Running Lane - Whose Call?
 

A couple of times this week MLB games had plays where the catcher was throwing to first and the runner , after reaching the running lane, had one foot inside the lane and the first baseman missed the throw.

Is that the call by the first base ump or the HP ump?

Thanks

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

This is a good subject to bring up in your pregame conference.
In my view either one could call it. I had field one night and in pre-game HP was adamant that RLI was his and only his call. OK sir, lets play.

If you're looking at the base, how will you see RLI?

I'm watching and listening for a lot of things (ball, base, runners feet, fielders feet etc). If you only watched the base, interference or obstruction would never be called.

Sounds as if you might be failing to take advantage of the division of labor that the 2-umpire system permits.

In any case, to answer the question, in every manual and course of instruction I know, RLI is PU's call. And it's PU's call because BU should not be looking there.

You are telling me you only focus on the base? And if it is obvious you think only the PU can make this call? Not a chance. If that is the logic then a PU should never see a swiped tag either. You have to see the entire play. And yes I would be watching the throw as well sometimes. Again this might depend on positioning that I am in of course, but if this is obvious I do not know why a BU cannot make that call.

Peace

The call belongs primarily to the plate umpire because he has a better angle on the position of the runner's feet as he approaches first base. While the base umpire may have secondary responsibility on the call, I think it would have to be so obvious as to not "need" a call for him to get it. A play involves both a ball and runner. The base umpire is initially focused on the ball so that he can read the "trueness" of the throw. He can't at the same time observe the position of the feet of the runner. The plate guy can because he does not have to have primary focus on the ball. When there is an "untrue" throw that requires a swipe tag the base umpire can stay with the ball to the tag of the runner.

I submit it is very difficult to watch the ball and the position of the feet of the batter-runner simultaneously, thus making this violation the primary responsibility of the plate umpire.

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

That's flat out incorrect.

Did the runner interfere with F3's opportunity to catch the throw?

In FED the rule reads: The batter is considered to be outside of the running lane lines if either foot is outside either line.(8-4 art 1 g2).

OBR: Rule 6.05(k) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter-runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane.

Personally, I like the FED interp better than OBR when comes to the definition as to the throw.

In OBR, the best thing to do is drill the B/R with the ball the way they want it enforced. In FED, they better be in there or else.

This all depends on the mechanics you are using. In a 4 man that might be true. In a two person or three person that might not be true at all based on many factors. And I do not focus that much on the ball as a BU. I watch where the ball is being thrown mostly. If you follow the ball the play might blow up on you and not see everything. And I did not say that the PU was would not be watching this, but to act like neither umpire can call this is silly too. I simply said that both can call this if they see it. It is about angles and in some plays the PU is not on the line directly or can be screened.

Peace

I wrote about primary coverage and secondary coverage. Not about only coverage and no coverage. The same is true for 2-man and 3-man mechanics. I did not write that the BU follows the ball only. If the BU reads a true throw, he moves his eyes to the base and then listens for the "slap-thud," on an "untrue" throw his focus must remain on the ball longer to see where the throw will take F3. So on non-true throw the BU will have a hard time seeing the feet of the BR, the flight of the ball, and F3. The PU does not have to worry about the first two things, so he has primary coverage for the BR's feet on a non-true throw. On a true throw the plate umpire has nothing to worry about at first base but the position of the BR's feet. (Swipe tags, etc. are not likely to happen on true throws.)

So while both umpires can call this, it is the PU's primary responsibility in all mechanics and a secondary or tertiary responsibility for BU in all mechanics. This is why it is important for the PU to be 1BLE if he has to stay home on the play. Furthermore the PU is much more credible than the BU for this violation, because of the angle he has.

Yep, I know what the rule states. I read it before I posted. Do you make this call if he has one foot out and one foot in?

When anyone is running never are both of his feet on the ground at the same time and BRs on this play are typically running. Given that, the runner will never have both feet within the lane. So the rule can not be enforced literally. So for practical purposes, what matters is whether his last foot was on the ground within the lane or not.

If he interferes, yes.

To answer the question, PU.

Whether it was a running lane violation depends on what is meant by F3 missed the catch. Did the ball hit the runner? Did the ball hit F3's glove? In other words, did the runner interfere with F3's ability to catch the ball?

The question that was asked was who calls this play. That suggest that it is an either, or situation. It clearly is not that way and why I stated what I did. There are exceptions to a lot of things and that is why I say either one could make this call. Now what your process to watch the ball and the catch is different than mine as I feel you have to watch all these things and not be so focused on just one thing at a time. But I think if it is obvious to the BU they should call it. Sometimes both calling it will bolster the credibility of the call. I just do not like letting the BU off the hook if they see something. It is not like they are oblivious to the movement of the runner.

Peace

As BU, I would never make this call without giving PU first shot at it.

