Could I have helped here?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by umpire99

I was working the bases in a two man FED game last night where a batter got hit by a pitch and my partner kept him at the plate. When the offensive coach asked why, my partner told him that because his elbow was over the plate when the pitch hit him. At this point, the defensive coach asked if the pitch was a strike and my partner said that it was not a strike because it hit him. I didn't inject myself into the discussion because I was trying to keep the first base coach from going down to take part in the discussion. Should I have stepped in and helped with this?

No. Balls and strikes are the PU's job, let him handle this. Get with him between innings or after the game if you like to ensure he understands the rule properly.

The offensive coach (defensive from the other play) asked if the ball had hit the batter. I gave him a definative "no" and he didn't question any further.

You should have stopped here, especially if you are going to go back unsolicited and change your story.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

No. Balls and strikes are the PU's job, let him handle this. Get with him between innings or after the game if you like to ensure he understands the rule properly.

In general, for a rules issue, I want to get it right, right now.

I agree that a ball/strike call might not have much impact on the game, and that might be a reason to pass in this case.

Which one counts more as throwing your partner under the bus: (1) taking him aside, asking him what he saw, and letting him fix it if it's wrong, or (2) letting him explain a rules-basis for his call that you KNOW to be incorrect?

That's a sincere question: it's not obvious to me that one answer is always right.

[Welpe]

Well that's a good point and I guess is akin to pointing out a screw up in the locker room at half time that we like to discuss in the basketball forum. I will ruminate on that further.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In general, for a rules issue, I want to get it right, right now.

I agree that a ball/strike call might not have much impact on the game, and that might be a reason to pass in this case.

Which one counts more as throwing your partner under the bus: (1) taking him aside, asking him what he saw, and letting him fix it if it's wrong, or (2) letting him explain a rules-basis for his call that you KNOW to be incorrect?

That's a sincere question: it's not obvious to me that one answer is always right.

Depends a lot on your situation. I think if I'm working with a known rookie or younger umpire, I'm likely to try to get their attention so they will come to me (looks WAY better than you going to them), but will go to them if necessary, explain the rule, and let them fix the call.

With older and/or experienced officials (especially the 15-year rookie guy - we all know him), trying to fix this in-game is a lost cause (unless they come to you on their own). They will insist they are right and now all you've done is create a situation where there is on-field in-game animosity or mistrust (probably in both directions) AND coaches have lost some respect for the crew (something I'd rather avoid even if I'm working with an idiot).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Depends a lot on your situation. I think if I'm working with a known rookie or younger umpire, I'm likely to try to get their attention so they will come to me (looks WAY better than you going to them), but will go to them if necessary, explain the rule, and let them fix the call.

With older and/or experienced officials (especially the 15-year rookie guy - we all know him), trying to fix this in-game is a lost cause (unless they come to you on their own). They will insist they are right and now all you've done is create a situation where there is on-field in-game animosity or mistrust (probably in both directions) AND coaches have lost some respect for the crew (something I'd rather avoid even if I'm working with an idiot).

That's quite true, and helps explain why one answer is not always right.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I believe that the PU should handle it, but it is not a judgment call, it is a rule situation, and therefore subject to a possible protest. If the coach knows the rule and wants the BU's input on the misapplication of a rule, he is entitled to get the rule called correctly. At that point, as BU I will confer with my partner and together we will get it right. I don't care if it's a green rookie or a "one year experience 20 times Smitty," I'm not coming back to rework an upheld protest.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I believe that the PU should handle it, but it is not a judgment call, it is a rule situation, and therefore subject to a possible protest. If the coach knows the rule and wants the BU's input on the misapplication of a rule, he is entitled to get the rule called correctly. At that point, as BU I will confer with my partner and together we will get it right. I don't care if it's a green rookie or a "one year experience 20 times Smitty," I'm not coming back to rework an upheld protest.

The problem arises when Smitty insists he's right, you insist you are right, and you end up stuck with the wrong call.

However, if the coach wants my input, he's got to get PU to ask for it or he's got to use the magic word. If he doesn't, and I'm working with Smitty, play on and fix it in your post-game.

[gordon30307]

In this situation I'm not getting involved unless my partner asks for my input. Obviously the PU doen't know the rule. I'm going to tell him I'm 110 percent certain that should have been a strike if it hit him in the strike zone. I'm going to urge him to correct it and if he doesn't it's out of my hands except for the beating afterwards in the parking lot.