Running Lane - Whose Call?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If you're looking at the base, how will you see RLI?

You are telling me you only focus on the base? And if it is obvious you think only the PU can make this call? Not a chance. If that is the logic then a PU should never see a swiped tag either. You have to see the entire play. And yes I would be watching the throw as well sometimes. Again this might depend on positioning that I am in of course, but if this is obvious I do not know why a BU cannot make that call.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...And if it is obvious you think only the PU can make this call? ...I do not know why a BU cannot make that call.

The call belongs primarily to the plate umpire because he has a better angle on the position of the runner's feet as he approaches first base. While the base umpire may have secondary responsibility on the call, I think it would have to be so obvious as to not "need" a call for him to get it. A play involves both a ball and runner. The base umpire is initially focused on the ball so that he can read the "trueness" of the throw. He can't at the same time observe the position of the feet of the runner. The plate guy can because he does not have to have primary focus on the ball. When there is an "untrue" throw that requires a swipe tag the base umpire can stay with the ball to the tag of the runner.

I submit it is very difficult to watch the ball and the position of the feet of the batter-runner simultaneously, thus making this violation the primary responsibility of the plate umpire.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

The call belongs primarily to the plate umpire because he has a better angle on the position of the runner's feet as he approaches first base. While the base umpire may have secondary responsibility on the call, I think it would have to be so obvious as to not "need" a call for him to get it. A play involves both a ball and runner. The base umpire is initially focused on the ball so that he can read the "trueness" of the throw. He can't at the same time observe the position of the feet of the runner. The plate guy can because he does not have to have primary focus on the ball. When there is an "untrue" throw that requires a swipe tag the base umpire can stay with the ball to the tag of the runner.

I submit it is very difficult to watch the ball and the position of the feet of the batter-runner simultaneously, thus making this violation the primary responsibility of the plate umpire.

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

I wrote about primary coverage and secondary coverage. Not about only coverage and no coverage. The same is true for 2-man and 3-man mechanics. I did not write that the BU follows the ball only. If the BU reads a true throw, he moves his eyes to the base and then listens for the "slap-thud," on an "untrue" throw his focus must remain on the ball longer to see where the throw will take F3. So on non-true throw the BU will have a hard time seeing the feet of the BR, the flight of the ball, and F3. The PU does not have to worry about the first two things, so he has primary coverage for the BR's feet on a non-true throw. On a true throw the plate umpire has nothing to worry about at first base but the position of the BR's feet. (Swipe tags, etc. are not likely to happen on true throws.)

So while both umpires can call this, it is the PU's primary responsibility in all mechanics and a secondary or tertiary responsibility for BU in all mechanics. This is why it is important for the PU to be 1BLE if he has to stay home on the play. Furthermore the PU is much more credible than the BU for this violation, because of the angle he has.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I wrote about primary coverage and secondary coverage. Not about only coverage and no coverage. The same is true for 2-man and 3-man mechanics. I did not write that the BU follows the ball only. If the BU reads a true throw, he moves his eyes to the base and then listens for the "slap-thud," on an "untrue" throw his focus must remain on the ball longer to see where the throw will take F3. So on non-true throw the BU will have a hard time seeing the feet of the BR, the flight of the ball, and F3. The PU does not have to worry about the first two things, so he has primary coverage for the BR's feet on a non-true throw. On a true throw the plate umpire has nothing to worry about at first base but the position of the BR's feet. (Swipe tags, etc. are not likely to happen on true throws.)

So while both umpires can call this, it is the PU's primary responsibility in all mechanics and a secondary or tertiary responsibility for BU in all mechanics. This is why it is important for the PU to be 1BLE if he has to stay home on the play. Furthermore the PU is much more credible than the BU for this violation, because of the angle he has.

The question that was asked was who calls this play. That suggest that it is an either, or situation. It clearly is not that way and why I stated what I did. There are exceptions to a lot of things and that is why I say either one could make this call. Now what your process to watch the ball and the catch is different than mine as I feel you have to watch all these things and not be so focused on just one thing at a time. But I think if it is obvious to the BU they should call it. Sometimes both calling it will bolster the credibility of the call. I just do not like letting the BU off the hook if they see something. It is not like they are oblivious to the movement of the runner.