It can't be joint responsibility and it could be a very bad thing if they both call it. Imagine the a play that could or could not be RLI and the plate guy makes the mechanic and says that's nothing at the same time the base guy signals and calls interference....Now what? This is why mechanics manuals have it as the responsibility of the PU.

That procedure I described for taking plays at first is pretty standard: Read a true throw, take your eyes from the ball to the base and listen for the sound of the ball in the glove and watch for the foot touching the base. Read a non-true throw, make an adjustment depending upon how the ball will be received, how the tag will be made, whether F3 will remain on the bag etc.

Not everyone subscribes to the same mechanics manuals or has the same philosophy about what to call and not what to call. So we will just have to disagree on this one for that reason alone. Mechanics books are guides to positioning, they do not often share what is actually done in many situations that are not perfectly listed in those manuals. And being a multi-sport official, primary does not mean another official does not have secondary coverage and can call things to help out on a situation or give a different angle. And if the goal is to "get the play right" which I seem to read all over this board, then it would only make sense that both umpires would have an angle to get this play right.

Read the throw to me does not mean I need to follow the ball all over the field. Honestly all I ever do is watch the fielder play the ball and when they come up throwing I take my eyes off of them and focus on first base area. The first baseman is going to take you to the ball and you will hear when it hits their glove. And if there is a bad throw it will be obvious to you based on the movement of the first baseman. You do not have to follow the ball or "read" the ball to figure that out. A play at first is not going to take much adjustment as my positioning is going to be pretty much the same, at least with a throw from inside the diamond and with the 3rd, short and 2nd basemen. So my look at the runner is pretty much the same. I can tell you with confidence I am not going to go where that MLB umpire did and not see a first baseman off the bag by 3 feet. That is never going to be my position so I think I am confident if I a runner is out of that lane I will be on top of it. Once again it is usually a pre-gamed thing too and never had anyone make that big of a deal out of this. And in three person especially the BU is not always has only responsibility with the runner as they might have to be up the 3rd base line on a batted ball. They might be pulled away from only looking at the runner in the running lane.

Peace

No doubt, but I know of no mechanics, that are widely used, that give running lane responsibilities to the the BU.

Get it right is an ex post philosophy, ie, the umpire whose responsibility it is for a call may ask the other umpire(s) if he missed some important aspect of the play that may change his judgment on that play. It is not an ex ante philosophy where all umpires can call all things and then hope there aren't opposite calls on any particular play. So I think your use of the get it right philosophy here is a red herring.

In 3-man mechanics on a ground ball to the infield there is never any reason for the PU to head to third, he does not have responsibility for runners at third base when the ball does not leave the infield.

So, you are reading that at least there was a throw. Reading a true throw allows the BU to come set in a timely manner. If the throw isn't true the BU has to be prepared to adjust. That is the purpose of reading the throw.

Not sure what the first has to do with what we are hashing out here, but OK. The play you are alluding to happened because the throw was not true and the BU prepared for the play at first as if the throw was true. As for the second part, the ball and runner are coming from different areas so seeing both at the same time is very difficult especially if the focus is on the first base area because the first base area is not moving, but the runner and the ball are.

RLI has to do with the position of the runner as it interferes with F3's ability to catch a quality throw. I don't think a base umpire can determine those things at the same time in 99% of the cases which is why the plate umpire has responsibility for RLI in nearly all mechanics.

Okay, so in the case of the Anaheim protest play, does PU still have responsibility even though he's set up 3BLX? Does PU glance? Potential problems I see with a PU sliding is that he might get run over by R3, if he slides toward fair territory, PU risks "interfering" with F2's throw...so in a case such as this, if PU is supposed to be 3BLX, who calls RLI?

It still belongs to the PU, which is why he should be on 1BLX, not 3BLX. He should have adjusted when the throw went to first. Most clinics and schools teach that when the ball is coming out of the box, ie, from around the plate area, that U1 get a bigger angle, at one time it was taught to get all the way into the baseline between 1st and 2nd, making it very difficult to rule on RLI. As this play turned out there was no runner's lane violation for two reasons, 1st and most important, the BR did not impede F3's ability to field the throw from F2 and 2nd the throw was not a quality throw.

Again not everyone subscribes to a specific book. So if you are only referencing those books then we are not talking from the same experiences. My state in HS does not use any NF book for mechanics. So there are a lot of things in our mechanics that are not as ridged as some books might be. But even in the CCA book it does not say that only the PU can make this call or at least it did not say that when I was more familiar with those games. Now if you can show a reference that says that only the PU has to make this call then I will agree with that sentiment, but that is not what was taught or talked about in NCAA literature as an exclusive call of the PU. And I doubt that this is the case in 3 or more umpires on the field as opposed to 2 Man.

