Heres what happenned in my game today, 12yo,travel ball. High level talent.
R1 and R2, one out. Soft liner hit towards F6. The kind hit off the end of the bat that really doesnt pick up much speed or height. R2, breaks for 3rd. F6, who was playing "normal" spot,deep, not in runners path, takes ONE step in to field ball, now, puting him in the line. Yeah, you know whats coming. Just as ball bounces in front of F6, R2 makes contact with F6. Minor contact. This contact, IMO, didnt let F6 have a clean shot at ball. R2 then stopped, went around F6 to 3rd. F6 had no play on anyone. I was PU. My BU, didnt pivot around quick enough (thats what he told me later) and didnt get a clear shot of play. Ergo, didnt call anything. Defensive coach has cow, and screams for interference. Asks BU to appeal to me. BU calls me over. I tell him what I saw, I saw interference. My BU then calls out R2 for interference. Offensive coach now is ready to give birth, hes so excited. Saying that my partner ONLY appealed to me AFTER Defensive coach told him to ask for help. And that we were "letting the other manager umpire game for us". Told him, no, thats not the case. My BU, didnt have the call, and went to me, which I had. It was pretty clear cut. Offensive coach saying its not my call. Tried to explain to him its similar (I think) to a check swing. Its my call (PU). I have the closest view. And it stays my call til the catcher asks me to check with my BU, or I do so on my own. Then, as in the play that happenned, Im going to my partner to see what he has, as in the interference play. Then my BU can say he did, or didnt go. And that would be the call that stands, same as other example.
After the game in solicting opinions from my fellow blues, one told my BU, that to "stick to the call". "You didnt have anything, so stay with that". Supposedly we would be avoiding any brouhahas. Well, calling it or not calling it, either way, the play had enough trouble written on it that someone wasnt going to be happy with the call.
So, IMO, I want to get the play right. Now I KNOW were not always going to handle all plays like this in this way, but I felt, since my BU made NO call, I wasnt CHANGING a call.
1)Should my BU not have appealed to me, and stuck with his call?
2) If he does go to me, do I "back him up" and say we have nothing? That would not sit with me as , this was clear cut. Marginal, maybe.
3) Should I have called interference right away when I saw it? Even though the BU has the call? We probably would have had an argument either way, but if I call it, might not be as heated and I can say its not just the BU who has the call, that either of us can make it?
Im going with #3. Opinions please.....

First, R2 contacted F6 while F6 was fielding the ball. Interference. Either ump can—and should—call that as soon as he sees it.

Second, the coaches do not tell the umps whose call is whose and who can appeal to whom. Yes, there are proper umpire mechanics, but they are guidelines to help you get the calls right, not to prevent you from correcting a mistake.

Obviously, once it appears to one coach as if you're letting the other coach tell you what procedure you must use to decide the plays, you're in trouble.

And what's the complaint of this coach who says you reversed the BU only after he asked for help? That's the usual procedure.

Greymule, in reference to your statement about the coach "telling us does this and that", pretty quickly he was ejected. MY BU tossed him after we told him to zip after he made the first remark about letting other coaches call the plays for us. Few minutes later he chirped again, and boom, bye bye. We wernt letting the other coach intimidate us and do "calls" for us. We all know coaches will try and influence, and espeically lower levels, with more inexperinced umpires, it works. Ive seen this especially on plays where R2 is stealing 3rd. Close play. Base coach signals a BIG safe. And sure enough, inexperienced blue, calls it safe. After watching this many times, you can read the blue and tell thats what happenned. But, no, not in this case specifically, or overall in general, do I let that happen. I put a stop to it quick, with either the coach whos trying to do mind games, or the other coach thinking thats whats happenning.

"That's why you're paying two of us!"
 

"Ah, yes, the old "I didn't see it" situation.

As often as we hear about this type of "partnering", it's a wonder more murders don't occur during games.

Did you ask your partner just what he was watching when the interference occurred? Since he didn't see diddley squat on the play he'd better go to you for help! If you saw it, and made the correct call, the offensive coach should have no complaint.

