Running Lane - Whose Call?

[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.

[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.

[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

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

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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.

This makes no sense to me. What call are you envisioning PU make that contradicts an interference call by BU? Are you worried that BU will call interference at the same time, that for some inexplicable reason, PU verbally calls out, "No, that's not interference!" I would hope not.

This call is not going to give us the dreaded double-call (like the fair/foul scenario you describe). If PU has nothing, he does nothing - and if BU has INT, you have only one call. You seem to be inventing an issue where none exists.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This makes no sense to me. What call are you envisioning PU make that contradicts an interference call by BU? Are you worried that BU will call interference at the same time, that for some inexplicable reason, PU verbally calls out, "No, that's not interference!" I would hope not.

This call is not going to give us the dreaded double-call (like the fair/foul scenario you describe). If PU has nothing, he does nothing - and if BU has INT, you have only one call. You seem to be inventing an issue where none exists.

There are those that believe that if something strange happens on a play, for example, a thrown ball hits the BR in the back when he is within the runner's lane, that the ruling umpire should signal safe and say "that's nothing." I have heard this called preventive officiating. It avoids the didn't-you-see-that circus. Of course there are variety of plays in which this mechanic may be employed, a ground ball goes past a runner in between bases, a potential batter's interference, etc. So, yes the possibility of a double call is possible because neither umpire is focused on the other in this play.