When a crew can't reach a call...

[TussAgee11]

I'll say it again a final time...

I'm not talking about the actual poaching on calls.

I'm talking about when a crew has to get together to "fix" something that got f'd up, and a decision can't be made. Not the decision on what the actual call was (that goes to the umpire that had the call), but a decision on how to fix something. The need to "fix" something should never happen if everyone is doing their job, but far too often at the amateur level with a new pard' a mechanically sound game is not possible.

Nevertheless, Bob shed light on my question, so I'll be done with it since I must not be conveying what I'm actually trying to say.

[nopachunts]

TussAgee11,

I understand what you are asking, not the solution for the examples you gave but what to do to straighten out a fubar. First, I agree with what Bob said.

None the less, here is my $.02:
My order the final decision to "fix" the fubar is:
1) the Crew Chief or UIC if there is one
2) if not, the PU with one caveat. If the PU is a first or second year rookie and the BU has more experience, go with the BU or BU with the most experience in 3 or 4 man crews. If both crew members have the same amount of experience, the PU, it comes with the territory.

When the crew makes its decision, the crew member that is know UIC will tell the HCs what the resolution is going to be.

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The guy sounds like a Ryobi chop saw, but did you pregame who had the coverage on this play? Because normally that call at 3rd belongs to the BU (using standard mechanics), unless discussed differently in the pregame.

Great story, but I gotta' go with Steve. In every 2-man system I've ever seen, the call at 3B is the BU's in the sitch you described. And, I don't know what a "Ryobi chop saw" is either, but I inferred Steve was not being complimentary, and I'm with him there as well. Instant Karma can be a beautiful thing.

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

I'll say it again a final time...

I'm not talking about the actual poaching on calls.

I'm talking about when a crew has to get together to "fix" something that got f'd up, and a decision can't be made. Not the decision on what the actual call was (that goes to the umpire that had the call), but a decision on how to fix something. The need to "fix" something should never happen if everyone is doing their job, but far too often at the amateur level with a new pard' a mechanically sound game is not possible.

Nevertheless, Bob shed light on my question, so I'll be done with it since I must not be conveying what I'm actually trying to say.

Tuss,

I think maybe the reason you're not getting the answer to your question is because you haven't framed it properly. If I understand you correctly, your essential question is:

What do you do when the umpire(s) screw up and it creates a "situation" which, by its nature, must be "fixed" - AND the crew can't come to consensus on what the "fix" should be?

I believe the answer to your question depends on what the proximate cause of the screw-up was. Usually it's one of four things:

1. Two umpires make different calls on the same play.

2. One umpire "poaches" a call that "should" have been the other umpire's and "errs" in making it.

3. One umpire is 99.9% certain that his partner is making a material misapplication of some aspect of the rules.

4. The umpire responsible for the call does not see what he needed to in order to make the call.

How you deal with it depends on which one it is.

In #1, that"s what 9.04(c) addresses. Partners get together, try to come to a consensus "best" call/result; if they can't, UIC gets to decide, announce, & explain. (Where I come from it's the plate guy unless previously specified otherwise.)

If it's #2, my philosophy is that the "poacher" gets to deal with the mess he made. His partner should be available for a private conversation if the poacher wants to. The partner should avoid recrimination at this point in time, and just give him whatever information and advice he can about how to fix the sitch. But, it's the poachers call, he gets to decide, announce, and explain.

Should #3 occur, my philosophy is to, as discreetly as possible, get my partner's attention & have a quick, private conversation and express my concern. I would try to be "convincing", but, ultimately, it's his call.

#4 could happen for any of a number of reasons - incompetence, an umpire falls or gets run into or injured, something "weird" happens in the development of the play and he gets screened/blocked out/straight-lined, whatever. In this case, the partner should give as much information as possible and suggest the best fix. But, I believe this one too is ultimately up to the guy whose call it was if the partners can't reach concensus.

I'm not suggesting this is the "right" or "only" way to deal with these sitches, it's just how I look at it.

JM

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,



Great story, but I gotta' go with Steve. In every 2-man system I've ever seen, the call at 3B is the BU's in the sitch you described. And, I don't know what a "Ryobi chop saw" is either, but I inferred Steve was not being complimentary, and I'm with him there as well. Instant Karma can be a beautiful thing.




