pulled foot at 1st - getting help

[Rog]

Sounds logical to me, especially after reviewing the error of my own ways. Those occasions when I got hung out were usually because I guessed (*** u me d) what the fielder would do. Anyone who has done more than a couple of games knows that, youth games are "guessing games" when it comes to what a fielder will do with the ball.....

Originally posted by Tim C
As a BU I cannot picture not being in the correct "area" to make any call. Call it experience, good guessing, or blind luck I have never found myself being hung out cuz I "assumed" a play would happen and something else came up.

I am not magic, nor am I the greatest umpire on earth . . . what I am is a student of the game to a level that it is a great assist to my umpiring.

From "C" arguments make me laugh. If we believe in "angle over distance" then that argument goes south, fast (but wait, pretty soon will have someone say you can't call check swings from B or C either, another silly argument).

As a BU if you can't take a step, lean, and peak then maybe you better try officiating table tennis.

As a BU you can "get your calls" if you understand the game and work at it. Don't give me excuses.

Maybe as a BU on the next steal of second base I'll stop play and ask my PU, "Hey Stan, did he tag him!"

Lah Me.

[GarthB]

Tee:

Amen.

Finally a sane voice. I cannot understand why some want to go on and on about this. Again, if they spent even half the time analyzing why they had to ask for help as the do justifying aking, they could avoid asking for help.

And then some feel that being an amateur is an excuse for not fixing the problem.

Lah me,

[Jim Porter]

Here we see the old-timers who are unwilling to bend in the debate. They demonstrate their survival skills of the past by adamently sticking to their guns and refusing to admit there is any call they cannot see. When faced with logical arguments, just like the BigDogs of one's local association, they insult anyone who disagrees with them by labeling them inadequate or incompetent.

But what the old-timers don't realize is that time has passed them by. A new order of officiating has taken over, and they missed it. Attitudes in officiating have changed, and they're still stuck with their old world thoughts and ideas. Once vibrant young umpires at the cutting edge of officiating, they are now simply out of touch with the game and how it is has changed in today's world.

More and more, participants and spectators alike are demanding that the thick-skulled arrogance of the past be replaced by a less brash style of umpire. Today, in demand is an umpire willing to admit his human shortcomings, and do the best he can to overcome those faults. Today, umpires need to be less hasty, and more willing to bend in key areas.

One thing that the old-timers must be struggling with is the reality that Pro schools, as well as just about any clinic or camp worth its salt, instructs plate umpires to follow the batter-runner up the line in order to be there to help on a possible pulled foot or swipe tag. Why on Earth would they waste their time teaching techniques that shouldn't be used? They don't.

Don't get stuck in the past. Avoid being labeled a hard-headed blue. If you need help to get a call right, and the mechanics are designed to provide that help, by all means take it. There is no shame in knowing your own human limitations. In my opinion, it takes a tremendous amount of courage and integrity for an umpire to admit he needs help to get a call right, and then ask for it. That is the future of baseball officiating, ladies and gentlemen. It's here to stay. Embrace it, or risk being left out in the cold with the old-timers.

[GarthB]

Freix:

To make sure you understand my position:

As with Tee, if my parnter ever asks for help, he'll get it.

I am not opposed to getting calls right. I am opposed to lazy umpires who do not learn that they can avoid asking for help by getting the call right in the first place.

If working to get calls right the first time makes me part of some old guard, so be it.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
Here we see the old-timers who are unwilling to bend in the debate. They demonstrate their survival skills of the past by adamently sticking to their guns and refusing to admit there is any call they cannot see. When faced with logical arguments, just like the BigDogs of one's local association, they insult anyone who disagrees with them by labeling them inadequate or incompetent.

But what the old-timers don't realize is that time has passed them by. A new order of officiating has taken over, and they missed it. Attitudes in officiating have changed, and they're still stuck with their old world thoughts and ideas. Once vibrant young umpires at the cutting edge of officiating, they are now simply out of touch with the game and how it is has changed in today's world.

More and more, participants and spectators alike are demanding that the thick-skulled arrogance of the past be replaced by a less brash style of umpire. Today, in demand is an umpire willing to admit his human shortcomings, and do the best he can to overcome those faults. Today, umpires need to be less hasty, and more willing to bend in key areas.

One thing that the old-timers must be struggling with is the reality that Pro schools, as well as just about any clinic or camp worth its salt, instructs plate umpires to follow the batter-runner up the line in order to be there to help on a possible pulled foot or swipe tag. Why on Earth would they waste their time teaching techniques that shouldn't be used? They don't.

Don't get stuck in the past. Avoid being labeled a hard-headed blue. If you need help to get a call right, and the mechanics are designed to provide that help, by all means take it. There is no shame in knowing your own human limitations. In my opinion, it takes a tremendous amount of courage and integrity for an umpire to admit he needs help to get a call right, and then ask for it. That is the future of baseball officiating, ladies and gentlemen. It's here to stay. Embrace it, or risk being left out in the cold with the old-timers.

