The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
__________________
Tony Carilli
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 01:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcarilli View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 01:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
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.
__________________
Tony Carilli
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 01:34pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcarilli View Post
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.
And you realize that everyone does not suggest that method of umpiring? If you have nothing you do nothing is another position on this situation. Because if you have an out you will be adamant you have an out. If you have nothing you let the play go. I think this is what got the plate umpire in trouble in the White Sox/Angels playoff game years ago. He gave a signal that was assumed to be one thing and he was really signifying something else. I for one do not like signals just to give a signal.

BTW, I am capable to explain what I saw. I do not need to signal something to let people know what I saw. I think umpires worry too much about what others are going to say. As a basketball official if I do not have a foul I do not call the foul. If I am a football official and I do not have a DPI call, I do not signal something special to let everyone know I do not have a penalty. I simply do not pull the flag out of my waist.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 01:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcarilli View Post
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.
Yes, we've all seen / done this. Honestly, this is an extremely thin straw to be building the rest of your argument on. I can say truthfully that I don't recall a single case, in my 18+ years of officiating, where it was necessarily to give the "that's nothing" on runners lane interference. I doubt you have either - the play is just not as conducive to the need to tell everyone, "I saw that, and I'm ruling that as nothing", as other plays might be.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2012, 02:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
Yes, we've all seen / done this. Honestly, this is an extremely thin straw to be building the rest of your argument on. I can say truthfully that I don't recall a single case, in my 18+ years of officiating, where it was necessarily to give the "that's nothing" on runners lane interference. I doubt you have either - the play is just not as conducive to the need to tell everyone, "I saw that, and I'm ruling that as nothing", as other plays might be.
I disagree and I have done, exactly as I wrote. A BR was hit in the shoulder with a throw from the catcher while running within the runner's lane. This is only piece of my argument for not having equal and joint responsibility for this play. I have stated some of the others along the winding road of this thread.

I have found that there are some things that happen out of the ordinary that a that's-nothing mechanic is very helpful and has prevented unwarranted discussions. All I am signalling and saying is "yes, I saw that ball hit the b-r, and I have ruled that there was no interference." Similarly on other calls, but YMMV.
__________________
Tony Carilli
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running lane? roadking Softball 6 Mon Oct 03, 2011 08:15am
Running lane grimjack5150 Softball 7 Sat May 10, 2008 10:51pm
Running Lane? DG Baseball 14 Wed May 18, 2005 04:42pm
Running Lane englanj5 Baseball 13 Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:39pm
30' Running Lane bobbrix Softball 16 Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:20am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1