Tuss,

I think maybe the reason you're not getting the answer to your question is because you haven't framed it properly. If I understand you correctly, your essential question is:

What do you do when the umpire(s) screw up and it creates a "situation" which, by its nature, must be "fixed" - AND the crew can't come to consensus on what the "fix" should be?

I believe the answer to your question depends on what the proximate cause of the screw-up was. Usually it's one of four things:

1. Two umpires make different calls on the same play.

2. One umpire "poaches" a call that "should" have been the other umpire's and "errs" in making it.

3. One umpire is 99.9% certain that his partner is making a material misapplication of some aspect of the rules.

4. The umpire responsible for the call does not see what he needed to in order to make the call.

How you deal with it depends on which one it is.

In #1, that"s what 9.04(c) addresses. Partners get together, try to come to a consensus "best" call/result; if they can't, UIC gets to decide, announce, & explain. (Where I come from it's the plate guy unless previously specified otherwise.)

If it's #2, my philosophy is that the "poacher" gets to deal with the mess he made. His partner should be available for a private conversation if the poacher wants to. The partner should avoid recrimination at this point in time, and just give him whatever information and advice he can about how to fix the sitch. But, it's the poachers call, he gets to decide, announce, and explain.

Should #3 occur, my philosophy is to, as discreetly as possible, get my partner's attention & have a quick, private conversation and express my concern. I would try to be "convincing", but, ultimately, it's his call.

#4 could happen for any of a number of reasons - incompetence, an umpire falls or gets run into or injured, something "weird" happens in the development of the play and he gets screened/blocked out/straight-lined, whatever. In this case, the partner should give as much information as possible and suggest the best fix. But, I believe this one too is ultimately up to the guy whose call it was if the partners can't reach concensus.

I'm not suggesting this is the "right" or "only" way to deal with these sitches, it's just how I look at it.

JM

Thanks, this was my exact question. I did have a hard time framing it...

I agree with you on three and a half of four accounts. For the record, I was asking more about your situation 1 and 3, 2 and 4 seem pretty clear cut. As you said, 9.04 covers sit 1 - although determining UIC can sometimes be a bit tricky in amateur ball around here with politics and all, but it should be PU.

Sit 3, I just don't know if I could let my partner make a rules mistake that I knew I had right, but I guess if it is a real stalemate, you're right, nothing you can do but let him make it. I think this is what you were hinting at.

Thanks for breaking it down.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Sit 3, I just don't know if I could let my partner make a rules mistake that I knew I had right, but I guess if it is a real stalemate, you're right, nothing you can do but let him make it. I think this is what you were hinting at.

Thanks for breaking it down.

All you can do is use the phrase, "I'm 100% certain this is the rule, and I'll take the heat if I'm wrong."

Heck, if by now both manager's haven't figured out to use the phrase, "I protest" when the decision comes from the meeting, then they're partly to blame, too.

And, either way, look it up after tha game -- at least one person will learn something.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

jicecone,

Great story, but I gotta' go with Steve. In every 2-man system I've ever seen, the call at 3B is the BU's in the sitch you described. And, I don't know what a "Ryobi chop saw" is either, but I inferred Steve was not being complimentary, and I'm with him there as well. Instant Karma can be a beautiful thing.

You haven't been around long enough or worked with enough different groups..

For a while, under OBR, BU taking the second play was standard, but PU could take it under an "advanced" mechanic. Then, PU was standard, and BU was advanced. Then, it switched again. etc.

And, under FED, it did belong to BU. Although your association standardized on PU taking the call, other associations didn't -- and some had it one way and some the other.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You haven't been around long enough or worked with enough different groups..

For a while, under OBR, BU taking the second play was standard, but PU could take it under an "advanced" mechanic. Then, PU was standard, and BU was advanced. Then, it switched again. etc.

And, under FED, it did belong to BU. Although your association standardized on PU taking the call, other associations didn't -- and some had it one way and some the other.

Yup. Or been with enough good umpires who have a reasonable difference of opinion on this. I work with about 4 different guys here and 2 of them with cover third as the PU and two of them leave it to the BU. It's pretty easy -- if someone is coming up to third to cover and is there, LET THEM. Cede the call. Now, with these guys, I know I can get an extra step or two towards first, cause they've already told me they got third.

