What would you call?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

As much as it killed me, last week, I let a horses--- call by a partner stand, because he refused to ask me for help. It was the most blatant kick I have ever seen, and it was hard to walk away when he refused to ask me for help. I have never just straightened him out and changed a call without being asked.

You wouldn't approach him for an obvious, critical misapplication of the rules? I guess I would if I felt that was what happened Maybe I'm in the minority

-Josh

[Matt]

Originally Posted by jdmara

You wouldn't approach him for an obvious, critical misapplication of the rules? I guess I would if I felt that was what happened Maybe I'm in the minority

-Josh

I hope you're in the minority.

There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Matt

I hope you're in the minority.

There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them.

For instance, a few weeks ago...R2 stealing on the pitch with two outs, B3 swings at the pitch and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R3 and is interfered with by B2. PU calls runner out on the interference. I approach PU and discuss the situation with him. He corrected the call, B2 is out for interference. Are you saying I shouldn't correct that error? We should start the next inning off with B2 at bat? There is a difference between throwing the partner under the bus (ie "Hey Randy you're wrong!" from 30 feet away or telling the coach he screwed that call up) and getting the call right because of a rules interpretation/knowledge error.

-Josh

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

I have INT also, in both cases, but let's discuss the bigger question that has been raised here.

Let's say you are BU, and with R1 stealing the batter interferes with catcher's throw. PU properly calls INT, then calls R1 out and leaves the batter at the plate. No one argues, clearly the defense is better off so if the defensive coach knows the rule he is not saying. Offensive coach clearly does not know the rule and PU does not either, but you the BU do.

No judgment call involved here, clearly rule mis-application. And some will stick that info in their pocket and post game this?

Originally Posted by jdmara

For instance, a few weeks ago...R2 stealing on the pitch with two outs, B3 swings at the pitch and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R3 and is interfered with by B2. PU calls runner out on the interference. I approach PU and discuss the situation with him. He corrected the call, B2 is out for interference. Are you saying I shouldn't correct that error? We should start the next inning off with B2 at bat? There is a difference between throwing the partner under the bus (ie "Hey Randy you're wrong!" from 30 feet away or telling the coach he screwed that call up) and getting the call right because of a rules interpretation/knowledge error.

-Josh

Both of these have the same key difference with the OP--this is a matter of enforcement, not of the application of the rule as to the circumstances of the play. In both of these cases, the correct call is made; it is the penalty that is incorrect. Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction--look at the more common example of balks and obstruction. Often, the calling umpire is not the only one that will have enforcement duties--if BU calls obstruction, PU will often have a better ability to determine the base to award in the case of that runner attempting to advance multiple bases. Likewise, if PU calls a balk, it is often BU that calls "Time" when appropriate and awards bases.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Both of these have the same key difference with the OP--this is a matter of enforcement, not of the application of the rule as to the circumstances of the play. In both of these cases, the correct call is made; it is the penalty that is incorrect. Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction--look at the more common example of balks and obstruction. Often, the calling umpire is not the only one that will have enforcement duties--if BU calls obstruction, PU will often have a better ability to determine the base to award in the case of that runner attempting to advance multiple bases. Likewise, if PU calls a balk, it is often BU that calls "Time" when appropriate and awards bases.

You said "There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them." I certainly felt like you were in the "don't mention it camp" by this statement.

Another example. First batter of a middle inning grounds out. Offensive coach comes out with scorebook in hand, defensive coaches joins in. No argument, just gentlemanly discussion with PU. They separate to their respective dugouts and the next batter comes to the plate and PU shows and says "2 outs". Now if you were BU would you wonder how we could have one batter and 2 outs and call time to ask the PU, or would you post-game this so it would not appear to be throwing the PU under the bus?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

You said "There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them." I certainly felt like you were in the "don't mention it camp" by this statement.

Another example. First batter of a middle inning grounds out. Offensive coach comes out with scorebook in hand, defensive coaches joins in. No argument, just gentlemanly discussion with PU. They separate to their respective dugouts and the next batter comes to the plate and PU shows and says "2 outs". Now if you were BU would you wonder how we could have one batter and 2 outs and call time to ask the PU, or would you post-game this so it would not appear to be throwing the PU under the bus?

Neither. I give him the "what's the situation?" signal, and when he flashes two, I flash back one.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Neither. I give him the "what's the situation?" signal, and when he flashes two, I flash back one.

"What's the situation sign?" What does that look like? And when he flashes back two again you give him the "what's the situation" signal again?

Situation 1: R1 stealing, batter interferes with catcher on the throw. PU properly rules INT and calls the runner out and batter remains at the plate. You are BU.

