What would you call?

[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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

And when he flashes back two again you give him the "what's the situation" signal again?

I cannot be the only one that consistently has partners of at least average intelligence. What is wrong with your partners that they can't take a hint? Do you seriously have a problem finding umpires that don't drool all over themselves unless you remind them to close their mouths?

Originally Posted by DG

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.

Already answered.

Originally Posted by DG

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

I've got nothing for him, since I don't know why the out was called.

Originally Posted by DG

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.

It's entirely his call. For all I know, he could have seen the ball be dislodged momentarily upon contact with the ground.

Originally Posted by DG

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.

No, 2 and 3 aren't "clearly misapplied rules." All of these are plays in which the other umpire has responsibility, and is the one who has to make the call, and has better position to see all relevant factors. You seem to ignore the fact that the offended team has the ability to get any misapplication rectified--and my responsibility starts at that point, or the point where my partner asks for help, and not before.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Already answered.

You mean that "Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction" is your already answer?

Answer a straight question. Would you post-game an obvious mis-application of rule or have discussion during the game to potentially correct?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

You mean that "Enforcement of penalties is concurrent jurisdiction" is your already answer?

Yep.

Originally Posted by DG

Answer a straight question. Would you post-game an obvious mis-application of rule or have discussion during the game to potentially correct?

That's not a straight question. If I have shared or primary responsibility for a decision, then I would rectify it at that time. If not, it goes after the game. I'd be giving the "I have something for you" signal throughout the ensuing discussion, but no overt input.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

That's not a straight question. If I have shared or primary responsibility for a decision, then I would rectify it at that time. If not, it goes after the game. I'd be giving the "I have something for you" signal throughout the ensuing discussion, but no overt input.

I can see you excel at misdirection. Both umpires have responsibility for proper application of the rules.

You have "what's the situation" signals and now "I have something for you" signals, but will apparently NOT call time and have a discussion with your partner about a potential rules mis-application.

If I pooch a rule (not likely) you will not tell me during the game, unless I ask, which I will not because I don't know I pooched. And the coaches don't know so there is no justice and we, the team, did not do our jobs.

If I pooch a rule I would rather you throw me under the bus and I will learn from the experience, and I will be happy to throw you under too and maybe you will learn too, or not.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

I can see you excel at misdirection. Both umpires have responsibility for proper application of the rules.

You have "what's the situation" signals and now "I have something for you" signals, but will apparently NOT call time and have a discussion with your partner about a potential rules mis-application.

If I pooch a rule (not likely) you will not tell me during the game, unless I ask, which I will not because I don't know I pooched. And the coaches don't know so there is no justice and we, the team, did not do our jobs.

If I pooch a rule I would rather you throw me under the bus and I will learn from the experience, and I will be happy to throw you under too and maybe you will learn too, or not.

This goes in the "whatever" pile.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by DG

I can see you excel at misdirection. Both umpires have responsibility for proper application of the rules.

You have "what's the situation" signals and now "I have something for you" signals, but will apparently NOT call time and have a discussion with your partner about a potential rules mis-application.

If I pooch a rule (not likely) you will not tell me during the game, unless I ask, which I will not because I don't know I pooched. And the coaches don't know so there is no justice and we, the team, did not do our jobs.

If I pooch a rule I would rather you throw me under the bus and I will learn from the experience, and I will be happy to throw you under too and maybe you will learn too, or not.

Wow! You took the time to write all that down and then post it where other umpires would read it? And you're serious? Even about that last part?

Whatever.