With new umpires, we talk about it, but I still prepare myself to make the call and turn to make the call at third and then I steal a peek to see if the PU is up.

Personally, I think either way works, which is why they keep going back and forth and back and forth and why this year PU covering is an advanced mechanic and next year it's the standard mechanics, blah, blah.

[UmpJM]

Bob & Rich,

I've heard of the PU taking the 2nd play in the infield with an R1 or R1 & R3 - and a few of the partners I've worked with who have been around awhile like to do it that way - but I've never heard it suggested with an R2 only, like in jicecone's sitch.

But, as Bob says, I haven't been doing this very long.

JM

[Tim C]

"I've heard of the PU taking the 2nd play in the infield with an R1 or R1 & R3 - and a few of the partners I've worked with who have been around awhile like to do it that way - but I've never heard it suggested with an R2 only, like in jicecone's sitch."

I have been around awhile and I have NEVER heard of a proper taught mechanic that had PU taking the second call at third when the original runner was R2.

[UES-2]

I have been around awhile and I have NEVER heard of a proper taught mechanic that had PU taking the second call at third when the original runner was R2.

That is true. However, it has been floating around that the plate guys have nothing else to do in this play, except overthrow, to slide down and take the play @ 3rd. This should be covered in the pregame if you and your partner decide to use it.

[jicecone]

As already been implied here. This is like putting 3 Baptist in a room to discuss the interpretation of a single bible verse.

You are sure to get 8 opinions.

When this game took place I had 4 years experience and this forum didn't exist. Mechanics were something you may or may not of heard about at your local association meeting and this was for HS ball only. Summer ball was based more on your availabilty, then your ability. Probably why both the worlds greatest ump and myself were on the game to begin with. The fact that you knew what the internet was, let alone how to use it was an exception , rather than the norm. And as evidence here, 30 years later, what the mechanic really is, is ..............................? So please stop.

The point was the difficulty of a "crew reaching a call" when the personialities are not condusive to achieving the correct expected outcome.

And we wonder why some of these threads become 7 pages long.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I have been around awhile and I have NEVER heard of a proper taught mechanic that had PU taking the second call at third when the original runner was R2.

You haven't been around enough areas of the country, then.

R2, grounder to the left side, R2 holds until F6 throws to first, then runs. Play at first, second play back at third.

This is the pretty standard "depends on where you are and who you're working with" that determines whether the BU bounces back to third or the PU is up there to make the second call.

[johnnyg08]

I think Evans says that the BU takes both ends of this play. That being said, pregame about how you're going to cover the play...IMO if the play is covered, then that's your mechanic on the play. If you can agree on how to cover the play, then default to the mechanic that's trained by the professionals who do the two man system.

[UES-2]

You haven't been around enough areas of the country, then.

R2, grounder to the left side, R2 holds until F6 throws to first, then runs. Play at first, second play back at third.

This is the pretty standard "depends on where you are and who you're working with" that determines whether the BU bounces back to third or the PU is up there to make the second call.

It's ok Rich. Tim is the same guy who said awhile back that " In the 35 + years I have umpired I have never gone to the mound to break up a meeting between the pitcher and coach." Tim's ideas, in general, are old and outdated. I have talked to guys in his HS group and they say he is a pain in the a$$. I think that some of the umps on this board think Tim is the "Obama" of umpiring. He has them fooled!

[Tim C]

"That is true. However, it has been floating around that the plate guys have nothing else to do in this play, except overthrow, to slide down and take the play @ 3rd. This should be covered in the pregame if you and your partner decide to use it. "

Rather than quoting Jim Evans let me give you a general thought:

Umpire mechanics have been developed over decades by professionals that are well trained and take into consideration all type of issues when developing umpire processes.

Even the NFHS with their outdated mechanics had a basic philosophy (hard to change) of why they had their specific system of umpiring.

In a conversation with Evans he basically wanted to know WHY umpires working games played by non-professional players INSIST on changing systems (processes) to suit themselves. People that developed the systems know that umpire crews of 2 and 3 umpires are based on compromise.

In this instance Evans would tell you the PU should stay home and allow the BU to handle the simplicity of a maximum of two base runners whereas the PU can stay home and not be compromised by an errant throw at third and be in race-to-the-plate with the advancing runner.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

And I will post about anything that I select to be involved in . . . if you don't like it don't read the thread.