If anyone(especially the "fellow blues") claim you were wrong in making the call right, they should be required to work alone in their games where they won't ever have to go to anyone for help!

You were correct in your efforts, common sense, fair play, etc., rather than an ego trip blown call.

Senior

<i> Originally posted by chuckfan1 </i>

<b> Heres what happenned in my game today, 12yo,travel ball. High level talent. </b>

Do these select Travel Teams play on 60ft. / 75ft. or 90 ft. bases?

The reason I ask is that it effects how I answer your question.

1. 60 ft. diamond. - On a 60ft. diamond the BU with men on base is positioned in the outfield and therefore, is BEHIND the action, so IMO the PU has the best view of interference since the PU is right in front of the action.
As with most things this should be covered in Pre-game.

2. 75 ft. or 90 ft. bases where the BU is INSIDE the diamond. In this instance it's the BU's call right or wrong, because the BU is "right there" and to overturn his /her call or make the call FOR THEM can make for a LONG game the rest of the way.

<b> Asks BU to appeal to me. BU calls me over. I tell him what I saw, I saw interference. My BU then calls out R2 for interference. </b>

I do not agree with the above approach as your partner the BU is now <i> hung out to dry </i> If YOU are the ONE making the call then <b> MAKE IT </b>. The BU should simply point to you or defer to you and YOU make the call.

IMO, that's one of the reasons why the coaches went ballisric and the BU had to toss. The BU originally did not see the intereference but now after talking to you is making the call.

Whenever an umpire makes a call that does not "belong to them" then MAKE the call. Do not put your partner "out to dry".

As mentioned, these are things that need to be gone over in PRE-GAME and also will be discussed at clinics.

Pete Booth

Pete: --75 ft, BU, inside.
--Even though BU "right there", he didnt get in position in time, to SEE the play. Its not like he saw it, had nothing, then through the appeal, I changed it. I didnt "change" anything. I made a call on what I saw. Just like in the check swing example I gave. IF a BU overturns a ball call I make on a check swing, to a "yes, he went", isnt he "overturning my call"? Yes, because he was appealed to. Im not hung out to dry on that one. So there is not right or wrong as you say, as he didnt see the play in time. If hes guilty of something, its he didnt hustle quick enough, or whatever happenned. After defensive coach talked to my BU, my BU came to me, calmly said he didnt see the play, and asked my what I had. I told him I had interference. Clear cut. Slam dunk. Hes not hung out to dry. Like I said on this too, if I "back my partner" and call nothing, then were STILL going to have a coach with a fit. It was that clear cut. Its not like it was a marginal play. Say for example, a BR rounding third and missing the base by a nano-inch. No, he missed it by a foot. So I didnt
"overturn" it. If he had called interference , and I said change it, or if he had called no interference and I changed it. THATS overturning. But since he missed the play, we want to get it right. Some umpires need to swallow their ego.
--Yes, I should have made the call, but as he was going back to his position, he made it, he had no problem with it. We never had a problem with the situation you describe of hanging out to dry.
--Thats not the reason the coach went "ballistic". He was very upset thinking the defensive coach was influencing us by having my BU see what I had. Which wasnt the case. He wasnt tossed until a couiple innings later when he made consective comments about that. First time he was warned, 2nd ime, my BU tossed him. The offensive coach never really argued the interference call, which tells me, that what HE saw also. The only refrence he made to the play was he turned to the dugout and asked his runner if he touched the fielder. That was about it from the offensive coach on the actual play. That tells me he saw what I saw.
--My BU wanted to make the call. Coaches had NO PROBLEM with that. I think youve had a bad experience or two, that makes you think its applied here. Not the case. No one was hung.

This is BS........
Pete, since you seem to think umpire proximity is most important, do you think the BU in B position should be making fair/foul calls on batted balls down the 1B line? Afterall, the BU is closest to the ball going near the base....
Of course not. The PU has the best angle to see what happened.
Interference behind the BU's back is the same situation. The call should be made by the PU.
The situation cited is the exact example of WHY the PU should jump on this call..........