Actually I think the people that always use that ideal often are never clear what they mean. And they override mechanics in order to justify watching something they should not be watching. In this case it is possible that umpires are watching in the same vicinity. And one is guaranteed to be down the line, the PU might be at a different angle.

So where is the PU, behind the catcher? If there is a hit down the line and the 3B umpire is no on the line, they might certainly well be up the line to rule on fair foul as no one else is in position to make that call. Yes they absolutely can be up the line and not in great position to see what a runner is doing down the line. Now if you are lazy and stay behind the dish, then yes you would be in a better position, but some plays will require you (by mechanic) to go up the line a little. And by the time you see the runner and their position you are not in a great spot.

I have never been told that reading the throw means I must watch its flight to the base. At least that is not the case at first base while being in the A position. And reading the throw means mostly to me that you know where they are throwing the ball. Once that is clear (and it is really clear being in the A position) you focus on the fielder, the bag and the throw will be obvious. Maybe you do not know, but this is not my first rodeo. I have done this before and at a rather high level. Your use of terminology might be a different process for you, but not my process.

I appreciate the lesson and what you think about this, but honestly I was not looking for opinions on this. I feel that the BU has plenty of right based on a lot of factors to make this call. I would want them to make that call if as I stated I am not in great position to make this call. And if I am the BU I will be damned if I rely on the PU only to make a call and the play happens right at the base and I clearly see the play. Just like I think it is silly to have the PU make a tag call on a play I am doing nothing but watching this one play. You do not get help at any other base, so why is first base so special on those kinds of plays. And I am sure someone will tell me that you must ask for help on pulled feet and swipe tags too.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, because nothing you have stated is changing my mind based on the camps I have attended, the meetings when this topic has been talked about and the actual game situations where I have experienced one of these plays and someone needed to call this. Again, mechanics are guides, they are not absolutes. And many things in those books you seem to be so happy to reference (which you have not given me a specific reference either BTW) are not clearly covered. Or it does not mean that someone cannot have a different opinion. Like we talk all the time about the usage of whether to use a indicator or not on the bases or behind the plate, but there are college conferences that require such usage because of mistakes made under their watch. Not everything we do or philosophies we hold are stated.

I will just say this. I was always taught the three legged stool of officiating and it applies here.

1. Rules knowledge
2. Mechanics
3. Philosophy.

All of those things apply to even a situation like this because it is a philosophy when and if we call things and when we do not call things. And who has bases and obstruction and interference are often things I talk about because in certain situations the "primary" coverage umpire might not have the best look or angle at watching things. We still have to cover the play irregardless of what a book says.

Peace

Understood. Got it.

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.

2. The runner must have both feet in the running lane or be in jeopardy of an out for interference. If he doesn't interfere, he may run anywhere he wants.

3. The ball doesn't have to hit the batter-runner. But if it is thrown and the fielder covering first misses it, the umpire must judge it was a quality throw. If yes, BR is out. If no, E2 (or whoever).

4. If the fielder behind the runner DOES NOT THROW, there can be no interference. It's different when the batter interferes with the catcher's throw to a base. At the plate, the catcher does not have to throw.

5. New this year in NCAA (and already the rule in OBR): If the batter-runner has been advancing legally, as he nears the base he may le\ave the running lane to acquire the base. Jim Evans started preaching that in 1991. In 2007 it finally showed up in the book. See section 282 in the 2012 BRD.

This is pretty easy stuff though it is one of the rules many amateur umpires have difficulty getting their heads around.

Mostly, it's like 3 strieks and you're out. The only judgment ever involved is: The throw didn't hit the batter-runner and the covering fielder didn't catch the throw.

KISS, fellows. Now, obstruction? That's tough! Running lane? Kindergarden.

Of course, one must admit in some venues it takes guts to make that call. But if you can't, take up soccer.

What there is, is a great deal of verbal diarrhea.

Show me the money!!!
 

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

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.

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

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. :eek:

Peace

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.

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

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

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

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. ;)

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

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.

I doubt it.

Thanks but I do not work Pro ball.

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

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

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

Is this really happening?

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

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.

Are you kidding me? Carl's books are referenced frequently at this site alone.

You were given facts, not opinion and, as usual, you changed your argument to dismiss those.

Done and done. Everything you ask for is given, then you reword what you ask for. Discussing most anything with you is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Fortunately, you have no impact on the reality of umpiring, anywhere.

And that is a ringing endorsement? Just for the record, the people I have worked with over the years references things from Referee Magazine than they would Carl's book. I belonged to associations that brought in people from Referee Magazine and I have never seen Carl speak or anyone buying his book and giving it away to newer or umpires wanting something to read. Actually if his book is even referenced there are people that have mixed opinions about its validity.

That being said there are two books that Carl wrote that I think were outstanding at the time and what I read early on. But even some of those things have changed over time.