They have always taught the plate umpire to come up the line. There are other concerns besides pulled feet and swipe tags -- there's interference, obstruction, and the like as well. I won't get into running lane issues, since we all know that we'd only make that call on a throw from the box.

The rest is sentimental bullcrap, and gives newer umpires the little blue blanky that there's a plate umpire right there waiting to help out. Maybe the BU thinks then that he can worry less about getting the proper angle at the play at first base.

Starting at B as opposed to C is not relevant. The first move on a ground ball to the infield is to step UP and then turn chest to the ball. Pause. Read. React. Too many umpires forget the pause part and start running towards something, ANYTHING. To third, to second, to first. Any premature move can be fatal.

After the step up, the umpire should be drifting towards the working area from C.

If the play goes to second, make a couple of quick steps and get set. You have the angle.

If the play goes to third, make a couple of quick steps towards the midpoint between third and home. Opens up the angle.

If the play goes to first, FORGET about running directly towards first and instead get as many quick steps towards the midpoint between first and home (start of the running lane) as possible. Best angle for the play at first. Getting close to these plays is not that important.

Now, IF the umpire does everything the right way and still needs to ask for help, great. But instead of being emotional and saying that it's great and accepted that an umpire get help, we should be teaching umpires the best way to NOT NEED HELP. Get angles. Make your own calls.

I don't know if you've read the whole thread Jim, but Tee mentioned that he is ALWAYS ready to give help if needed. I am, too. Now, if we were completely old school, would we do that?

I am for getting the play right, but I refuse to check for the sake of checking. And if I am in what I consider to be a good place to see the call, I'm sticking with the call. Also, I don't know many of my partners and I'm really hesitant to give managers ammunition that maybe BOTH umpires didn't see the play. I'd rather swallow a bad call than to bring that element to play.

BTW, I attended a Jim Evans weekend clinic a few weeks ago and Jim did stress the plate umpire coming up on the ground ball. But when someone asked about getting help on such a play, Jim said that it doesn't happen if the base umpire follows proper mechanics and gets the right angle. They want the plate umpire coming up, but they also teach that you should get your own calls.

And that's where our focus should be.

If asked give your partner help, but after the game show him how to get in position so he doesn't NEED the help anymore.

If you get hit in the rear end with the batted ball, all bets are off (only Jim will understand).

Rich

[GarthB]

Rich:

Obviously, since I didn't, I couldn't have said it better.

[Jim Porter]

My focus was not on whether the old school umpire would be willing to give help. Of course he would give help if asked. Just about any umpire would. Many old school umpires would indeed give help, and then rip his partner to shreds about it afterwards. Some would do it to his face, and others behind his back. But I digress.

The new attitude I'm talking about that is pervading baseball officiating is the willingness on the part of umpires to ask for that help. It's mostly about the perception of participants and spectators.

I've seen it too many times - an old schooler on the bases, a play at first, a pulled foot that I can see clearly from my position as plate umpire, and the old schooler calling the batter-runner out. The first base coach going ape-poop pointing at the spot of the pulled foot, the batter-runner jumping up and down in disbelief, the bench in protest, and the old schooler insisting that he saw the play clearly.

The geometry is hard to deny. The further one is away from first base, the more he needs to move in order to gain a proper angle. It is entirely possible and completely likely that even the fleetest of foot might not have enough time to cover the distance required in order to gain that proper angle. Especially in the case of a close play with an on-target throw and a first baseman who over-stretches, there are situations that can arise where even the best of umpires could be caught not knowing if the foot came off the base or not.

[kylejt]

Let me get this right. 60' diamond, you're in the C slot. Sharp ground ball to the 5.5 hole. You've got to back up to stay out of the way. F6 gloves it and makes the long throw. F3 stretches out like Gumby, ball beats runner, and F3 has done the splits with his bag side toe somewhere near the base. Your partner, PU, has the perfect angle to see if the toe is on or off, and you're NOT going to ask!?

Me, I like a fast game. In and out, no lollygaggin'. If I gotta wait for a manager to call time, come out to me, request that I get help from my partner, go to my partner yadda, yadda yadda, I'm wasting time. Time better spent playing ball or drinking beer. I'm asking.

Kyle

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Kyle ... perhaps too much beer. Bases are at 90 feet.

Just funnin'

[Tim C]

Kyle:

I have never been bashful to admit that I have never, nor would I ever, work a small diamond game.

Tee

[Whowefoolin]

Kyle,

Ball hit to the 5.56632233 hole on a 60ft diamond does not have much room for backing up. Most of the BU will be on the outer grass for LL.

However, on the 90ft bases, you are on the imaginary line going from home plate through the dirt/grass ring of the piitchers mound. The 5.5854938 hole should be to your right.

So with a sharp hit ball, you are turning right opening up to the play and then slowly drifting as you hear.

