over rule or not
 

I was working as the BU when PU declared dead ball after batter was hit by pitch. The pitch struck the ground before hitting the batter and the PU did not award the batter first base. This was a game between 12 year old teams, and neither coach said anything about the call. As BU should I have over ruled and overturned the PU's call and awarded batter first base? I was told the PU was experienced so I wasn't sure what his reaction would have been if I had done this. My goal is to get the call right.

By rule, you cannot overrule him. You can give him information that might convince him to change his call, but he must be the one to change it.

Information such as, "You'd be a moron not to award that kid 1B, cuz he was HBP!"

Unless, of course, he had reason, by rule, to not award the base. It happens.

Might be some other reason he did not award, like allowing himself to be hit. In any event, I think this is good post game discussion, since no one complained and he did not ask for help.

Congratulations on your sincere devotion to ethical officiating. :D

You cannot overrule PU. Buy him a pizza, point out his error. Make sure he picks up the check. :D

Just because he has been doing it longer than you doesn't mean he knows the rules or is a better umpire than you.

See myth # 29.

I hate the "get the call right" mentality.

It should be "get the procedure right".

On a play like this, the manager needs to do his job. He needs to go to the PU, ask what he had, and if he'd get help from the BU on the call.

Maybe the PU thought the batter should have moved, and intentionally held his ground. Who knows? But there's a proper way for these things to play out.

I hate when umpires play with words instead of centering on getting the call right regardless.Screw proper. Get the call right. Properly if possible, or not.

How far are you willing to take this? Are you also going jump the gun on checkswings, without waiting for the PU to ask you? At what point are we going to require the manager to do his job?

I'm all for getting the calls right, but the proper procedure needs to be maintained to do so.

Rich,

Im surprised you didnt say,

"The umpire wasn't or isn't calling that today time to shut up"

or direct quote

"The umpire already made it clear he was calling it. It won't get fixed mid game. Time to shut up."

Why are we assuming PU made the wrong call? Why would you, as BU, make that assumption on the field? Wow. If I made this call and you marched in to try to "overrule" me, you'd keep going and I'd work the rest alone. What nonsense.

Which is what I said was preferable.:rolleyes:

When I see it happen with my eyes, I don't consider that assuming. The batter tried to avoid the pitch and was hit. The kid should be awarded first base. If you would have made the same call as the PU in this game then you would have been wrong to. Just saying...

Please look in the rulebook and see where you are never allowed to overrule another official.

Then umpire another 1000 games or so. Then come back here and (not ask) answer this question.

Joel

No offense, but why do you think your opinion from 90-ish feet away of whether the batter tried to avoid the pitch or not should be substituted for that of your partner (remember - he's your PARTNER) who is 3-5 feet away. I guarantee you that if I made this call and ordered the batter to stay in the box, I had a reason. You should respect your partner enough to assume that he had a reason.

Consider this the next time you think about "overruling" or "correcting" your partner... there's a reason we have areas of responsibility. Obviously, you and your partner saw things differently - the default should be that the umpire whose call this is had the better view, unless that umpire himself feels he missed something for a reason. It is the height of arrogance for any umpire to assume his vision of a play from many feet away was better than his partners, right on the spot.

This is why I also hate the "We got to get it right" crowd as well. If we are not out there to get it right we should not be out there. But that does not mean we should not allow people to do their job and if they make a mistake, they make a mistake.

Peace

Myth # 29 is that if you're hit by a bounced pitch you don't get to go to 1B.

Man, I was really on a role agreeing with StB when all of a sudden he comes in with this. :eek: On calls that belong to your partner, you let your partner make the call. No "overruling". If you have information you want to pass on you can signal your partner to that effect (using the signal agreed upon in your pre-game). If he wants your help he can come to you. If one of the HC's doesn't think it is important enough to come out and ask about the call or ask your partner to get help, it's no longer any concern of yours - play ball. Get the call right, but don't go stepping on toes ("Fools rush in"). Follow proper procedure first.

Me:Screw proper. Get the call right. Properly if possible, or not.Which I said earlier in this thread.1. - Correct. 2. Agree. 3.No way. If you know your partner has the wrong call, you need to let him know. Waiting for a manger to catch the incorrect call is unethical and serves the game, the players ans the officials poorly.Toes heal. Ultimately, it is all about how you <plural> perceive yourself as an official and how you wish to lead your life, isn't it?