Situation 2. With runner on 1B and 1 out in the 7th inning of tie game between two conference rivals. Visiting team batter comes to the plate and takes ball one. Defensive coach comes out to PU with scorebook in hand, defensive coach joins, gentlemanly discussion and then PU calls the batter out. You are BU

Situation 3. Fly ball to F7, F7 catches the ball below the waste on the run, snow-cone style, ball touches the dirt but he comes up with the ball no bobble. BU rules no catch. You are PU.

Do you flash the "what's the situation signal" for these too, or call time for discussion? 1 and 3 are clearly misapplied rules and 2 has potential to be.

[jdmara]

Maybe I'm just taking an approach from basketball and misapplying it to baseball but if the following situation occurs, this is how I would handle it:

Originally Posted by jdmara

Two outs, 1-1 count. R2 stealing on the pitch, B3 swings at the pitch and misses. F2 attempts to throw out R3 and is interfered with by B2. When it was obvious R2 was safe, PU declares R2 out on the interference by B3. I approach PU (aka Randy):

Me: "Randy, what did you see?"
PU: "F2 caught the pitch and attempted to throw out R2 at 3B. F2's hand hit the bat of B3, who had both feet out of the box"
Me: "Who did you call out on the interference?"
Randy: "R3"
Me: "Randy, I believe you've misapplied the interference rule. Shouldn't B3 be called out on the interference?"
Randy: "You are right"

Randy then declared B3 out on the play instead of R2.

I didn't undermine the PU by yelling across the field at the PU. I calmly approached him (would have stepped away from players if they were in the area) and asked him what he saw. If I something that he needed to know (for instance, on a tag play the ball was dropped but he was blocked from seeing it), I would approach him, ask him what he saw, and then tell him what I saw. The calling umpire will make the final decision on what to call. I'm just providing what I saw and then s/he makes the decision.

-Josh

[GoodwillRef]

Why are baseball umpires so stubborn and unwilling to change a call when it is obvious the call or rule applied is wrong? In football and basketball we get together and exchange information and try to get the call right...but in baseball we would rather be wrong than get some help and have to swallow a big peice of humble pie.

[kylejt]

I've got no problem changing my calls. Let's just do it the correct way.

[PeteBooth]

You are missing the point

Yes baseball officials should get together however, do it the correct way.

To use a comparison.

Suppose a basketball official ruled a charge on the offensive player but you were 100% convinced is was a blocking foul on the part of the defense. Are you going to chime in unnanoucned and over-rule your partner?

In baseball you cannot have officials arbritrarily over-ruling one another or injecting themselves in a rule interp UNLESS asked. That's the way it is and should be.

Remember if the coach does not agree with a rule interp then protest. It's no BIG deal. Once the coach protests then we can assist by RULE.

If the coach does not know how to file a valid protest then shame on him.

Pete Booth

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You are missing the point

Yes baseball officials should get together however, do it the correct way.

To use a comparison.

Suppose a basketball official ruled a charge on the offensive player but you were 100% convinced is was a blocking foul on the part of the defense. Are you going to chime in unnanoucned and over-rule your partner

In baseball you cannot have officials arbritrarily over-ruling one another or injecting themselves in a rule interp UNLESS asked. That's the way it is and should be.

Remember if the coach does not agree with a rule interp then protest. It's no BIG deal. Once the coach protests then we can assist by RULE.

If the coach does not know how to file a valid protest then shame on him.

Pete Booth

You've hit the nail on the head with ypur basketball comparison Pete. Well put.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Matt

I hope you're in the minority.

There are acceptable, established means by which a misapplication of a rule can be rectified. Throwing a partner under the bus is not one of them.

It is our job to get the call right, and if I know my partner is kicking a call (not a judgement out/safe) I am going to help him out and make us both look good. What good does it do to let him kick it...helping your partner and getting it right to me is not throwing him under the bus, not helping when you know there is something wrong is like running yourself over with the bus.

[PeteBooth]

Disagree 100%

Whose to say who is right.

LET'S GET REAL

if your partner does not come to you THAT means that he thinks HIS Rule interp is CORRECT.

Now you step in WITHOUT being asked (even if you are right) and now the 2 umpires start arguing with one another on the field of play.

How does that look.

Remember the call STILL belongs to the umpire who made it.

In addition you are violating a rule.


OBR Rule 9.02

(c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.

There is a reason the aforementioned rule exists.

I am going to help him out and make us both look good

And you would be violating a rule that we are supposed to uphold.

Pete Booth