently teach at or are in direct contact with current instructors and have access to all the current teachings. why would you not want to work the way these guys were taught or are teaching?

the things that are taught at the schools are the result of hundreds of evaluations being done each year and are tuned to how the game has evolved. there are always mentions of the "old guard" on here, and i see posts made by this guard all the time. while some things they offer are invaluable and come from years of experience, many of the things the "old guard" do and teach are things that are just plain outdated.

why would you be satisfied doing things the way you've been doing them for years and not updating your techniques as often as possible? time honored techniques are a thing of the past. we live in the information age and the available information should be taken advantage of. in your regular profession, do you attend clinics, seminars, training sessions and the like to get better at what you do? why not employ the same theory to your umpiring?

rant over.

Tom:

The term "old guard" is often used here to disparage anyone with whom a poster may disagree. In reality, many of the so-called "old guard" are more in your camp and many of those b!tching about the old guard continue to think like LL umpires from years past.

You will find the most of the posters here with direct exposure to proschool methods, PBUC recommendations and MLB directives and memos are those who get accused of being "old guard."

We need a better term. That one has been abscounded with and twisted to fit a political agenda.

Now to the meat of your post. I agree wholeheartedly. It makes little sense to fight change when it is being driven by those in control. Most of the change I've seen in mechanics, rules and philosophy have improved umpiring. A couple, not so much, but, again, not worth battling over.

Things change, and sometimes the change is selective, and sometimes things change back. Take the recent ejection of Larry Bowa for violating the coach's box. Some posters here would declare that a symptom of the old guard, when it reality it was the direct result of a NEW directive.

MLB, on one hand, wants kinder gentler umpires, and on the other directs strict and ultimate. It requires staying abreast of current issues as well as philosophy to determine which avenue to take and when.

Again, most of those here that devote the time and energy in doing that are among those accused of being "old guard."

if you can come up with a better term for me i will gladly replace "old guard" in my post. i think you know what group of people, in general, i was talking about.

Yep, I do. But unfortunately there are some strange ones here that will utilize your reference to "old guard" as evidence to support their "no guard" positions.

Smitty's and Charlies come to mind.

We can stop right there. Any blue who comes to you to lecture you needs to get the shove. If he is wrking with you, then he can make a suggestion, clarification, that's all. You can discuss later. If he's not wrking with you, he needs to STFU. Unless he's buying the martinins of course. :D

Typical Old Guard. No communicaton skilss especially with the youner umpires. Everything is a lecture, never n educaion.

Looking down this thread, I see that you are getting criticized, wow, new, eh?

We, the older umpires, which predominate this forum, are on our way out. You, the younger umps, are on the way in. This threatens the BeJesus out of the Olg Guard, their days are fast n the past.

These are the same umps who will say "Show me up, player, I'll dump you" but when an old Guard umpire shows up a young man newer to the game, it's "for hos own good."

Yeh, right, the hypocrisy is so deep one can barely see out. :rolleyes:

New Guard, same as the Old Guard. Hyporites.

Quod erat demonstrandum! :cool:

JM

A blatant lie and howwould you know, anyone who uses that term is on your Ignore List? :rolleyes:

"Old Guard" stans for the umpires who abuse their positions of authority and experience. Who refuse to mock up into the real world of the 21st century.

Glad yu weren't around during the 'Nam War and the 60s.:rolleyes:

1) Change is uncomfortable for the old Guard. It means theyhave to think new thoughts, re-analyze their past philosophies...think neo-conservatives.

See above.

Yet they will defend them to the hilt. Usually by smearing those who point out their deficiencies.

You really think they do that in their real lives? I don't.

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck
if you can come up with a better term for me i will gladly replace "old guard" in my post. i think you know what group of people, in general, i was talking about.


As Ipointed out, the Old Guard has nothing left except to smear those with pejorative terms, those that point out their deficiences and challenge their outdated methodologies.

You have a tele number if you want a complete explanation.

You'd better not be referring to me.

I'm experienced with old guards. One thing I learned from last year was that you have to play the political game to advance. That is something I plan on doing this year to help me move through the ranks. And of course kiss some butt until I get a chance to prove I'm better than the old guards.

I was wondering this myself. Maybe he has a friend PM him all our posts.:D

I don't even know this rookie guy, but all of a sudden he has a beef with me and has to call me a name? And for what? Saying that I would walk off the field or a eject my "partner" if he tried to overrule me and not stop arguing with me about it? "I don't understand why you would do that" would have been a much more civil way for him to express his feelings.

So what rule, other than 9.01(c), would you use to justify "ejecting" your partner?

http://www.threestooges.com/bios/ima...dy_mhoward.jpg

"Oh, a tough guy, eh????"