The BU is watching the ball as it comes out from the plate. He's unable to see the action that is occurring <u>behind him</u> with R2 and F6. If he's lucky, he <u>might</u> see the interference as he turns with the ball, but frequently he only sees the remnants of what occurred---leaving him in a state of guessing what might have happened.

There's no need for a BU to guessing about what occurred behind his back when the PU is looking out from the plate seeing all that occurred on <u>ANY and EVERY</u> play like this. As Chuckfan1 knew in his play---this was interference. He knew it because he saw it all happen. What he wasn't sure about was who should have made the call, so he kept quiet. The BU saw the remnants, so the BU also kept quiet. The play was not killed as it should have been. It turned into a problem in getting the obvious call correct.

The PU should have jumped on this call, killing the play when he saw the interference. He's staring into the entire play---seeing it all happen. The call is best left up to him because he has the best angle to see all the action. NOW, the offensive coach is still going to argue. They will argue any interference---get accustomed to it. That doesn't mean that the call is wrong. It means he doesn't like it. Amazing, however, he doesn't complain about it when he's the defensive coach and the call is made on his opponents. He will complain then, however, if that call is not made---exactly as occurred in the situation cited.


Freix

Hmmmm,
 

"12yo,travel ball. High level talent."

Oxymoron . . . Impossible situation.

So far "Senior" has the best post.

re: "I was PU. My BU, didnt pivot around quick enough (thats what he told me later) and didnt get a clear shot of play"

Only your partner knows for sure why he did not get turned on that situation; but, on occasion a base ump can get hogtied with one coming at them.

In an case, you state that you saw the interference, so call it immediately and avoid the fiasco.

We should expect our partner to do their job at all times, even we one of us gets caught flatfooted.....

**** "2. 75 ft. or 90 ft. bases where the BU is INSIDE the diamond. In this instance it's the BU's call right or wrong, because the BU is "right there" and to overturn his /her call or make the call FOR THEM can make for a LONG game the rest of the way.

Asks BU to appeal to me. BU calls me over. I tell him what I saw, I saw interference. My BU then calls out R2 for interference.

I do not agree with the above approach as your partner the BU is now hung out to dry If YOU are the ONE making the call then MAKE IT . The BU should simply point to you or defer to you and YOU make the call." *****

Pete, gotta disagree with you on this one. First you tell the guy not to make the call and then "MAKE IT". Somebody please step up to the plate and make the dang call. When its not made because someone feels like their stepping on someone else toes, BOTH look bad.

<i> Originally posted by Bfair </i>

<b> Originally posted by PeteBooth </b>

<b> The PU should have jumped on this call, killing the play when he saw the interference. He's staring into the entire play---seeing it all happen. </b>

Steve, I agree with the aforementioned statement and what I tried to get across in my answer was if the PU was going to make the call then MAKE it.

In the above thread, the 2 got together and then the BU made the call not the PU. That was my main point with the thread. If you are going to call it then call it.

Also, since the BU did not see the interference he should not even make a call but simply point to his partner or defer to his partner. If you didn't see interference or any other infraction for that matter and your partner did, then let your partner make the call and explain to the coach.

Pete Booth

I agree with Mr. Booth. PU should have made initial call. In this instant, after BU asked PU, PU should have made the late call since he saw it. This is not a situation where either umpire may correct his call based on additional information that partner provides.

Although handled imprecisely, the correct result ensued, so coaches should have restrained themselves. I know of no authority that forbids either umpire in 2-man system to call any interference that he sees.

Pete, this certainly appears to me that you are saying that this call belongs to the BU. It does not. This call should <u>always</u> belong to PU---not the BU---unless there's another call on the batted ball that requires PU's attention. In that case, there's not much reason for BU to be watching the ball without knowing what's going on with R2. That's not to say that the BU cannot call interference <u>if he sees action</u> that he judges as interference. But BU shouldn't be guessing about action that occurred behind him that he did not see. He should have the confidence that PU will handle anything that occurs while his back is turned. If the PU sees action he judges as interference, then he should call it. The PU should not assume that the BU saw the action behind his back and judged it as no interference.

