Running Lane - Whose Call?

[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

[MrUmpire]

Mr. Childress:

Give it up. Once Jeff makes his position known he will not chhange it. In all the time I've read this board, he has never, make that NEVER, admitted that he was wrong.

Instead, he changes the discussion and rests his answer on, "that might be okay for you and (whomever), but I don't work those games."

Logic means nothing. Facts mean less. Jeff will never, ever admit that you are correct.

That good news is that Jeff is pretty much unique on this site.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mr. Childress:

Give it up. Once Jeff makes his position known he will not chhange it. In all the time I've read this board, he has never, make that NEVER, admitted that he was wrong.

Instead, he changes the discussion and rests his answer on, "that might be okay for you and (whomever), but I don't work those games."

Logic means nothing. Facts mean less. Jeff will never, ever admit that you are correct.

That good news is that Jeff is pretty much unique on this site.

First of all me and Carl goes back before this site was in full swing and every attended McGriff's site in the mid 90s. I have argued with him as well as others for years about stuff. Nothing new or unique. And usually he spends a lot of time telling us about a book that I have yet to see many people even reference as a training tool or as the guide for umpiring. Sorry, but true.

I like how many have yet to address the issue at hand. I love you baseball guys (mostly on this site), you sure never like to give references to stuff, but share a lot of "opinions" usually based on some logic from another level that would not apply to you unless you are a pro umpire. No, let us just take your word for it, rather than any mechanic references. I gave two examples of levels I actually work.

Yes, let us reference a book that most umpires I know do not even use or care about (honestly have not heard anyone I work with live by Carl's books or know it exists). Let us not even talk about the CCA Manual and not a single reference to even what the NF book says (and is not used by everyone BTW). Yep, great logic on your part.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

I would not call RLI on this. He has to be completly outside of the lane before I make that call.

Please bring this up at your next clinic. This is wrong on many levels.

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well. So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together. But remember I said that my state does not use any published mechanics book and made that very clear as well. We have not received any mechanic book from any sport from the NF in about 8 or 9 years. This is why I referenced my state's mechanics and what we were told to do as it relates to our mechanics. Also, the CCA book does not say anything to suggest that only the PU can or should be the only one to make this call. I do not work pro ball and had no desire to so I cannot speak for what they ask for or require.

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with. It is not hard. Heck I am still waiting for one reference to any published book from your position that the PU is always the only one that makes this call. Once again, I did not say they should not call this or that they are the main person to make this call.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for proving my point. So it is an opinion as to who has this call, not something in writing. Nothing wrong with that position, just admit that is the fact of that position, that is all.

Originally Posted by jicecone

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

I am glad you think it is the best book. Just pointing out that not many I come in contact with use it or reference it in their experiences or background. And no I trust a lot of people; it is just not people that only come to a discussion board. There are things in my 18 years of officiating (working college in all of them and state finals 3 times as well) that come from all different places. And I have learned that even people at the same level have differing opinions. And I have paid a lot of money to hear those you watch on TV say things that are different. So fine if you want to buy into Carl's book that is your right. I just don't see it as law nor would not bank on it considering that most people would look at me strange if I reference this book as the standard for all things HS or college baseball. I equate his book to Roger Redding in football. It was a great book for college football and rulings, but were often seen as wrong as it relates to HS and no one of significance uses it, (meaning any of my bosses or crew members or clinicians in my state) but some guy that I would not work with swears by it. Carl seems like a great guy, but just because you write a book does not make you the authority or the only person people should reference. There are too many people out there that have experience and positions to also listen to. There is and a former NBA official in my area and people do not agree with everything he states about officiating basketball (and I have adopted his philosophies in my game) and I have enough sense to know that everyone may not simply agree. And as it relates to officiating, my friend has more juice than Carl ever had.

Follow whomever you wish.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I am still looking for a "published" book to say that the PU has all the running lane calls as well.

PBUC "Red Book," Sec. 2.9(1), p. 15

CCA, 7.6.4, p. 67

FED umpire manual, XV. 2-Man Mechanics, p. 40, #6.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So show me where it says that very point and I will concede that point all together.

I doubt it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

PBUC "Red Book," Sec. 2.9(1), p. 15

Thanks but I do not work Pro ball.

Originally Posted by mbyron

CCA, 7.6.4, p. 67

Applies to a runner on first base. The BU in two person would not be in position to make such a call.

Originally Posted by mbyron

FED umpire manual, XV. 2-Man Mechanics, p. 40, #6.

Don't use those mechanics so interesting but honestly do not care what they do.

Originally Posted by mbyron

I doubt it.

I will concede when you give a reference to what I am talking about. When someone says “always” that means “always” not some of the time, not part of the time, always!!! I was told a long time on this forum to not use always and never and they were right then and they were right now. But I give you credit for giving a reference, more than someone trying to shill to sell a book for sure.

Help me with the CCA reference. I have the 2011 CCA Manual and not the 2012 and I am looking at 7.6.4, which includes a runner on first base and not what I was talking about with no one on base which is likely the only situation in 2 Person for this to even be viewed by a BU. Then you did not include other mechanics like in 3 Person where you can have a BU at first with runners on base. Obviously the PU is the only person in a two person system that can make that call with the BU in B position (inside the diamond at the start of the play). It does not say what you suggest in any way. It does say that the PU has responsibility for a play at 3rd base potentially and you have all plays at home. All the book says is that the PU has secondary responsibility for a swiped tag and pulled foot at first base. It does not say anything about RLI.

Now the play that would be appropriate to this discussion is 7.5.4 in the CCA Manual (again 2011) does not mention anything about who has a call on RLI. Now 7.5.4 is a play to the shortstop and not a bunt or play that would likely involve some kind of RLI, but no reference to "The PU always has interference" on the line. Sorry, not there. I have looked over and over this book more than I have previously just to find one reference to always, but not such evidence has been found. And then you I would have to believe that the CCA had such an epiphany to then add this to the book when it was previously not present, which goes back to my original point. If this is an opinion just state it is an opinion. But do not say it is clearly listed in every book and the wording does not support such opinion.

Do not use NF Mechanics at all and do not have their book. Can you quote those references for this discussion?

Thanks.

Peace

[briancurtin]

Is this really happening?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, if you are going to debate this issue, at least you could follow along with the point you seem to not agree with.

Excuse me? Let's go to the video tape for your rationale:

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.

I say again: 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.