In basketball, this is known as ball-watching, and is always justified by "get the call right" newer officials who don't understand the importance of procedure, primary coverage, and crew integrity. It's the same guy who would respond to a coach by saying, "Yeah, coach, I thought it was a bad call too, but he won't budge. Sorry."

That is great but just because you come in from 100 feet away does not mean you got it right either. ;)


What do you mean "know your partner has the wrong call?" Most judgment calls are just that, judgments. If they are in the right position how am I going to "know when they got something right or wrong all the time?" It is one thing if we are talking about rules, but a judgment call means that they made a judgment call. This situation we are talking about is a judgment call. Those can have different opinions. This has nothing to do with ethics, this has to do with the umpire have responsibilities and if you want to do their job, maybe you need to be on that field alone. Or they do not need to be there at all if they cannot do their job.


Yes and in life many people have different roles or jobs to do. That is why in the medical profession you have different levels of nurses and different doctors doing different things to possibly help in a hospital.

If procedure does not matter, why as base umpires we do not give our opinion on a checked swing until we are asked? Or better yet why do you not see BUs give ball/strike calls? Do not say procedures do not matter when we use them all the time in our job as umpires.

Peace

Amen, preach on.

come out and overrule a banger (I had him safe, no tag. He had a tag and out) I had at 3rd last year. Had no business coming out from behind the plate at all, and flat out came to me and told me he was overruling me, and that he would take all the heat. Which didn't happen by the way. You don't offer help on JUDGEMENT calls unless asked by the umpire who made the call.

Partner makes call. Partner is wrong. E.g. he didn't see the ball not caught because it landed out of his sight line. C'mon, Rut, surely you don't need this explained to you. :(

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?

Which ultimately means you're first sentence above is BS, Rut. :rolleyes:

You are the one that said throw out the procedures. I never said that we should not get plays right, but I am not going to dismiss a partner's call because I think they got it wrong either without following a procedure. I think you need to spell out what you mean if the suggestion is anyone can come in and change an "incorrect" call they believe took place. You should be clearer or specific as to what you mean. I am not trying to read your mind.

Peace

First of all most of what I read from you is BS and that appears to be what the majority here think. ;)

Secondly I come from an officiating background that if you cannot do the job they will find someone else to do it in your place. Or you will not be working very long. Not everyone can save us from a missed call. And if you can see what I am doing several feet away, what the heck did you miss? Half the time I do not even see plays my partner are involved in because I am watching other things. But as Snaqs said, there are always ball-watchers among us.

Peace

Kylejt wrote: "...On a play like this, the manager needs to do his job. He needs to go to the PU, ask what he had, and if he'd get help from the BU on the call..."

A similar incident like this happened to me last week in a JV game. I'm in the C pos. with a runner on 3rd. F1 pitches into the dirt; ball bounces into the batter's leg, then bounces off the catcher past him. R3 runs home. PU makes no call only indicating that R3is safe at the plate. (I thought I definitely saw a pitch hit the ground and then hit the batter, but I remained silent.) Defensive coach asks the PU "Wasn't that a dead ball?" Asks him twice before PU comes out to me. PU tells me that the ball hit the ground first. I told him that it doesn't matter; the ball hit the batter directly after hitting the ground. It's still HBP. PU took my information, then directed the batter to first and returned the runner back to 3rd. Play on...

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

Some calls (including most "rule mistakes") get unsolicited help. Some don't. Some can't be changed even if help is sought. Knowing when to do what (as either the calling umpire or the non-calling umpire) is part of the art of umpiring.

The NCAA book privides some good guidance here.

On the OP -- if I don't know why PU kept the runner at the plate, I let it go. Maybe he judged the batter moved into the pitch (that's a judgement call). If I hear that he kept the batter there because "the ball bounced", then it becomes a rules issue and I'm far more likely to go in.

Bob, kick this one around:

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?

Mike,
Did you see the ball hit batter's foot before BU called "fair"?

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.

Exactly, great advice. Make the call based on what you see and know happened. Leave everything else to your partner(s) to make the call(s) as they saw them.