Pete, this disagrees with your first statement that the call belongs to BU. That is why I took exception to your first statement.


I'm confused by your comments, Pete...............
But I'm certain PU should always jump on this call.........


Freix

<i> Originally posted by Bfair </i>

<i> Originally posted by PeteBooth in his first post[/i]
75 ft. or 90 ft. bases where the BU is INSIDE the diamond. <b>In this instance it's the BU's call right or wrong, because the BU is "right there"</b> [my emphasis] and to overturn his /her call or make the call FOR THEM can make for a LONG game the rest of the way. </i>

<i> Pete, this certainly appears to me that you are saying that this call belongs to the BU. </i>

Steve, let me clarify speaking for the BU INSIDE the diamond.

First and foremost, interference on a batted ball when BU is "right there" is THEIR call. This is no dfferent then a steal attempt by R1 when BU is in "B" or "C". Is the PU going to make that call?

If it's a DP situation, meaning R1 No outs, then it's the PU's call for interference on the part of R1 since the BU is going to pivot after making the out call at second and getting ready for the banger at first, but in the situation described, R1/R2 the BU should have been in "C", therefore, all he had to do was turn watch the ball and would have been right there for the call.

If initially, the BU says nothing, and the PU KNOWS for certain that there was interference, then the PU can step in and call it Emphatically, which if this is what happened, the coaches would not have been upset as they were.

IMO, the coach was upset because:

1. First there was no Call by ANYONE. AND

2. The Umpires conferred and THE BU who did not even make a call all of a sudden makes an interference call.

If I'm working with a familiar partner, and HE / SHE didn't call interference on this play, I would NOT have called it because I would trust THEIR judgement. I would ask them about the play during the POST game.

Even if you are working with a "rookie", one has to learn. If we start making calls that belong to our partners, it can make for a long game. Also, the coaches will want EVERY call made by this other person questioned.

Pete Booth

________________________________

There is a difference in your partner judging that there was no interference and your partner NOT SEEING the play. In the original post, the base umpire didn't see the play, he said that he didn't turn around fast enough to see what happened. In that situation, yes he should get some help. Now if he saw the whole play and then judged that there was no interference then yes, you trust his/her judgement and move on.

"Originally posted by PeteBooth
If I'm working with a familiar partner, and HE / SHE didn't call interference on this play, I would NOT have called it because I would trust THEIR judgement. I would ask them about the play during the POST game."

So, are you saying: "I saw interference; but, I will not call it because my partner was right on top of the situation and they did not call anything?!?!?!?"

First of all to Mr Time C: Oxymoron? Ummm yeah for 12 yr olds, it was top caliber ball. It is a tournament for travel ball teams. Which means every single kid on the team is an all-star type player form his regular team. Plus it was a 12yo maj as opposed to 12 yo AAA, these kids are good. They are well coached and know the game. They can pick up the curve as it comes in and adjust accordingly. They can fight off the O-2 pitch and foul it off. They can reach out and poke the pitch to right field. ETC ETC ETC Its good to work these games as the games move quick, and they are crisp.
--Yes I agree, there is a BIG difference between not seeing the play and NOT seeing interference.
--As I mentioned in one of my posts, in all the talk with the coach, he never made mention of the interference itself, just how we called it. So that tells me he saw what I saw, and was pissed he didnt get away with one.
--NO Pete, the coach wasnt upset IYO that the I made the call. He was upset that nothing was called orginally, then an interference call was made. He didnt make mention once about who made it. He wasnt upset that ANYONE didnt make the call. And your last statement is ridiculous, your way off track taking it to the nth degree. Yeah of course a rookie has to learn, but no one is making calls for someone else, or deferring at other times. I didnt MAKE the call for him.
--My only intent in my ORIGINAL question was should I have said INTERFERENCE right away? Thats what I was asking. After a couple days now, and inquiring, I found out thats the case. And I think we all know, that even IF I have done so, due to the nature of those kind of calls, theres going to be an argument.
--If my BU would have told me he saw the play and had nothing, then, no matter what I saw, HIS call would stand.
--And Pete, again, I think your way too concerned with the ego thing,of course were not going to be chainging calls by our partners (and in this case no call was CHANGED)and all the other situations you described. Geez lets keep it simple, BU supposed to make the call, if he sees it,and has no interference Defensive coach still pitches fit, if he calls it offensive coach pitches fit. IF he doesnt see the play, the same above occurs, but in a different order. There is still going to be a hassle by someone, due to the nature of the call. Even if I make the original call as required, still, again, an argument.

