I' would never ever, ever and I mean never call it. Even if my partner fell flat on his face unconcious at the plate. Have a good day.:)

If I may,

This is from "Maximizing the Two Umpire System" By Jim Evans and Dick Nelson. ISBN 978-1-4243-1636-6. Chapter 2: "Defining and Understanding Resonsibilities" Pg 24.

7. RUNNERS LANE

"Regardless of the runner situation. the plate umpire is initially responsible for all interference calls involving the runner's lane. With no runner on base, the base umpire has to move into fair territory for position on the potential play at first on the batter-runner. With runner(s) on base, the base umpire is working in the infield. In neither of these two situations will the base umpire be in a position to get the proper angle for the interference call. However, if the plate umpire fails to call an interference that was obvious the the base umpire, the base umpire must step up and make the call. If there is a possibility of a runner attempting to score on the play, the plate umpire should assume a position on the first base line extended. "

I think all parties involved in the discussion should be satisfied with this authoritative interpretation of umpire responsibities involving the running lane. (But I doubt it).

Regards,

Mike C

Are you qualified to copy and paste "authoritative interpretations"?

I dont know Jim Evans and he will never work at my level, so what he has to say means nothing to me.

The last I heard this publication has not been made official by MLB, NCAA or FED and it isn't what we use at the clinics I do and you'll notice he doesn't include the word "always." :D

Well, I suggest you Google Jim Evans. He's had a hand in a few things at the highest levels of baseball.

Interestingly enough, he's been in the news in the last couple of days.

Jim Evans umpire academy files antitrust lawsuit against minor league baseball - The Washington Post

I am more than sure LMan knows that!

Sorry, I didn't see his emoticon in his post. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I didn't know I had to be so obvious ;) :D




emoticons are for the weak

The CCA has gone to this in the last year or two. The PU rotates to third even if the ball stays on the infield. I could be wrong, but I think someone said on one of the boards that the PBUC book says the same thing for 2-man.

Disagreed. I am 100 percent with dwfump and his citation from Evans. From everything I have been taught (By very good NCAA umpires), the PU is primarily responsible for RLI, but the BU had better step up and call it if the PU doesn't for some reason and it's obvious.

This is only true for one circumstance and only in 2-man. If the initial play is at 2nd base with R1 only and if R1 is safe and a throw goes to first base then the PU would have R1 at third. In this case, however, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be a RLI. I might even say impossible, but...

The reference is 2012 CCA manual pp. 65-66.

However, with a ground ball with no throw to second base the CCA manual p. 67 changes the responsibilities as follows:

Exactly my position.

Peace

If you had made that clear in your very first post, there wouldn't have been 130 others.

Actually I did make it very clear that I did not take the "never" and "always" position that many seem to love to live by here. And then I stated that there was not such reference in any mechanics or books. Then again I would have thought competent umpires would realize the rest. But I should have known better that baseball umpires tend to be very rigid in their thinking if it is not what they think it should be, even if there are reasonable examples to contradict that philosophy. Much like when we discuss the use of a counter or any other helpful device to our job.

Peace

I thought he was pretty clear. Obviously at least 2 vociferous individuals here disagree with Jim Evans. They must have more experience than him.