I say hear, because everyone is telling the 5.692049 man where to throw so you just drift that way.

just my opinion

[Jerry]

More in reply to Jim Porter . . . but if the shoe fits . . . using your "argument" (notice the quotation marks; after all, this is a "discussion board", not an "arguing board".) this call should always be made by the PU and not the BU at all. Since you're of the philosophy that the BU is always in a better position to see the play, why not simply have him/her call it? Noboby's gotta ask anyone for help then.

In fact . . . the same can be said for a lot of plays. Instead of asking for help, simply let your partner make those calls that he/she can see better.

Face reality, Jim. Every single umpire is going to "blow" a call on occasion; not just the "old farts". Using your mechanic opens the door to every coach, spectator, and player who's in a better position to see any close play to yell out, "Hey, ask your partner."

Not to mention those games where you've got 3, 4 or 6 umpires. Do you take a vote to see who's got the best angle? Of course not. Shouldn't be any different here; no matter what school you went to.

[Bfair]

Here's an excerpt from a post made by Jon Bible, an ex-professional and reknowned veteran college umpire, that he posted 5/6/02 at URC (a different forum):

A couple of years ago I banged the back end of a double play at first, with the first baseman stretching toward me (toward right field). As soon as I did, all hell broke loose and here came the first base and head coaches. Right there I had a small hint that something was not right. When I looked up and saw David Wiley at second base easing toward me, it was immediately apparent from his body language that he was coming not to get the troops off of me and make it a one-on-one, but instead to tell me something. So I immediately put my hands up and said "Wait a second. . . " and asked Wiley if the foot had come off the bag. He said, "only about two feet or so," so I immediately changed the call. The point is that Wiley did not jump right in yelling "his foot was off the bag," but instead created a situation in which I would know to ask for help and then do so. IMHO, that is the best way to handle judgment plays, unlike rule plays, where I continue to believe what I have already said earlier.

Getting help should not be a continued crutch for poor judgment and mechanics, but even the best of 'em can make mistakes and/or need help when an offline throw causes a poor angle. In fact, knowing he could seek that help when needed might be why Jon is ranks amongst the best of 'em. He didn't stand around looking like an arrogant a$$ when all others knew the call was missed.

All major sets of rules have addressed the need for an umpire to get the call right instead of protecting his perceived dignity. There is no dignity in missing an obviously blown call or refusing to seek help when there is doubt in your mind regarding the accuracy of the call. While not all situations allow for help to be given or calls to be reversed, a pulled foot at 1B is a situation that frequently has no impact on further play since F3 is left holding the ball in the infield.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Jerry]

Steve,
I have the utmost respect for Jon and other professionals of his ilk. You may have noticed in his anecdote, he had already made a call . . . "Safe". It was afterwards, when the 2nd baseman, the coaches, his partners and all God's children look at him incredulously that he thought it best to gather the troops to reconsider.

That wasn't the question of this discussion. I agree; it's a whole lot better to make a call, see the enemy coming at you in force, and then reconsider your judgement. What Jon didn't do . . . AND RIGHTFULLY SO . . . is to ask his partner(s) for help BEFORE THE FACT. There are many, many plays and calls that can be "reversed" after thoughtful consideration. My suggestion is only that the BU should be responsible for making his/her own call . . . which is exactly what Jon had done!

In retrospect . . . and in many years of umpiring . . . if I have some thought that F3 pulled his foot, he pulled his foot! I won't ask for help; I'll call the runner "safe" and sell the call by emphatically showing that F3 was off the bag. "Off the bag, off the bag, off the bag; runner safe."

Much less arguing in that scenario, wouldn't you agree?

Jerry

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by David Emerling

As you can see this type of question gives a variety of responses but IMO the one BIG ITEM overlooked is:

1. Continuous action vs. dead ball situation

Changing a call on a continuous action play is almost impossible to get right or try and sort out.

Example; using the pulled foot / swipe tag analysis.

SITCH: 1 out r1/r2 - hit and run on.

B1 hits one right at F6 for the old fashion 6-4-3 DP. Since it was a hit and run R2 (having a good lead at second base)continues advancing towards home.

Now let's freeze.

We have the throw from F6 or F4 (doesn't matter) to F3 which isn't a good one. F3 stretches or trys a swipe tag.

The call at this point by the BU is Crucial. If the BU signals out, then the inning is over, however, if the BU signals safe chances are F3 will try and get r2 advancing towards home.

Now the play is over and let's also assume you as the BU called the BR out for an inning ending DP and now the coach starts to go ballistic and argue.

"GET HELP! GET HELP" Now you are in a no win situation. If you do change the call to safe then you have just handed the offense a "cheap run" because the defense did not even bother to try and make a play on r2 rounding the third base bag since the BU signalled out for an apparent inning ending DP.

Therefore to sum up IMO it depends upon the nature of the inning. If the play involves continuous action ie; numerous runners then IMO right or wrong you stick with the call because to do otherwise opens up a can of worms

If the play ONLY involves the one runner or it's a dead ball situation ie; changing a HR to a 2 base award then change it. Don't make a habit out of it.

Continuous action - Stick with it and learn

Pete Booth