First thing I noticed
 

FIRST thing i noticed, I couldn't even read the rest.

Hey,
 

BJ:

I saw some pictures from T-Rex that shows you guys have had beautiful weather. Any games available for a "low level JV umpire" to work yet.

Hope you are OK,

Tee

Pete, being "right there" has nothing to do with this call if the BU's back is (or was) turned when the action occurs. Furthermore, to best judge what occurs you generally need to see what leads up to that action---something the BU hasn't seen when he immediately turns and there is a problem. For those reasons, I vehemently disagree with you that this would be the BU's call simply because the BU is "right there." The BU has not had time to see and perceive the action, and therefore the PU---who has seen it all---should jump on the call <u>everytime</u> the action occurs or has occurred <u>behind the back of the BU</u>.

Here's a question for you, Pete............
<ol>You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you:

<li>Let BU call this obstruction since he's closer to the play?
<li>Let BU call this obstruciton since it's his call on the pickoff at 2B?
<li>Let BU call this obstruction since it's flagrant and obvious?
<li>Make the call of this infraction when you see it happen?</ol>
<b>What's your answer Pete---and why?</b>
I suspect most know what I would do as PU.

There are several situations where the BU can be "right there" (as you like to phrase it) and the PU should make the call. Examples of those will all include interference or obstruction calls where an umpire is not looking directly at the play in question while it's occurring---just as occurred in the plays we've discussed. The reason he's not looking at the play is that he has another responsibility typically related to watching the ball---such as staying out of the way of a batted ball, being responsible for a call on a batted ball elsewhere (i.e. making a call on a flyball), or merely watching a pitcher's pickoff move.

Interference and obstruction are not calls that are designated to either official, and therefore, the umpire seeing the infraction may and should call it with one exception. That exception being when another official is closer to the play,<u><B>AND</u></B> that other official is looking directly at the play as it occurs, <u><B>AND</u></B> he has had the oppotunity to see and weigh all factors of that play such that his "no call" is, indeed, his decision of what occurred.

This leads us to your next statement, Pete.............
IMO, wrong again. Although the Fed will teach for the PU to be aware of a sliding R1, it does not mean that he is the ONLY official that can make the interference call. In fact, Pete, with your more experienced crews the PU is seldom part of this call. Why is that? First, the PU is generally calling such FPSR interference only after a play at 2B is long over and the BU has turned to make a call at 1B.. Therefore, the BU typically calls any interference <u>on close plays</u> since the ball has not yet left the fielder's hand at the time of interference. IOW, the BU did not have to turn with the throw <u>before the interference occurred</u>, therefore, he is there, looking directly into the play, and seeing all factors of the play. Have you heard that criteria before, Pete? Experienced crews seldom have lower level games where the interference on the pivot man occurs long after the play at 2B is over---thus, the BU is generally making this call <u>because he's looking at it when it happens</u>.

Now you add:
Pete, at one point you’ve been saying the BU should be turning with the ball, seeing the interference, and making the call. Now here you are saying the PU should jump in if the BU doesn't call it. If you are telling me that the PU should call it because the BU didn’t, then I’ll disagree with you because that is overriding the BU’s call.

