over rule or not

[archangel]

Originally Posted by Suudy

But it makes me wonder in baseball. In football, we usually have 5 officials for varsity games, and there are more the higher up you get. Yet it seems that for varsity baseball games, there are less officials. Are these numbers of officials less because there are less responsibilities, the action slower, etc?

There is probably no 1 answer, as different area/states have different budget issues. In my area of Ohio, we use 2 umpires, I believe primarily because baseball is a non revenue sport, vs football/basketball with ticket sales.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well ... I'm 100 feet away, he's right there and making a rather emphatic call - I'm assuming he has reason to do so. If he asks me for input, I'll tell him what I saw. While it LOOKS to me like it hit the batter, he's closer and he's obviously being firm for a reason. Perhaps the ball hit a funky part of the ground in the batters box causing the weird bounce... I don't know. I'm definitely asking in the locker room... but there's no WAY I'm interjecting my 100-feet away judgement in a case like this.

Thanks, Mike. I offered this play as an example of one umpire seeing something that his partner doesn't but is in jeopardy if he interjects without appeal - thus "over ruling" the PU. (not a fan of the term)

Ideally, the play would have been ruled foul immediately by the BU; he then listens to the HC complain about how that call can be made from so far away when the partner is mere feet from it. (The same coach will ask BU to call a half swing from there though!) The PU should have never signalled fair on a ball that's still rolling either. Fun stuff we get to see.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

In our area, NCAA D3 baseball is played with 2 umpires until you get to the conference tournaments. For 99% of HS baseball games, 3 umpires (IMO) would be overkill. Better to take that money and add more officials in football or basketball (where we still do a lot of 2-person).

As pointed out, depends on the state/region. We do 5 man for every varsity football, 4 man for all JV games, and 3 man for jr. high.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by jophyal

in our area, budget cuts and cheaper schools still have two man umpire crews for varsity games. that includes some state power house 5A schools.

I believe that two man is common throughout the SE USA.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by kylejt

IMO, you're too smart to actually believe this. You're just arguing for arguing's sake. There are several guys who have come and gone from these boards that have taken this avenue. I hope you're not another one.

Thanks kylejt but if your insinuation is that I should get booted for voicing an opinion that is based on being ethical, fair and empowers the game, so be it.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
Under your definition the crew has no integrity if they are willing to overlook a wrong call when one of the crew knows that is the case. Ultimately, it is all about how you perceive yourself as an official and a person and how you wish to lead your life, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You obviously don't know what I mean by "crew integrity," so just keep on keeping on.

Could be. I take it to mean the crew's decisions, their fairness and their reputations as sincere arbiters of the game reflect their integrity as officials. Or lack thereof.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you offer unsolicited help on some of the plays mentioned here, you might as well "vote" on every call.

That's bull Bob and you know it. It is not what I said over and over again at all.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Could be. I take it to mean the crew's decisions, their fairness and their reputations as sincere arbiters of the game reflect their integrity as officials. Or lack thereof.

No it means that if you are making decisions for your partners when an umpire/official is in the right position, every call or decision should be up for debate. And if every play is up for debate, a coach should every time he does not like a call go to the partner for "help" or to "get it right." This is why you use procedures to change things and not every call is up for debate no matter what your opinion is. That is what he is referring to, not sure what integrity has to do with this when an official is standing on top of a play and makes a judgment. Heck we all can have an opinion, but that does not mean our opinion from 100 feet away is right.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

That's bull Bob and you know it. It is not what I said over and over again at all.

You said in so many words, "Get it right forget procedures." So what are you saying if we are not to follow a procedure as to how a call is made? Either you do not have the integrity to say that is not what you meant or you do not have to ability to clarify your position.

Peace

[Simply The Best]

No one on, one out. Batter swings at the pitch and the ball goes down, rolling fifteen feet or so to where the F5 (playing in) grabs it in fair territory. PU IMMEDIATELY signals fair and takes a step or two towards the ball. F5 makes the throw to F3. The batter is hopping up and down on one foot and the HC is declaring that the ball was foul, off the batter's foot while in the box. You see the batter's reaction and had watched the ball hit the his foot, or at least the best you could see from 100+ feet away. Your PU gave an adamant signal IMMEDIATELY. Do you kill the play? Do you wait for him to ask your help? Agree with him or give what you had?

Admittedly, a foul is a quick, fairly easy call for a BU to assist on. However, this play involves a PU who IMMEDIATELY points fair (yes, waiting for a touch or stoppage is the correct mechanic but not in play here). Do you interject?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If I see it, I kill it. If I don't kill it, I didn't see it (so don't come to me for help).

This is a call, like balks, infield fly, check swing, with joint responsibility. If either umpire sees it, get it.

Which is exactly my point. Any call where one official has a clear advantage in seeing the call, especially where his partner may be blocked, hindered or otherwise impeded in making the call, that official with the clearer review, who knows that his partner has made an incorrect call, has the ethical responsibility to inform his partner of the mistake. I don't care how he does this. Signals, T/O, spins on his head, he has to get the info to his partner.

If his partner refuses to correct, for whatever reason, then that is on his shoulders, his lack of integrity and his lack of responsibility as an arbiter.

