Running Lane - Whose Call?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

If you're working a 3 or even 4 man game UIC has no reason to look or call FPSR since there will be an umpire at 2nd. I gather your new at this gig the way your question is posed.

Well, I'm not knew at this "gig", but I will admit I'm not polished on NCAA or NFHS Baseball rules because I don't umpire those games.

I was talking about FPSR at home plate (recall my play had the bases loaded, and there was a force play at home). Does FPSR only apply at second?

Regardless, there may be reason for the PU to not be positioned or prepared to make the RLI call. That's what I was asking.

[gordon30307]

Have you ever called it or seen it called in a 3 person game?

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Well, I'm not knew at this "gig", but I will admit I'm not polished on NCAA or NFHS Baseball rules because I don't umpire those games.

I was talking about FPSR at home plate (recall my play had the bases loaded, and there was a force play at home). Does FPSR only apply at second?

Regardless, there may be reason for the PU to not be positioned or prepared to make the RLI call. That's what I was asking.

FPSR can be at home.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I am really flabbergasted by this. I won't read you my resume as you have done for me. I don't like appeals to authority (logical fallacy) self referential or not. I do not umpire the same way I did, 5 years ago let alone 10 or 15 years ago.

I have not attacked you personally or claimed to know anything about you in any of my posts. I don't understand why you haven't accorded me the same courtesy.

In argument the principal of charity means basically that you view the ideas and thoughts of others in an argument within the best possible light assuming the best possible intentions. That is, one gives others' ideas the most charitable reading. I try to do that all of the time. I seriously considered your points in the most charitable way, that is why I asked questions, I did not make definitive statements.

Learning and changing cannot happen during pissing contests, I was not attempting to engage in a pissing contest. There is a Latin aphorism that says Qui docet discit, he who teaches learns. I view conversation like that. Sometimes articulating a belief or theory we hold, or otherwise exposing it to the light of day, demonstrates that the idea doesn't hold water. If I see the holes in the bucket, I plug the holes or I get a new bucket.

I did not think this was a pissing contest. I told you what I believe and why I believe it. It does not make me upset to stick to my position. I also did not ask the question to get help because I was having trouble trying to figure out what to do. And if my partner made this call from the BU position and I was the PU, then I would clap my hands and thank them for doing their job. We are a team, not a bunch of individuals out there. And my ego is in check that I would support my partner as still not a single book says that only the PU has these calls. At some point we have to deal with the facts of this discussion.

And some here like to always assume that someone that they are talking with is just stating an opinion just to state and opinion. As I said, believe and do what you want to do and if you do that go right ahead. It is not the first time that someone believes what they believe and they will have to deal with the fall out when you suggest that only one person can make this call.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Manny A

There could be plenty of reasons why the PU misses it. Just look at the play that took place in the White Sox/Angels game, where the PU made the call at home from 3BLX. He wasn't in an ideal position to see it. Heck, this could be a college- or high school-level game with a four-man crew and he's watching for a FPSR violation as F2's throwing to first. Who knows?

Again, I'm just trying to understand why a RLI violation cannot be called by U1, as gordon30307 states.

How as U1 can you know that, ex ante? So after the play it is possible for the U1 to offer information to PU about the play. I think there are times when U1 can see RLI, I just don't think we want him to be the primary judge of this infraction, nor do I think we want him even looking for it. Once the throw goes to first base the PU has nothing to do but watch the position of the runner, BU has other things he needs to attend to, that are more important than the position of the BR as it concerns the runner's lane.

Mechanics are a set of as we call them in the fire service, SOPs, or standard operation procedures. That doesn't mean that they are carved in stone and we can never ever stray from them. Instead what it means is that we will always begin with the SOPs in mind. Now after the fact, it might be possible to get help and it might come from U1. Mechanics that are based on the possibility of someone not following the mechanics are not mechanics...its called freelancing.

The PU did not make an adjustment after the play, that is correct, what we should learn from the video is that just because your primary play or responsibility is over, that does not mean you may not have further responsibilities.

I think this is about SOPs not about rare exceptions to the rule. There is a difference. Hell, I've seen PU's make calls on BR at 2nd base because both U1 and U3 went out in 3-man. That doesn't mean that that should be the mechanic, what it means is something F'ed up happened and it was covered by an "emergency" violation of SOPs.

As for force play slide rule at the plate why can't that be observed at 1BLX or the point of the plate and adjust to 1BLX in anticipation of the return throw the 1B?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Mechanics are a set of as we call them in the fire service, SOPs, or standard operation procedures. That doesn't mean that they are carved in stone and we can never ever stray from them.

Yeah, after spending 30 years in the military, I'm pretty familiar with SOPs.

Look, I'm not trying to be hard-headed here. I'm just trying to understand what is the "approved solution" on RLI calls. I've always been led to believe that RLI--like other types of interference calls--are a shared responsibility. If that's not true, fine; I can live with that. But from the discussions here, it appears it's not carved in stone who ALWAYS makes those calls, and who NEVER does.