Thanks
David

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

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.

His only role here is to troll. Best advice is to simply put him on the Ignore List and then only have to deal with the tripe others quote.

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.

That's a shame, as he actually has some sort of grasp of umpiring, not like the others.

Oh well.

Of course he does. I'm guessing he's a fairly decent umpire who knows exactly what to post to rile up the masses and that he believes almost none of it. Perfect troll.

This was the best lesson I ever learned when I was a young football official--stick to your responsibilities, even when the play goes away from you.

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? Also, I presume each official has an area of responsibility. So, in football, if the BJ is throwing a flag for roughing the passer, I'm guessing is akin to the BU calling balls/strikes?

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.

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).

point(s) taken...

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.:(

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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?
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.

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

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

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

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?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 <as the correcting official> have done all you could.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Been there, done that. Both ways. Bob is exactly correct here.

Seen the ball clearly go off of Batter, I take two steps in, wait for partner to react and kill the play. You kill it quick, loudly and confidently and never, not once, has it been questioned.

Also, did not clearly see the ball hit the batter and neither did PU but you immeadiately have a dancing batter in front of you. Use some judgement man. Only seen Derek Jeter last year fake getting hit by the ball and he makes a living trying to get on base. Your average ballplayer is not going to jump around like a kangaroo unless he gets hit. And yes, I have even seen batters get hit and take off for first, theres an easy out on a dumb ball player.

In a perfect game if you have to go to your partner 2-3 times during the game, your going to take crap. There is no carte blanc method that works perfectly. Just look at MLB. There is a fine line between knowing when to act like an arrogant arse and when to act like a well groomed team. If you both work to get your own calls right and communicate only when necessary your going to look like the latter. There is no black and whte answer here.

Just remember though, when you, or your partner screw up, you both look bad.

http://forum.officiating.com/750056-post55.html Now get it right Rut.:rolleyes:

Refusing to tell your partner he was wrong on a play call that can be corrected, and should be corrected, when you know he is most assuredly is. It is a lie and fraud by omission.http://forum.officiating.com/750056-post55.html
Balls and strikes are not play calls, did you not know that?

Okie dokie...then, how about enlightening us poor uneducated folk with YOUR list of those calls that can be corrected without invitation by one's partner.

You must not remember this post.

BTW, this was post #10 if you want to dispute my comments. ;)

Peace

Psa ii
 

Apparently, my first PSA was a little too "opaque" for some of you. Quite a few of whom should just "know better", if I may say so.

So, I'll just try to "net it out".

Simply, a troll is one who participates in a "discussion forum" for the sole purpose of fomenting argument for his self-gratification.

Some trolls demonstrate some "knowledge" of the subject, and use it to both establish some minimal level of credibility and provoke argument, by making statements he knows will be considered "outrageous" - and, so, sure to provoke argument.

The argument inevitably proves as pointless as it is contentious.

Trolls are a form of "pollution" of a board. It is up to the participants to "clean it up".

When a troll does not receive the "attention" he craves, he gets bored and leaves. Any response to or discussion of a troll only encourages and gratifies him.

Please, do not feed the trolls.

Give a hoot, don't pollute!

That is all.

JM

You're right, of course, UmpJM. It's just that it was kind of nostalgic to have InterestedUmp, Deej, Fitump56 and the rest of the gang back with us again.

Fortunately there's enough room for STB on the ignore list along with his other nom de plumes.

Hey Frick, say hello to Frack for me.

Buh Bye.

MrUmpire,

Personally, I feel more nostalgic for drumbumb, gruberted, and, yes, even cc6.

At least they were entertaining.

JM

I didn't quote you when I made my post. I was just offering a generic opinion to the thread and the OP.

But, if the shoe fits, ...

And, FWIW, your strident repeating of your absolute position is wearing thin. You could save a lot of time by just changing you sig to "If you see something other than what your partner called, jsut go in and get it right, always" and post it once a day.

Hmm, I wonder if the user name "Johnny One-Note" is taken?

Which isn't what I said. http://forum.officiating.com/750056-post55.html so there's no use putting it in a sig, is there. Folks are going to twist posts as they see fit. ;)

And to think, after all these years I have attributed the phrase "I never said what I said" to Yogi Berra.