Posted by fitump56
A blatant lie and howwould you know, anyone who uses that term is on your Ignore List?

I was wondering this myself. Maybe he has a friend PM him all our posts.

Not odds, but evens, since you have gloriously admitted to doing so. :p

Back to umpiring. Canadaump was not clear (to me) that he was working with an Old Guard official. Taking that clarification, let me suggest, in humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents.

Canadaump, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. :eek:

I would have thanked him for his advice. Asked for any other suggestions, with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents, nodded thankfully. Gone about my way.

Of course, each half inning, I would cower, I would have thanked him for his advice. Asked for any other suggestions, with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents, nodded thankfully. Gone about my way.

When the game was over, as they all do, with the patience hat I have shown, mixed with great gratitude, I would have thanked him for his advice. Asked for any other suggestions, with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents, nodded thankfully. Gone about my way.

As we near our cars to leave, head down, I would have thanked him for his advice. Asked for any other suggestions, with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents, nodded thankfully. Then I would have asked humbly,with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents,

"Was it worth you showing me up, breaking the trust that I had in you, to be on my side? It is only us out there, was it worth it for you to leave me feeling isolated and alone to get across a single, inconsequrntial point that was nothing more than an attempt on your part to Old Guard me, influence and power play me?

But then that is me, Canadaump.:D

Deej calls me "Mr. Nuclear Bomb". I tend to hold back, with humility and grace, of which I am known, respected and admired across continents, then whenceuponed, level the "territory" about.

:D

Kid, and you know I mean that well, you have to put up with all kinds of sh**, when a fellow umpire does it to you?


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:





Try a new dance
So afraid of any new romance
Be so drunk to try a new dance?

Why need two,that one works.

Rufus

From a former coach of three sons, all umpires, one distressed baseball wife (Team Mother for Eternity?), pieces of advice.

What you do, your style and grace, is what your children will remember you for. Every time you feel the urge to approach sports officials, remember that.

When other fathers had problems with their player sons, I never did. My wife, God Bless her, kept reminding me why I was coaching in the first place.

"What you do, your style and grace, is what your children, and the other children, will remember you for."

When their ball was over, I took that and became a strength and power trainer "What you do, your style and grace, is what your children and others will remember you for."

FYI.

No doubt about it. The Old Guard makes certin that there is a steep ladder you have to step. This is singly the most prevalent path of determined resisance, I have had to climb it, it is not fun nor is it self inspiring.

Unless you step back and look at the now and the when.

Your day will come. Until then, keep our head high and ask yourself:

"Are you part of the solution or part of the disease?"

The disease will kill you, the solution cure you.

Then throw that mask back on and do your best.

Duck. well said. wow, well said, thx. :)

Hold on a sec, if you will. Weren't you and FitUmp56 just giving people h311 about 8-10 days ago, because you took umbrage with the idea that a player showing an umpire up isn't cause for an EJ? And that it was a sign of a weak ego? (Hint: the answer to those is "yes.")

So, by that same logic, offering that as a quote in your never-ending quest against The Old Guard, is showing a certain fragility of ego as well? I realize you were offering your young padawan advice, and perhaps in a roundabout way, were trying to make a rhetorical point, but still.

And it still doesn't address the strange, and honestly, kind of dumb-sounding idea of ejecting one's own partner. And yes, CanadaUmp6, I am in fact referring to you.

Time for a remedial reading course.

Canada was not speaking to me about anything I may have done. He was asking HokieUmp if he was referring to Canada in a post.

Please try to keep up.

My statement that I would have ejected a partner that tried to overrule me was made more out of emotion than out of thought. I would not try and pull that off during a game, and I apologize for causing this much dissent. Ejecting a "partner" is obviously never an option, even though we all probably sometimes wish it was.

I should describe the situation in greater detail. This was a volunteer "umpire" who had to have his own way and wouldn't stop arguing until he got it. As a coach that year, he had argued with a naive base umpire about an obvious out call against his team for over 5 minutes. Once he was finally ejected, he refused to leave the park.

In the situation I was involved in, he came up to me (I was plate) and told me there was no running lane, despite the fact that neither team said a word of complaint about the call. He didn't even make reference to the running lane- it was more something along the lines of "we don't call that kind of thing in this league". Clearly he was looking to overpower a younger umpire (I was 17 at the time) and I gave in, knowing he would make a show if I didn't change the call.

Looking back, I now wish that I had walked off the field and left him with his superior rules knowledge to call the game on his own. I should have also encouraged the UIC to ensure that this "umpire" didn't get within 200 metres of a ball diamond ever again.

http://forum.officiating.com/showpos...4&postcount=38

Your answer lies within.