Peace

[CT1]

As BU, I would never make this call without giving PU first shot at it.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The question that was asked was who calls this play. That suggest that it is an either, or situation. It clearly is not that way and why I stated what I did. There are exceptions to a lot of things and that is why I say either one could make this call. Now what your process to watch the ball and the catch is different than mine as I feel you have to watch all these things and not be so focused on just one thing at a time. But I think if it is obvious to the BU they should call it. Sometimes both calling it will bolster the credibility of the call. I just do not like letting the BU off the hook if they see something. It is not like they are oblivious to the movement of the runner.

Peace

It can't be joint responsibility and it could be a very bad thing if they both call it. Imagine the a play that could or could not be RLI and the plate guy makes the mechanic and says that's nothing at the same time the base guy signals and calls interference....Now what? This is why mechanics manuals have it as the responsibility of the PU.

That procedure I described for taking plays at first is pretty standard: Read a true throw, take your eyes from the ball to the base and listen for the sound of the ball in the glove and watch for the foot touching the base. Read a non-true throw, make an adjustment depending upon how the ball will be received, how the tag will be made, whether F3 will remain on the bag etc.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

It can't be joint responsibility and it could be a very bad thing if they both call it.

Imagine the a play that could or could not be RLI and the plate guy makes the mechanic and says that's nothing at the same time the base guy signals and calls interference....Now what? This is why mechanics manuals have it as the responsibility of the PU.

Not everyone subscribes to the same mechanics manuals or has the same philosophy about what to call and not what to call. So we will just have to disagree on this one for that reason alone. Mechanics books are guides to positioning, they do not often share what is actually done in many situations that are not perfectly listed in those manuals. And being a multi-sport official, primary does not mean another official does not have secondary coverage and can call things to help out on a situation or give a different angle. And if the goal is to "get the play right" which I seem to read all over this board, then it would only make sense that both umpires would have an angle to get this play right.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

That procedure I described for taking plays at first is pretty standard: Read a true throw, take your eyes from the ball to the base and listen for the sound of the ball in the glove and watch for the foot touching the base. Read a non-true throw, make an adjustment depending upon how the ball will be received, how the tag will be made, whether F3 will remain on the bag etc.

Read the throw to me does not mean I need to follow the ball all over the field. Honestly all I ever do is watch the fielder play the ball and when they come up throwing I take my eyes off of them and focus on first base area. The first baseman is going to take you to the ball and you will hear when it hits their glove. And if there is a bad throw it will be obvious to you based on the movement of the first baseman. You do not have to follow the ball or "read" the ball to figure that out. A play at first is not going to take much adjustment as my positioning is going to be pretty much the same, at least with a throw from inside the diamond and with the 3rd, short and 2nd basemen. So my look at the runner is pretty much the same. I can tell you with confidence I am not going to go where that MLB umpire did and not see a first baseman off the bag by 3 feet. That is never going to be my position so I think I am confident if I a runner is out of that lane I will be on top of it. Once again it is usually a pre-gamed thing too and never had anyone make that big of a deal out of this. And in three person especially the BU is not always has only responsibility with the runner as they might have to be up the 3rd base line on a batted ball. They might be pulled away from only looking at the runner in the running lane.

Peace

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

I've read the full thread. At the risk of offensing some people, there's a great deal of misinformation in these posts. Running lane rules are essentially the same everywhere.

1. It's always the plate umpire's call. 2-man,l 3-man, 4-man. If he's gets screened, he should move from high school to junior high. Especially in 2-man, the base umpire will never have the correct angle.

2. The runner must have both feet in the running lane or be in jeopardy of an out for interference. If he doesn't interfere, he may run anywhere he wants.

3. The ball doesn't have to hit the batter-runner. But if it is thrown and the fielder covering first misses it, the umpire must judge it was a quality throw. If yes, BR is out. If no, E2 (or whoever).

4. If the fielder behind the runner DOES NOT THROW, there can be no interference. It's different when the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to a base. At the plate, the catcher does not have to throw.

