Overriding Your Partner??

[LomUmp]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just to speak to this narrow question: the rationale might be that (a) it's BU's call and he should make it, (b) by making an initial call you have a "default" call to go to in case nobody has better information (c) it's a similar principle to replay in the NFL, for instance: you need additional info to overrule the initial "call on the field."

Hey all,

One thing to remember is that you, as a BU, are not asking the PU to make the call for you. You are just requesting more information before you make your call. If I ask for help, I already considered the runner was out, and the call will remain that way unless the PU gives me information that will change MY call, i.e., yes, he did pull his foot.

LomUmp

[UMP25]

Indeed, Lom.

mbyron, I probably should have elaborated a bit to explain that I am not against getting help after making a call in all situations; i.e., I do believe there may be times it's necessary. I was referring here specifically to the situation where BU is in the middle of the field and somehow screened and needs to ask his PU for assistance.

I also am not mandating that everyone should follow my lead. I'm not arrogant enough to recommend this. It's just a suggestion, and one that I believe has made my job much easier. I politely and respectfully ask the NCAA, though: If we as umpires can "get the call right" as is recommended to us, what better way to do it than to have some quick and definitive assistance BEFORE such a call rather than to have the post-call meeting and reversal? If we can "get the call right" AND look good, isn't this more preferable than just getting it right and looking like crap while doing so?

Again, I am not against consulting a partner(s) for help after a call or play occurs. I just think it happens more often than it should, and that if we do things a bit differently in some situations, we'd be able to avoid this.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

mbyron, I probably should have elaborated a bit to explain that I am not against getting help after making a call in all situations; i.e., I do believe there may be times it's necessary. I was referring here specifically to the situation where BU is in the middle of the field and somehow screened and needs to ask his PU for assistance.

I understood your point. I agree that the situation where (a) BU is in the infield and (b) F3 might have pulled his foot, are so common that it merits its own mechanic. This mechanic is independent of the general principle of getting help when a coach saw something dramatically different.

[UMP25]

As was the case in yesterday's Cubs at Phillies game when DeRosa hit a foul home run, where even after the entire crew consulted, they still blew the home run call by letting the 4-bagger stand. Yikes!

[midtnblu]

did you think it was foul?

I didn't think the replay was 100% conclusive.

[johnnyg08]

Just because 4 people consult, they may not all have "call changing" information.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

As was the case in yesterday's Cubs at Phillies game when DeRosa hit a foul home run, where even after the entire crew consulted, they still blew the home run call by letting the 4-bagger stand. Yikes!

What's a "foul home run"?

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What's a "foul home run"?

One that goes against YOUR team.

Bob

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

What's a "foul home run"?

Cripes. Don't tell me you had no idea what I meant.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UMP25

As was the case in yesterday's Cubs at Phillies game when DeRosa hit a foul home run, where even after the entire crew consulted, they still blew the home run call by letting the 4-bagger stand. Yikes!

Hey UMP25, I saw the game also. It took 6 IR's before any of us were sure that the ball was in fact foul. The only ones that really knew were the fans sitting right there. In all fairness, the original shot from the camera behind home late is pretty much what the 3rd base umpire had and it looked fair for 3 IR's. Only when the focused the shot on the foul pole did we see that it was a foul ball and that was the 6th IR! We only get a split second and sometimes we are wrong!

I seriously think that there is too much to focus on in MLB parks when looking at the foul poles.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Hey UMP25, I saw the game also. It took 6 IR's before any of us were sure that the ball was in fact foul. The only ones that really knew were the fans sitting right there. In all fairness, the original shot from the camera behind home late is pretty much what the 3rd base umpire had and it looked fair for 3 IR's. Only when the focused the shot on the foul pole did we see that it was a foul ball and that was the 6th IR! We only get a split second and sometimes we are wrong!

I seriously think that there is too much to focus on in MLB parks when looking at the foul poles.

I saw only one replay, and that indicated the ball was clearly foul.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I saw only one replay, and that indicated the ball was clearly foul.

Hmmm! We may have been on 2 different stations or feeds. There were 6 replays on the FOX Chicago channel I was watching. I normally don't get to watch the Cubs as that channel is normally blacked out to me. It was the only open channel on Saturday so I watched just to see some baseball. Anyway, the end result is that even with a "board meeting", the wrong decision was rendered.