Indecisive or Good Umpiring

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

In light of the obscure ground rule, do you feel this was good umpiring or indecisive umpiring?

It's always good to have multiple sets of eyes on the ball in boundary situations, if it can be done and still comply with other responsibilities.

That said, what if you saw something different? What makes one opinion "better" than the other? Sometimes there is a reason -- angle, being blocked out, closer, etc. You (the crew) need to decide whether the reson the opinions differ is sufficient to not go with the opinion of the guy who has responsibility for the call.

[GA Umpire]

I believe it was indecisive. It was his call to make. What if you saw nothing? Then what? He will have to make a decision then and he has just dragged you into it if they don't agree.

For me, it would be:

I signal what I have on the play. HC comes to me if he disagrees. I say "It is my call since my partner's responsibility is the runner." I understand it should be gotten right. However, each has their own responsibilities and calling that in this situation is his.

Again, I ask what if you saw nothing? He has just put part of the blame of calling it on you as to whether they disagree with the call. This is his call all the way with no help. One of the drawbacks to a 2 man crew but that is what has to be done.

He has his responsibilities and you have yours. This was his to get right or wrong. So, I say indecisive in this case.

[njdevs00cup]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's always good to have multiple sets of eyes on the ball in boundary situations, if it can be done and still comply with other responsibilities.

That said, what if you saw something different? What makes one opinion "better" than the other? Sometimes there is a reason -- angle, being blocked out, closer, etc. You (the crew) need to decide whether the reson the opinions differ is sufficient to not go with the opinion of the guy who has responsibility for the call.

Bob,

When the PU came out to discuss the play, he initiated the conversation by saying he thought the ball hit the tree. He did ask if I got a look and I did wonder what would have happened if I saw the ball bounce into the deadball area. Even though it was not my call, I think I had a better angle to make the call and was closer. Undoubtedly the fact that the PU and I both agreed that the ball was a homerun helped prevent some of the arguement.

Matt

[TussAgee11]

When you hook in, the ball ain't yours no more. You should not have called time, you can echo you're partner's call.

If he wants help on HIS call, then he comes to you. He breaks the pow wow and signals what he wants.

Lastly, this is why you should go out on trouble balls. A trouble ball had a close call, and an umpire is 300 feet away making it. Anytime the ball could go into DPT on a bounce, go out. Anytime the ball is headed to an opening, go out. Any time 2 fielders converge, go out. Anytime a player might need to make a dive, go out. Anytime its down the line, go out. Anytime the ball rolls to the fence on a crappy field, go out.

Anytime you read the slightest bit of trouble, GO OUT!

[Kevin Finnerty]

You'd make an enemy out of quite a few of the partners I've had going out that often and making them jog all the way to second.

But, I'm with you. I like to get it right. But I do keep a personal log of all the ones that didn't end up warranting my going out. (My score's pretty good.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

You'd make an enemy out of quite a few of the partners I've had going out that often and making them jog all the way to second.

But, I'm with you. I like to get it right. But I do keep a personal log of all the ones that didn't end up warranting my going out. (My score's pretty good.)

Agreed. Don't go out unless there is a possible catch/no catch or fair/foul. All that other stuff can be handled by the PU, or after the play you can be sent out to look at it.

There are few more embarrassing sensations than turning and going out and realizing that it was unecessary, making the man with the gear do more running.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, going out from A on that type of ball isn't going help much...however, he's still glancing at the B/R for touch and F3 for OBS...while it's PU's call, to have another set of eyes on the ball on a weird field certainly isn't hurting them IMO

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Agreed. Don't go out unless there is a possible catch/no catch or fair/foul.

Or the ball threatens the fence, or there are multiple fielders converging.

All that said, as PU I get to (about) the same spot to rule on a ball to right as I do to take BR around first, so it doesn't rellay matter much to me.

And, it's better to be out, wishing you were in, than in, wishing you were out.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Or the ball threatens the fence, or there are multiple fielders converging.

Both of these fall under catch/no catch situations. A long fly ball that may fly or bounce over, go out. Two fielders converging on the ball, go out.

If the ball is merely rolling towards the fence, I don't see the point in going out, unless there is some opening in the fence that was discussed in the ground rules, and even then the BU isn't normally going to need to see the results immediately. He can be sent out to look at it if the fielder holds up his arms.

What I'm talking about are umpires who are not good judges of trouble situations, and just go out willy-nilly on routine cans of corn to F9.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Agreed. Don't go out unless there is a possible catch/no catch or fair/foul. All that other stuff can be handled by the PU, or after the play you can be sent out to look at it.

There are few more embarrassing sensations than turning and going out and realizing that it was unecessary, making the man with the gear do more running.

I think it shows good hustle by both umpires. Obviously you aren't going to go out unless there is a catch/no catch fair/foul boundary decision to be made... those are about the only calls that can occur in the outfield.

Sometimes balls end up not being trouble that BU reads as trouble. I've gone out and had fielders make running catches in the gap. That is potential trouble in my mind, and even though we didn't end up with a "call" we were about 3 feet away from having one. And I ain't telling 3 feet when I take my read step, so I'll be headed out on plays that aren't routine from the get-go.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Lastly, this is why you should go out on trouble balls.

The ball was to LEFT CENTER field. That's never BU's call from A, no matter how much "trouble" it is.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The ball was to LEFT CENTER field. That's never BU's call from A, no matter how much "trouble" it is.

A misreading of the OP by me, you are correct. My apologies. I figured the reason for the debate was because it was right center.

Why did the BU think he had a call to make at all then? Not indecisive or good umpiring, just not following mechanics.

And Kev - philosophically speaking now, going out at the correct time should not be a function whether trouble occurred, it was whether or not trouble had the potential to occur. In which case, its easy to score 100