Could I have helped here?

[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?

Earlier in the game a batter hit a ball that I saw go straight down and then change direction. Immediately after that, the batter hopped around as if the ball had hit him in the foot. F1 fileded the ball and threw to F3 for the out. 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. When the inning ended I told the coach that the ball had probably hit the batter, but I didn't see it so I didn't call it. He said, "okay" as he continuted to the dugout.

I was very impressed that this coach did not argue either play after getting answers from me and my partner. Why can't they all be like this?

[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.

[Rich]

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?

Earlier in the game a batter hit a ball that I saw go straight down and then change direction. Immediately after that, the batter hopped around as if the ball had hit him in the foot. F1 fileded the ball and threw to F3 for the out. 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. When the inning ended I told the coach that the ball had probably hit the batter, but I didn't see it so I didn't call it. He said, "okay" as he continuted to the dugout.

I was very impressed that this coach did not argue either play after getting answers from me and my partner. Why can't they all be like this?

Your first response: "I didn't see it hit him, Coach." Giving a definitive answer when you really aren't sure isn't the right path to go, IMO.

However, if it's obvious to you that it probably did hit him even though you didn't see ball hit foot, read the cues (as in, did the batter really have time to fake such a thing) and come up and kill it. The plate guy isn't going to see all of them and you're 100+ feet away and won't see them all either.

[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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

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?

A couple of things here

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.

You should NOT interject on this particular play - PERIOD as it's not your call.

Also, this is a FED game and unless the 1B Coach was the head coach, he has no business questioning anything. If the 1B coach starts to take-part in the discussion then it would be up to the PU to either restrict him to the dugout or depending upon the severity EJ.

In other words, we do not want to hear ANYTHING from an assitant coach and if it's not your call why interject? Do you want the PU interjecting on YOUR calls without you FIRST asking for assistance?

Next point

Should I have stepped in and helped with this?

Answer already given above - NO.

This is not your call. The only time you would get involved is if your partner asked you for assistance or the coach protested a ruling. Other then that keep quiet.

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. When the inning ended I told the coach that the ball had probably hit the batter, but I didn't see it so I didn't call it. He said, "okay" as he continuted to the dugout.

I have a BIG problem with the aforementioned statement. You just threw your partner under the bus. First you gave a definative "no" then you "change your tune" and say "the ball had probably hit the batter"


Summary: When it's NOT your call don't interject and do not throw your partner under the bus which no matter how you look at it you did. If I was the PU and found out what you said to the coach you and I would have a SERIOUS conversation in the parking lot. Also, if this is how you are going to be eventually you will get "labelled" and no-one will want to work with you.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;835877]

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.

You should NOT interject on this particular play - PERIOD as it's not your call.

Also, this is a FED game and unless the 1B Coach was the head coach, he has no business questioning anything. If the 1B coach starts to take-part in the discussion then it would be up to the PU to either restrict him to the dugout or depending upon the severity EJ.
Pete Booth

I agree it's not BU's call and I would not get involved with the discussion at the plate, but I certainly would prevent the 1B coach from double-teaming my partner.

[BretMan]

With respect to the assistant coach chiming in...

This illustrates why I don't like how the FED rule is worded. It says that the AC can be restricted/ejected if he leaves the coaching box to dispite a judgment call by the umpire.

As we already established in this thread, what was being discussed here was NOT a judgment call!

Does that mean the AC gets to piss and moan?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by umpire99

Earlier in the game a batter hit a ball that I saw go straight down and then change direction. Immediately after that, the batter hopped around as if the ball had hit him in the foot. F1 fileded the ball and threw to F3 for the out. 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.

The best way to answer this is: "Coach, I didn't see the ball hit him." You've told the truth.

After you've said that, STFU -- regardless of what he might say next.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Does that mean the AC gets to piss and moan?

He only gets to piss and moan about being dumped.