5. New this year in NCAA (and already the rule in OBR): If the batter-runner has been advancing legally, as he nears the base he may le\ave the running lane to acquire the base. Jim Evans started preaching that in 1991. In 2007 it finally showed up in the book. See section 282 in the 2012 BRD.

This is pretty easy stuff though it is one of the rules many amateur umpires have difficulty getting their heads around.

Mostly, it's like 3 strieks and you're out. The only judgment ever involved is: The throw didn't hit the batter-runner and the covering fielder didn't catch the throw.

KISS, fellows. Now, obstruction? That's tough! Running lane? Kindergarden.

Of course, one must admit in some venues it takes guts to make that call. But if you can't, take up soccer.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

There's a great deal of misinformation in these posts.

What there is, is a great deal of verbal diarrhea.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

I've read the full thread. At the risk of offensing some people, there's a great deal of misinformation in these posts. Running lane rules are essentially the same everywhere.

1. It's always the plate umpire's call. 2-man,l 3-man, 4-man. If he's gets screened, he should move from high school to junior high. Especially in 2-man, the base umpire will never have the correct angle.

At what level? What mechanics? It is one thing to make such a claim; it is another to find some evidence. Sorry, I am not seeing any statement that says “always” on this issues in any mechanics I use.

I just looked up in the CCA Manual and there is no such statement about who has or who does not have this call. Not a single line as of the 2011 book for sure. If there is something different in the 2012 book, please reference the wording if it is different. It is not even explicit as to who can or who cannot call this play, proving original my point.

Then I looked at our mechanics from my state (They do not use NF Mechanics BTW) and it does have the PU (they call U1) states that they should be prepared to rule on runner's interference with no one on base. In 3 Person with a runner on 1st base there is no reference to runner's interference as the PU is going up the 3rd base line and gets prepared to rule on a play going to 3rd base.

This is why always makes no sense when in simple rotations we might not be in a position to view other plays. It is of course more common in 2 person for the PU to be in that position and they are the only one in many cases because there is no one else that can see this play (BU is in the middle of the diamond after all).

I would agree with most of the time and even 9 out of 10 times in a 2 Person system, but not always and certainly not always when you add an umpire or two. Let us get real when other umpires are doing nothing but watch a runner down the line and the PU has to rule on other things. I would not expect them to get back and then rule on something they were not watching at all at the last minute.

Peace

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

At what level? What mechanics? It is one thing to make such a claim; it is another to find some evidence. Sorry, I am not seeing any statement that says “always” on this issues in any mechanics I use.

I take it you don't have the BRD else you would have saved yourself some time.

Here's a passage from Section 283:

✻Play 132-283: Game 2, ALCS, 1998, Cleveland v New York. Pinch runner Enrique Wilson on first. Travis Fryman sacrifices Wilson to second. Tino Martinez (F1) fields the bunt and throws to Chuck Knoblauch (F4) covering first. Fryman is not in the lane, and the ball hits him in the back and rolls away. After arguing with Umpire Ted Hendry for interference, Knoblauch retrieves the ball. But it’s too late to get Wilson — at home. Ruling: Hendry at the plate makes no call, ruling in effect that Fryman did not interfere. Crew chief and right field umpire Jim Evans says after the game: “The umpire has to decide if it was a quality throw that would retire the runner and how close to the base the runner is. He has the right to be there that close to the base. If the runner is in fair territory, he can be called out if he interferes with the throw. This case probably happened right at the base. That's what Hendry based his ruling on. The fact that he was at 'the base makes it a tough judgment call. I thought it could go either way. [But] I thought it was the proper call in that situation.”

This play, no-called by the PL, happened with a six-man crew.

The Texas Baseball Umpires Manual gives the call to PL: 2-man, p.64; 3-man, p.164; 4-man.... Apparently Ken Williams decided the point was made.

NOW, that said, I don't know what levels you work. But if you're a veteran umpire, you should know what, when discussiing mechanics, we mean when we say: "That call ALWAYS belongs to x." In this sense, it means the primary responsibility is the assigned official.

Tag at the plate. PL's call, right? But if another umpire sees the ball on the ground, he can take the call and get it changed from "Out" to "Safe." Durwood Merrill prevented an umpire from "taking the call" when he pointed to a ball on the ground after a collision at the plate.