For fear of hearing crap about "our weaker sisters" or "those wannabe umpires", I can tell you that the ASA Softball Umpires Manual () does state that RLI is a shared responsibility. So at least there's SOMETHING out there in a recognized and approved mechanics manual that addresses this. I'll check the CCA Softball Umpires Manual as well when I get home, just for spits and giggles, to see if there's anything in there.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Jeff, you're the only person in the world who believes a running lane violation can be called by U1. How many authoritative sources do you need? You're flat out wrong. Sure you could call it but it would be indefensible to any assigner worth his salt and you would be left twisting in the wind.

Gordon with all due respect, people on this site are not in an authoritative position in my officiating world. They are just some people on the site that talks about what they think or why we all should do something. I do not work for any of them and never will. Considering that I have watched the post season games and seen a lot of things done that were not "taught" by the state or organizations, somehow those individuals still keep working.

I will put it this way, when I worked the state finals a few years ago I had a play there it was my call all the way but I got screened. This was a shot fly ball in short center and the SS made a great play to dive at the ball. I had no idea if the SS caught the ball or not and immediately looked to my partner at first base (3 person game) and he gave me a signal of "out" without me using my voice or asking any other way but giving him a look of "help." My partner knew what I wanted instinctively and we made the call and it took probably a second to complete. When we got into the locker room, the UIC praised us for getting this play right. This was not a stated mechanic; this was not what we talked about the day before the tournament started or the meeting that is required or in any situation. When you get to that point where every play is being evaluated (and you may get there relatively soon), then talk to me then about these authoritative people and what they think then? I know where my bread is buttered and it is not with some guy that has a name I have no idea who they are. I cannot go to Craig or Brad and tell them, "We had this discussion on an officiating board and this is what they told me to do." They would start laughing before I finished that sentence. And that does not even include what happen with me in the State Finals in football this past year which at least a very well-known play. Of course there were people that disagreed, but the powers that be did not say a word or complain. We all have to choose why we do this and who we do this for. I am secure in the fact that what I believe is right for me. It might not be right for you. Do what works for you and let the chips fall where they may.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

As for force play slide rule at the plate why can't that be observed at 1BLX or the point of the plate and adjust to 1BLX in anticipation of the return throw the 1B?

Didn't I just get blistered on here for advocating taking the play at home on 1BLX if the throw is from 3rd? I was SOUNDLY thumped and told PU should be at 3BLX.

That said, we all know we adjust our spot depending on 100 things. PU, for all we know, could be near 1BL (not X) after adjusting - meaning any hope of calling RL is gone.

I don't think Jeff (or I) are saying BU should be making RL calls regularly. However, 2 of you got all hung up on the word "Always", and now gordon adds that BU should NEVER make this call (at the risk of putting words in his mouth, it sounded to me like he'd never call it from BU, no matter what, and (to me) at risk of going with the wrong call, even if he clearly saw the RL violation. I hope this is not the case.

I believe it's the absoluteness that Jeff was objecting to. I KNOW it's the "never make this call" attitude that I'm objecting to.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This was a shot fly ball in short center and the SS made a great play to dive at the ball. I had no idea if the SS caught the ball or not and immediately looked to my partner at first base (3 person game) and he gave me a signal of "out" without me using my voice or asking any other way but giving him a look of "help." My partner knew what I wanted instinctively and we made the call and it took probably a second to complete.

That's exactly how it is supposed to work, it was your responsibility, you got blocked you looked to him he helped! He helped you, you made the call. That is awesome when it works. Hurray! That is infinitely better than getting together after the fact especially on a catch/no catch. This is what good umpires do! Note, however, that this is not the same as U1 making the call that belongs to you, while you at the same time keep responsibility for a call.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

people on this site are...just some people on the site that talks about what they think... I do not work for any of them and never will.

Why, then, engage any of us? I wrote earlier about the principal of charity. I am assuming you don't want us to read your thoughts on certain things and conclude: I don't work or will never work for him, so what he writes has no merit. Yet, I submit that is exactly what you are doing to those of us who differ in opinion from you, even slightly.

I have learned some things from this thread in terms of the way I think about that play in particular and mechanics in general. Writing them out and considering them has had the effect of softening some of my positions and hardening others. That is why, I participate in this forum and in the principle of charity is why I assume others do the same. Any day, I can learn something new or reconsider something I have learned before is a good day.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I believe it's the absoluteness that Jeff was objecting to. I KNOW it's the "never make this call" attitude that I'm objecting to.

That was all I was objecting to. And I really object to this when you add umpires to the field.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Didn't I just get blistered on here for advocating taking the play at home on 1BLX if the throw is from 3rd? I was SOUNDLY thumped and told PU should be at 3BLX.

