[QUOTE]
Here's what happened.

Credibility is already shot to hell.

As I said to Kevin

THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT in this OP.

If I were BU I would have mirrored my partner's call because as mentioned no matter what you do at this point the credibility of this crew is already shot. Also, the PU gave the EMPHATIC NO HE DID'T GO

I would then have a POST game to get my point across.

FWIW in FED although recommended the PU doesn't have to go to his partner.

Pete Booth

Ouch!

The plate umpire should have asked right away, but in his defense this mechanic is stressed more in the Blue book than in NCAA materials. The base umpire should have offered right away, but only if he was going to rule a swing/strike, but again not necessarily a NCAA mechanic.

Since neither happened the plate umpire should have asked before bringing the kid back to the plate and since that didn't happen the base umpire should have offered before he let the player go back to the plate.

It was a good learning experience for that crew and now us, thanks for sharing.

Nope! He should have stepped up a lot sooner.

Question - Does PU kill play?
 

Change the play just a bit.

1-2 count - Batter checks swing, PU yells "ball - no swing"; ball goes all the way to the backstop, clearly the BR would have made it safely to first but does not run. Catcher retrieves ball and asks PU to get help. BU says the Batter swung. What happens?

Does the PU have to ask for help?

The batter would be out.

This is why the mechanic is taught in pro ball that any time there is a check swing with 2 strikes and 1st unoccupied with less than 2 or it occupied with 2 out that the PU should immediatly without being asked.

IMO it is good to get in the habbit of going to a partner on one that you get blocked out on or that is down and away and you see a flash, but not enough because your eyes were tracking the ball.

After the PU said

You as BU ON YOUR OWN are going to over-rule your partner.

that's a new one on me.

Me I wait until I am asked on the check swing.

What next are you going to call balls and strikes as BU as well.

Pete Booth

Well, it is what they are teaching in the pro's on Check swings. And something that we have pre-gamed for two seasons now.

The reason - It prevents situations like the one described above. There are times to live and die with a call and check swings isn't one of them, unless there is something going on in that game that I don't know about. The defense asking the PU to appeal a check swing is the only ball/strike decision that they get to argue by rule, make sure you do your best to get it right.

if he swung, he swung...if your partner has a swing on this play, why not have him call it right away...that's the advantage of having a partner...it doesn't make you a better/worse umpire if you can/can't make the call on your own.

That's a standard and accepted mechanic at most levels in this situation. It avoids the sh!thouse your mechanic could cause.


I'm amazed it's regarded as new by anyone. It's been around for years and I 've seen it taught at both pro and amateur run clinics.

That's what I was thinking, and reports my experience as well.

So, Pete, you'd rather have this clusterf--k? Not me. There's a reason why the MLBUM has the section on voluntary strike, and why I use it even at the NCAA level, whether it's a D1 game or D3 game I work. It actually prevents problems like this from occurring. It's just common sense and good officiating.

A voluntary strike occurs when the batter has the opportunity to become a runner on a third strike not caught. At that time, the BU should immediately make the call on the half-swing without waiting for his partner to ask. As a plate umpire, I want my base partner(s) to do this!

The ONLY reason there was a clusterf--k? was because the BU called it a strike.

If the BU simply mirrored the call all would be "right with the world"

It's the Bu's <a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='judgement'; return true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://elephantine.info/?v=4%2E05&ss=judgement">judgement</a> vs. the Pu's <a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='judgement'; return true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://elephantine.info/?v=4%2E05&ss=judgement">judgement</a> and whose to say which oine is correct.

ok to each his own

Pete Booth

Soooooooo, you're saying that a solution where the BU is required to "mirror" the PU, regardless of what he thinks is truthful and accurate is preferable to utilizing a mechanic specifically designed to handle this situation effectively and honestly.

My, oh my.

Apparently that's what he believes. Absent properly utilizing the "voluntary strike," the BU should just keep it a nonswing and a ball. However, that becomes moot if he employs the proper mechanic, that being the voluntary strike. There's a reason why this mechanic came to be: strictly because of this screw-up having occurred.

Oftentimes in umpiring, certain mechanics or interpretations come down as a direct result of these clusterf--ks.

There is no right??

On this play, JohnnyG 08 is right and Durham is right. So there's two rights right there.