Safe or out at first? U1, right? But all amateur manuals I know of allow an umpiure to get help with "on or off the base" when he's in Position C.

In all pre-game conferences I've ever been a part of (over 4000), a point made is: "Get the call right. If you're in doubt, get some help if you can." The most usual case where the umpires "decide" who takes a call is the rundown.

Something you have overlooked is WHY the call "ALWAYS" belongs to PL. The throw comes from behind the runner. Only the PL is close enough to determine whether it was a quality throw. Only the PL is close enough, because he's following the play up the foul line, to observe if the runner screened the fielder. He alone has the angle because any umpire worth his salt is moving to grab a 90-degree angle for the call at first. (2-man) In 3-man, U1 will likely be moving two steps fair and again will not have the better angle.

I take it you agree with the rest of my analysis about how and when to call lane violations.

I'll give you the last word. I'm going back to work on the 2013 BRD. I have 69 OFF INTERPS from Hunter Wendelstedt. He contacted me, asking if I would use his interps for the OBR rules. I was happy to replace the authoritative opinion of Rick Roder with the offical word of an MLU, especially the operator of the only privately-owned school recognized by MLB.

Shortly before Hunter's father, Harry, passed away, I emailed about a play we were discussing. I said: "Tell Harry I remember the debate we had in Orlando. He was a worthy opponent. Too bad he lost the argument."

Hunter replied within the hour., "My Dad says you're full of it. He wiped the floor with you."

We weren't debating the ruinning lane. We agreed about that.

[JRutledge]

All nice Carl, but what does telling me about the BRD, Texas Mechanics book or telling me what Hunter Wendelstedt has to do with this conversation? This would be the equivalent of me reading the Roger Redding book a few years ago and taking it as law.

For one neither have anything to do with the level that I work and I am sure most here do not work. Secondly being someone that works more than one sport, why do baseball umpires care so much about what the pros do as if it is law? I know as a football official if the NFL does something it does not apply to all levels. And it certainly does not apply when they are working 7 man every game and we get only 5 for most HS games. Even as a college football official I can watch a NFL game and know that the NFL is going to do and have different philosophies as what we do on Saturday. Same goes if I talk about the NBA or college basketball. But for some reason all this stuff you told me while interesting has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The question was who has this call and all I am getting is philosophy and not stated mechanics or realization that what you do could be different than someone else. If it is always the PU's call, then I would think someone could come up with one reference to where it says that. At least say, "That is what we do and that is how we were taught." Honestly that is really all I am hearing as nothing you stated proves that I am wrong or that any mechanics book takes a definitive position on this issue.

BTW, the CCA Manual has a reference to "Getting it right" and if I read what people say here, I would think the CCA was crazy.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then I looked at our mechanics from my state (They do not use NF Mechanics BTW) and it does have the PU (they call U1) states that they should be prepared to rule on runner's interference with no one on base. In 3 Person with a runner on 1st base there is no reference to runner's interference as the PU is going up the 3rd base line and gets prepared to rule on a play going to 3rd base.

Jeff:

I have never seen a published mechanics manual that has PU rotate to third when the ball stays in the infield. If the ball goes through the infield, there won't be a RLI call to be made.

[jicecone]

Rut, I truly believe you argue with yourself every morning about whether or not it was the right decision to wake up.

In the close to 30 years I have been involved with officiating Baseball, I can't recall one time, or situation where RLI is not best called by PU. OK, for your sake, I too, have never read any book or manual that stipulates it his call either but, get real here.

I am more than sure that Carl does not need me to defend him however, I can't think of anyone else that contributed more to the art of officiating amatuer Baseball than Carl Childress. BRD is by far THE BEST manual I have ever read to get a through understanding of the differences between the different levels of Baseball rules. For you to imply that his writings including (BRD), are of little significance in the development of officiating in this world, just goes to show that maybe your spending way more time with your OTHER sports than you realize. Believe me, Carl's contributions to officiating Baseball will long outlive your ranting and raving on this or any other forum you are on. It is obvious from your writings that the only person you have respect for, is JRutledge.

FOR SURE