I can't speak to that because I don't know. I would hope not, while every call has a best place to see it, there is no best place for every call.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I don't think Jeff (or I) are saying BU should be making RL calls regularly. However, 2 of you got all hung up on the word "Always"

No, that's when I originally bailed out. I would never argue that there is an always. I've seen a U2 in a 4-man game and a U-1 in a 3-man game help on pole benders, but I don't think we want them making the initial call. I think it a bad idea for the BU to make this (RLI) call unsolicited. I think it is better handled in the way Mr. Rutledge described the catch/no catch play he had. There is very little worse than two umpires making different calls on the same play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Why, then, engage any of us? I wrote earlier about the principal of charity. I am assuming you don't want us to read your thoughts on certain things and conclude: I don't work or will never work for him, so what he writes has no merit. Yet, I submit that is exactly what you are doing to those of us who differ in opinion from you, even slightly.

I am giving an opinion, but I backed my opinion with facts as well. There is nothing in the mechanics books (or my state mechanics which does not use NF) that says it is always someone's call or not someone's call. When I called people on it they changed the standard or tried to suggest that I had no idea what I was talking about. And I understand completely you can dismiss my opinion totally. I am not your supervisor or someone you will have to work with in any game. Gordon is the only person I have worked an actual game with that is on this site. And even Gordon is not in a position to tell me what I should do nor can I tell him what to do. Not all umpires agree on every single mechanic or philosophy. I work with too many people that have totally different philosophies and somehow we get through the games. I have been on this forum for so long I have perspective on what these discussions ultimately mean. I had people say all kinds of person things about me like I would never work this and I would never work that and what do you think happen? I do not have to prove anything to anyone and everything I wanted to accomplish in baseball I have. I could retire today and be totally fine with my baseball umpiring career. I am close to accomplishing something in officiating that only 3 others have in my part of the state. I am good with my positions on these things. I am not sure many people can say that. And I did not get their by listening to people here exculsively and making career decisions for those opinions. I share my knowledge, take it or leave it. I do not lose a single cent here if you hate my position unlike some people.

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I have learned some things from this thread in terms of the way I think about that play in particular and mechanics in general. Writing them out and considering them has had the effect of softening some of my positions and hardening others. That is why, I participate in this forum and in the principle of charity is why I assume others do the same. Any day, I can learn something new or reconsider something I have learned before is a good day.

Good. You seem to have some perspective on what this place is to you. Just do not be upset that others might not take it that way.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

No, that's when I originally bailed out. I would never argue that there is an always. I've seen a U2 in a 4-man game and a U-1 in a 3-man game help on pole benders, but I don't think we want them making the initial call. I think it a bad idea for the BU to make this (RLI) call unsolicited. I think it is better handled in the way Mr. Rutledge described the catch/no catch play he had. There is very little worse than two umpires making different calls on the same play.

Let me ask you this.

If you do not have interference what are you going to call? If you have interference what are you going to call? Not sure that if the BU would to in a rare situation make a call that that differences from the PU? I know if I have no interference or do not see the entire play I certainly am not going to signal anything. If I have a call then I will kill the play when I have made a judgment. And if you really need to get together I am OK with that too. Just get the play right and not default to the dreaded, "It is not my call" cop out that many of us tend to say when we want to ignore obvious violations of rules.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And some here like to always assume that someone that they are talking with is just stating an opinion just to state and opinion.

I didn't understand that's what you were doing until you told me that's what you were doing. I then bailed out of the mechanics discussion with you.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As I said, believe and do what you want to do and if you do that go right ahead. It is not the first time that someone believes what they believe and they will have to deal with the fall out when you suggest that only one person can make this call.

I never wrote this.

Overall, I really am sorry, that I didn't understand your position was "I'm just stating an opinion and I'm not interested in opinions." Had I known that from jump, I would not have engaged you. If I should make this mistake with you again, please just tell me in your reply that you are not interested in my opinion and I will not address you any longer on that subject. Otherwise, I will assume that you are interested in my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me ask you this.

If you do not have interference what are you going to call? If you have interference what are you going to call? Not sure that if the BU would to in a rare situation make a call that that differences from the PU? I know if I have no interference or do not see the entire play I certainly am not going to signal anything. If I have a call then I will kill the play when I have made a judgment. And if you really need to get together I am OK with that too. Just get the play right and not default to the dreaded, "It is not my call" cop out that many of us tend to say when we want to ignore obvious violations of rules.

Peace

Yes, everything works great if the PU makes no call and the BU makes the call. The BU cannot know what the PU plans or planned to do until after the play. Let's try this comparison. While fair/foul belongs to the plate guy until some arbitrary cut off point, that does not mean the BU cannot rule fair/foul before that cut off point, but I don't think we want them ruling simultaneously. I think RLI is similar. I have used the mechanic in 4-man and sometimes 3-man depending on partners, that in the event of a bunt or slow roller down the 3BL that U3 take all fair/foul calls regardless of the position of the ball. But this is worked out before hand with a signal not simultaneously while the play is developing to avoid the double call.

If, after the fact, on a potential RLI the plate guy has done nothing, I will look to see what he is doing and what else is going on and be willing to give help, if I can as I would do as U3 in 3-man, eg. I have not in this thread and do not in general resort to the its-not-my-call stance. I do know, however, that there are things that are not my primary responsibility; so I may have no chance of seeing them. And seeing a RLI as U1 may or may not be one of those situations.