Assignor Nightmares

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Okay, here is my .02:

For everyone who thinks the appeal should be allowed, let me ask:

Would you call the BR safe?

I would really be tempted to do it in this case....

No, no, a thousand times no.

I just don't see why this is so complicated. The PA guy screws up. Fine, deal with that (nobody seems to have any issue here). Why is that a license now to ignore rules, make up categories like "illegal information" or "illegally acquired information," and to generally behave as if this were the end of the world?

I'm granting the appeal and ruling correctly on it. I'm certainly not going to lie! When the O-coach comes out to complain, I'll say, "Coach, are you saying that your runner touched the base?"

He'll either say no, lie, or try to change the subject. Option 1, we're done; option 2, we're going with my judgment; option 3, I'll explain that, by rule, when a runner misses a base, the defense has a right to appeal it, other screwups notwithstanding.

[His High Holiness]

All,

Unfortunately, I do not have any further info on this incident, but in looking through my assignor archives, I found a similar incident involving one of our umpires.

In the days before formal FED appeals when umpires called runners out for missing bases without any appeal, one of our umpires, who had only worked FED ball, was doing a game under pro rules. After a play ended, while the pitcher was mounting the rubber with no apparant intention to appeal, the umpire called the runner out for missing a base. The offense was furious, the defense then initiated the proper appeal, and the runner was called out.

The only difference between the case that we are debating here and this case is that in the PA announcer probably acted with malice and the umpire new to pro rules acted out of ignorance. Regardless, the defense learned of the missed base outside the intent of the rules.

The only proper ruling in both cases is to call the runner out. Anything else is making up rules. I have read the whole thread and I am appalled at the apparant willingness of some umpires to play God and try to make things "fair." Our job is to enforce the rules. League officials are allowed to make things fair if they want. But for umpires, the only correct course of action is eject the announcer, call R2 out, and move on.

On the other hand, league presidents (e.g., the AL president who overuled the umpires in the famous pine tar incident involving George Brett) have more leeway. It would be entirely appropriate for a league president to meet out punishment by awarding a victory to the visiting team for the outrageous conduct of the home team PA announcer. It is entirely innappropriate for an umpire to attempt to do the same thing.

Look at the NCAA. The governing boards regularly take away victories from teams that are found to have illegal players, recruiting violations, etc. On field officials never do that, however.

Peter

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

So how about we do this? You still have contacts up in MLB. Fire off the OP with our two rulings and protests. I really would like to see what the "Big Guys" would do with this. I'll try to do the same at the clinic I am assisting in this weekend if the weather holds. Let's see what we come up with.

In checking with my contacts in pro ball and the NCAA, I've been told that the appeal stands and that regardless of whether the P.A. announcer is dismissed from the game, higher ups would deal with him.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is not a useful question. The rules do not address this situation or any like it, so following "the letter of the law" is not an option.

I disagree.
If the rules don't address this situation then by the letter of the law you must allow the appeal. You said so yourself.
Which goes back to my original question.
Which is more important, the letter of the law or the best interest of the game?
It appears that more than a few are struggling with allowing the appeal because in their gut they realize it's unfair, even if they can't come up with an exact rule rule to disallow it.
When you're on the field you don't have days to consider the sitch, dozens of umps to bounce your thoughts off of and plenty of time to peruse the rule and case books, you have to make a relatively quick decision on a sitch you probably never considered before.
If you're a letter of the law kind of guy then I'm suggesting you're going to fall back on whatever rule you know and apply it regardless of outcome.
If you're a best interest of the game guy you may determine the outcome you feel is in the best interest of the game and then find a rule to sell your outcome.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CO ump

If you're a letter of the law kind of guy then I'm suggesting you're going to fall back on whatever rule you know and apply it regardless of outcome.
If you're a best interest of the game guy you may determine the outcome you feel is in the best interest of the game and then find a rule to sell your outcome.

One of these statements is about officiating. The other one is crap. Endorsing both is idiocy. That is, of course, just my opinion.

[David B]

Originally Posted by CO ump

If you're a best interest of the game guy you may determine the outcome you feel is in the best interest of the game and then find a rule to sell your outcome.

I've come across a few of those of those - they are not real umpires.

Thanks
David

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

One of these statements is about officiating. The other one is crap. Endorsing both is idiocy. That is, of course, just my opinion.