The PU should not override a BU's no-call when he's certain that the BU saw the entire play and decided not to call it. Let's take this play:
<ul>R1 only. F1 makes pickoff attempt where F3 immediately drops down and totally blocks 1B, but F3 must reach well away from his body to glove the throw from R1. R1 dives back into the base and would have easily returned safely before any tag had F3 not blocked him from reaching the base. BU calls out the diving R1.</ul>
Now, Pete, even if in the mind of the PU this was a flagrant and obvious obstruction of R1, the PU should not impose himself in R1's call. Why? Because R1 had the opportunity to see all factors related to that play. Thus, his no-call was, in fact, his decision that obstruction did not occur.

Therefore, in opposition to your above statement, I feel it is terribly wrong for a PU to come into a call where the BU has had full opporunity to see all the action, and for the PU to call an infraction when the BU has not. The real question is did the BU see the play or didn’t he. Unless proven that he did, assume that he did not when the play has occurred behind him. The PU must make this decision because he is the one not only seeing the action of the play occurring, but the timing of the BU turning with the ball. As the PU gains experience, he’ll better know what opportunity his BU has or has not had to see that play.

We view things very differently, Pete.
It's not the BU's proximity to the play (as you seem to think), but rather his opportunity to have seen all the action that was occurring. In the case of the PU's call at 2B on the FPSR, your view is a textbook view but not a realistic view of what occurs among trained officials. There is more to <u>understanding</u> the game of baseball than merely reading the words in the books............


Freix

re: "You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you:"

A. = #5 !!!!!

<i> Originally posted by Bfair </i>

<i> You are the PU with R2 only. As F1 starts his move for a pickoff attempt of R2, F6 grabs R2's jersey and pulls him toward 3B, causing R2 to fall to the ground as F6 continues to break for 2B. As PU, do you: </i>

You are comparing Apples / Oranges. One can always make a scenario to fit their argument. In the aforementioned case, the BU's back is to the play, so of cource when the PU sees F6 grab R2 he /she is going to call it.

<i> We view things very differently, Pete. </i>

You are correct. The bottom line is : Follow the teachings of one's association. In all the clinics I've attended regarding 2 Person mechanics, the PU's responsibility on a DP is to look for the FPSR. Your association apparently is different.

Pete Booth

And my association teaches the same thing, Pete.
However, you seem to misunderstand that to mean that the BU should not make a call if he sees the infraction.

So, Pete..........
you are the BU and there's a FPSR play in a Fed game, and because of the violation F6 does not even make a throw to 1B.
<ul><li>Do <u>you</u> make that call, Pete,
or do you wait for the PU to make that call since your association teaches that it's the PU's responsibility to look for the FPSR violation?
<li>If you make the call, how is that any different than if
<u>you see the violation before F6 makes a throw</u> yet F6 continues and makes the throw?</UL>
My association does not state that a BU should not make this call when he's typically 15-20 ft. away, looking right into the play as a FPSR violation occurs, and sees the violation before any throw to 1B is underway. If BU makes that call, he need not even make a call at 1B (no need to turn with the ball should there be a throw) since the FPSR call kills the play.

So, Pete, while the plate ump can make this call from 100 ft. away, it can still be made by the base ump who sees it from 20 ft. away. In fact, the offensive coach will provide far less grief when the base ump staring directly into the play makes the call vs. the plate ump making the call.


Freix

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an FPSR play?? I've never heard that term or acronym before.

FPSR = Force Play Slide Rule

Illegally interfering with the pivot man on a double play.....


Freix

not to be confused with:
TINSTAAMSR =
There is no such thing as a MUST slide rule

Sorry, I couldn't resist.....

Got it...always just called that interference.

Don't be confused, gsf23. The Force Play Slide Rule is specific to NFHS rules. Under the Official Baseball Rules, it would just be interference.

Yeah, I have done NFHS games for 5 years now and have never heard it called that. Has always been just referred to as interference in all of our meetings or just refered to as the slide rule. Just never heard that acronym before.

It has been said in this thread before, and I'll say it again..."Get the call right."

In both cases, interference & obstruction, bang the call immediately. That's called preventive umpiring. You're preventing both teams from burning the dugouts down!

If you've got interferance on the bases, you're the plate guy, and your partner does not see it, call it immediately. Just because your partner misses the play, does not change the fact that there was interferance.