You have done all you could.

Oh, except tell your assignor you won't call with that sleezeball ever again.

[MD Longhorn]

Refusing to "correct" your partner is absolutely not a lack of integrity. I totally get you if there's a RULES misinterpretation involved. But when we're talking about judgment calls (fair/foul... or in this case did or did not hit the batter) if I, from 100 feet away, THINK the player was hit by the ball, and partner behaves as you explain, I'm showing my integrity by not killing the play and assuming that my partner is doing this for a reason.

In fact, the fact that signalling fair BEFORE the ball stops is very much NOT the normal mechanic... I'm assuming that my partner doing so is SPECIFICALLY because he is positive in his call and has reason to believe I MIGHT kill this play - and is trying to keep me from doing so.

Like I said - I would definitely be discussing this play after the game, and in fact it's unusual enough that I MIGHT come in between innings - a rarity without reason, if for no other reason to find out what he saw.

STB ... let me ask this. Say a pitch is a good foot outside, but your partner calls it a strike. Are you going to stop play and go correct him?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

No one on, one out. Batter swings at the pitch and the ball goes down, rolling fifteen feet or so to where the F5 (playing in) grabs it in fair territory. PU IMMEDIATELY signals fair and takes a step or two towards the ball. F5 makes the throw to F3. The batter is hopping up and down on one foot and the HC is declaring that the ball was foul, off the batter's foot while in the box. You see the batter's reaction and had watched the ball hit the his foot, or at least the best you could see from 100+ feet away. Your PU gave an adamant signal IMMEDIATELY. Do you kill the play? Do you wait for him to ask your help? Agree with him or give what you had?

OK I will play along.

For the record there is a procedure to call these plays. And as a BU if you see a batted ball hit the batter immediately, the procedure you should apply is to make a ruling that the ball is dead. Now it is up to the PU to ultimately decide what we are going to ultimately call. And if you have nothing, then you call nothing.

And that is the "procedure" I have pretty much followed my entire career and most trained umpires follow as well.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

Admittedly, a foul is a quick, fairly easy call for a BU to assist on. However, this play involves a PU who IMMEDIATELY points fair (yes, waiting for a touch or stoppage is the correct mechanic but not in play here). Do you interject?

Which is exactly my point. Any call where one official has a clear advantage in seeing the call, especially where his partner may be blocked, hindered or otherwise impeded in making the call, that official with the clearer review, who knows that his partner has made an incorrect call, has the ethical responsibility to inform his partner of the mistake. I don't care how he does this. Signals, T/O, spins on his head, he has to get the info to his partner.

One can assume that the PU is making a call based where the ball became fair, whether the ball hit the batter. So the signal does not change the responsibility of the PU or the BU in this specific case. And when you try to make this into an ethical issue, it either shows you do not understand typical training or you are playing stupid.

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

If his partner refuses to correct, for whatever reason, then that is on his shoulders, his lack of integrity and his lack of responsibility as an arbiter.

You have done all you could.

Oh, except tell your assignor you won't call with that sleezeball ever again.

Again you are so wrong again. First you are using a situation that is widely has a procedure for any umpire on the field to call the play dead when a batted ball hits a batter and certainly immediately when this happens. That is actually the standard procedure to be followed. But you said "Get the call right forget the procedure." So that means that if we have a play at second base and the PU has an opinion they should correct the call to what they think just took place. That is what folks like me object to and feel that there is a way to correct a call. But if you’re correcting a call is if there was a tag, then I do not want to work with you ever again until you get better training. This is the play we are talking about when we say making a call 100 feet away. Just like we do not rule on a checked swing as a BU when the PU has either made a call or has not asked for an appeal. Then again something tells me this will not sink in to you either.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No it means that if you are making decisions for your partners when an umpire/official is in the right position, every call or decision should be up for debate. And if every play is up for debate, a coach should every time he does not like a call go to the partner for "help" or to "get it right." This is why you use procedures to change things and not every call is up for debate no matter what your opinion is. That is what he is referring to, not sure what integrity has to do with this when an official is standing on top of a play and makes a judgment. Heck we all can have an opinion, but that does not mean our opinion from 100 feet away is right.

Peace

Exactly. It's more like the meaning of "hull integrity" when talking about a ship. "The quality or state of being whole or undivided."

Questioning your partner's calls will just give the coach more ammo; you may as well just toss him under the bus because you're telling everyone present that you think he just missed something so obvious that you had to come get it from 100 feet away.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Questioning your partner's calls will just give the coach more ammo; you may as well just toss him under the bus because you're telling everyone present that you think he just missed something so obvious that you had to come get it from 100 feet away.

And I have asked partners in many games "What did you see?" on a particular play that I had an opinion about, only to have them say they saw something I clearly did not. I have learned that what I "think I see" is not what might have happened. I tend to trust my partners and if I have information I will give it to them in the appropriate matter.

Peace

[Rich]

The troll talks so much about integrity and arrogance and I find it quite ironic -- to me, it's the height of arrogance to presume that I have a better (and correct) view from 100 feet away while the umpire a few feet away got it wrong.