Running Lane - Whose Call?

[zm1283]

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.

The CCA has gone to this in the last year or two. The PU rotates to third even if the ball stays on the infield. I could be wrong, but I think someone said on one of the boards that the PBUC book says the same thing for 2-man.

Originally Posted by gordon30307

In discussing this with a friend there is indeed one situation where the base umpire makes this call. It happens only if HPU falls flat on his face unconscious and the base umpire is the only one awake to call it. So I guess it's plausible.

Disagreed. I am 100 percent with dwfump and his citation from Evans. From everything I have been taught (By very good NCAA umpires), the PU is primarily responsible for RLI, but the BU had better step up and call it if the PU doesn't for some reason and it's obvious.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The CCA has gone to this in the last year or two. The PU rotates to third even if the ball stays on the infield...

This is only true for one circumstance and only in 2-man. If the initial play is at 2nd base with R1 only and if R1 is safe and a throw goes to first base then the PU would have R1 at third. In this case, however, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be a RLI. I might even say impossible, but...

The reference is 2012 CCA manual pp. 65-66.

However, with a ground ball with no throw to second base the CCA manual p. 67 changes the responsibilities as follows:

PU: remains in the area of the plate to judge fair/foul and any interference possibilities between BR and the catcher. PU then moves toward the first-base line to observe potential running-lane interference. [italics added] PU communicates to U1 that he is remaining on the line.

U1: Has all plays at first, second or third base.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Disagreed. I am 100 percent with dwfump and his citation from Evans. From everything I have been taught (By very good NCAA umpires), the PU is primarily responsible for RLI, but the BU had better step up and call it if the PU doesn't for some reason and it's obvious.

Exactly my position.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exactly my position.

If you had made that clear in your very first post, there wouldn't have been 130 others.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

If you had made that clear in your very first post, there wouldn't have been 130 others.

Actually I did make it very clear that I did not take the "never" and "always" position that many seem to love to live by here. And then I stated that there was not such reference in any mechanics or books. Then again I would have thought competent umpires would realize the rest. But I should have known better that baseball umpires tend to be very rigid in their thinking if it is not what they think it should be, even if there are reasonable examples to contradict that philosophy. Much like when we discuss the use of a counter or any other helpful device to our job.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

If you had made that clear in your very first post, there wouldn't have been 130 others.

I thought he was pretty clear. Obviously at least 2 vociferous individuals here disagree with Jim Evans. They must have more experience than him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I thought he was pretty clear. Obviously at least 2 vociferous individuals here disagree with Jim Evans. They must have more experience than him.

I guess this was not very clear.

BTW, first post of the entire thread in response to the OP.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless the philosophy has changed, I believe either one can call this. The HP umpire might have other things going on based on many other plays, so I think either one is responsible to call this if necessary. I know that has been the philosophy at other levels.

Peace

[CT1]

What would have been clean, simple and clear is:

"The plate umpire has primary responsibility for running lane interference."

[mbyron]

What a shame that this thread was simply miscommunication. I'm really going to miss it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

What would have been clean, simple and clear is:

"The plate umpire has primary responsibility for running lane interference."

Why would that have been any clearer? It is obvious that to some "primary" means "only" in this conversation. In every other sports officiating discussion it is understood that if someone has a "primary" someone else has a "secondary." And you do not get people normally saying that one person should "always" have a call and the other should just die if they even think to make a call that would be "correct."

I do not understand why I had to be so clear, when it was obvious I disagreed with a specific point. If I said what I believed you would have accepted that anyway? I doubt that seriously.

Peace