First off I don't remember endorsing either one. I simply proposed how the two mindsets may come up with different rulings in odd situations.

Let me give you a sitch and tell me how you'd handle it.

I was doing 3 man last week when this happened.

R1, live ball, I'm in C

F1 steps on rubber in set position, PU is behind F2 but still casual.
PU had just asked for more game balls, a coach from 1st base dugout catches PUs attention (non verbal) and had two previously fouled gameballs.
PU steps out from behind plate as a bench player runs out the balls.
F1 seeing the PU step away to retrieve balls casually steps off the rubber but with wrong foot first. In C position I'm seeing the same thing F1 is and I let the balk slide. My P in short A however does not notice what's happening at the plate and calls a balk.

Would you enforce the balk?
If so, then I'd say you're a by the rules guy
If not, then the best interest of the game trumped the rules.

I believe there are many many good umpires that would wave off this balk.

So like it or not it's a fact of umpiring that both mindsets exist and your mindset relative to this question may very well influence your ruling.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Would you enforce the balk?

No because the ball is dead at this point. There is no such thing as a dead ball balk.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

No because the ball is dead at this point. There is no such thing as a dead ball balk.

Why is the ball dead?

[Welpe]

Do you allow the ball to remain alive while obtaining more baseballs from bench personnel or when changing out baseballs with the catcher? Even if not explicitly called, time should be out in this situation.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Do you allow the ball to remain alive while obtaining more baseballs from bench personnel or when changing out baseballs with the catcher? Even if not explicitly called, time should be out in this situation.

Why? The PU receiving an allocation of balls doesn't seem to warrant time being called in a 3-man game with R1 only. Help me to understand.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Do you allow the ball to remain alive while obtaining more baseballs from bench personnel or when changing out baseballs with the catcher? Even if not explicitly called, time should be out in this situation.

Changing out balls with catcher is by rule a dead ball.
Receiving balls from the bench, to my knowledge, is not.

In this case no one killed it.
So do you enforce the balk or no?

[jkumpire]

Men, I asked the question because as I read the situation, I thought the BU was not sure the BR hit 1B. I stand corrected, the BU did see him miss 1B, you have to allow the appeal and call him out.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by His High Holiness

All,

I have read the whole thread and I am appalled at the apparant willingness of some umpires to play God and try to make things "fair." Our job is to enforce the rules. League officials are allowed to make things fair if they want. But for umpires, the only correct course of action is eject the announcer, call R2 out, and move on.

With all due respect Peter MLB umpires have already done this.

Last year in the Indians / O's game we had a run put back on the board some 3 innings later - Show me the rule that would allow them to do that.

This year Mets vs. Braves - We had a catch changed to no catch. Final Ruling: The umpires retroactively declared the ball dead at the moment of the call reversal and moved everyone up a base.

Therefore, IMO it is not that some of us want to play GOD and make things fair but making a call that is in the best interest of the game. If MLB umpires can do it so can us amateurs.

Pete Booth

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Let me give you a sitch and tell me how you'd handle it.

I was doing 3 man last week when this happened.

R1, live ball, I'm in C

F1 steps on rubber in set position, PU is behind F2 but still casual.
PU had just asked for more game balls, a coach from 1st base dugout catches PUs attention (non verbal) and had two previously fouled gameballs.
PU steps out from behind plate as a bench player runs out the balls.
F1 seeing the PU step away to retrieve balls casually steps off the rubber but with wrong foot first. In C position I'm seeing the same thing F1 is and I let the balk slide. My P in short A however does not notice what's happening at the plate and calls a balk.

The bolded areas show the mistake that was made in this case. The PU should have done the same thing a pro umpire does when he requests more baseballs from the dugout. The umpire will signal the number of balls he wants from the bench, then wait until after the next pitch or play to have the ball boy run them out to him. He does not hold up the game with the pitcher on his plate and ready to go, which wastes time and interupts the flow.

This was poor game management. The PU should have held up his hand like a stop sign toward the coach who was getting his attention, and said something to the effect of, "next play, Skip," or "Hang on to 'em." Then after the next pitch or play, had the bench player trot out the baseballs. The pitcher should not have been put in that position to start with, as he was ready, and the ball was alive and in play.