Actually I had facts that backed up my opinion. I said what my state had as a way to cover these plays and I showed what the CCA book showed as well. This has not changed from the beginning of this discussion. I know you do not agree with this, but I am waiting for a reference that says "always" what the PU has to call. None of the books I have been talking about reference those types of statements. Only our state mechanics powerpoint gives a specific situation where the PU has coverage for this and that is on bunt coverage. Other situations it makes no reference that I could find or takes the 1st Base Umpire off the hook on these calls in a 3 or 4 person system.

You have not given me any reference to what I was asking. It was stated as always, you showed something that did not say that or even say who had this specific call. Just admit you could not find that reference and that your opinion is what you were going with. I have an opinion, but I also supported my position with some facts that no such reference was so explicit that no other option was possible. And someone even admitted there was no reference in the books I was referring to. ;)

Really? I am still the chairperson of a clinic if and when we choose to run one again. And honestly if I have no impact I have achieved what I wanted to in this game and impact is not something I would be seeking. Again, this obviously bothers you more than it bothers me. I think it is simple to give references that support claims. If it is not there, then state it is just your opinion. Nothing wrong with saying "I feel this is the way it should be done." We do this all the time in my other sports and often disagree with methods and best practices. But baseball umpires here seem to have a problem doing just that. ;)

Peace

"So it goes."

No insult intended to either of you, both of whom I normally respect here.

But this is the stupidest argument ever on the internet. Really - 2 pages arguing over essentially one misplaced use of the word "always" as opposed to "Always except in places that don't write down their mechanics"? Ridiculous.

Excuse me. My mistake. I thought you could read.

1. I gave two citations from a "published book," the mechanics manuial used by all Texas high school umpires. Here's another, from the National Federation Umpires Manual, under General Duties and Responsibilities of the Plate Umpire, page 40 in the 2010-2011 (latest) edition: "6. With a throw from near home plate, observe the batter-runner’s position in relation to the 3-foot running lane. If the batter-runner is not in the lane and interferes with the throw, call interference and the batter- runner out."

That mechanic represents another victory for, well, he said modestly, me. From my book, The Umpire's Answer Book, published in 1988 by Referee Enterprises. (You have heard of them?) I wrote: "Let's get this point clear: What I'm about to say is not in any rulebook, but it's a 'rule' nonetheless because it has been codified via the decisions of thousands of umpires in tens of thousands of games played all over the world. The running lane should enter an umpire's decision-making process only when the throw is being fielded to from behind the runner. For example, when the third baseman throws off line to first and the first baseman goes for the ball, don't look down to see where the BR's feet are; if you do, you're on your way to blowing the call. The intent of the rule is to keep the BR from screening the fielder behind him from the first baseman in front. Keep it that way in your games and you'll never get into trouble."

My assertion is not yet in a rule book, but it is in the rules lexicon of the NFHS. See on-line case book play #7, 2010, where Hopkins says the BR may interfere by being out of the lane and hit by "a ball fielded and thrown from behind him." And the mechanics manual, 1995-96, says running-lane interference is possible "with a throw from near home plate."

A note is in order: That "mechanic" has been in every FED manual since 1995.


2. I carefully explained, in words almost of two syllables or fewer, that to a vetern, trained umpire, "always" means that it is the assigned umpire's call. He will make it unless he asks for help. Typical pregame at the upper levels: "Smitty, I've got BR interference in the lane." That umpire will ALWAYS have that play except when he passes it off to U1.

3. The point of the Wendelstedt stories should be obvious. Lots of beginning umpires lurk around the Message Boards. Whom are they to believe? I've always taught that posts written by recognized authorities should carry some weight. I always included my qualifications. I don't remember you from the old days. Apparently, you arguments were not of sufficient weight to plant them as a permanent part of my memory bank. That's just a guess, but it's based on your performance in this thread.

4. I said you could have the last word. I lied.

4, NOW you can have the last word. And you cannot trap me into replying by misrepresenting what I've said. I stand by my posts in this thread. You can be like the Affirmative side in the old system of debate: They always spoke last.

No you didn't. Jeff WILL have the last word. Jeff ALWAYS has the last word. Even when the debate is well settled and the positions proven, Jeff will have the last word.

Just wait.

(And so I don't have to wait and read that last word, let me say now, "told you so.")

Post 28 should have been the end.
 

Fellas recall that Mr. Rutledge wrote this in post 28

Why continue?

Isn't this exactly the type of thing the new moderator system is supposed to prevent? Yeah, Jeff's being difficult. But I don't believe he personally insulted you. This was uncalled for, especially from someone in your position. Sir.

Really? The new moderator system will kick in at this level of post? Really?

Talk about over reacting.

Let me ask this --- is there any possible way that one of us saying to another "I thought you could read" has ANY positive effect on the conversation? If that's what you're looking for, you can find plenty by chatting on Facebook or Twitter. There is no planet where "I thought you could read" is going to help anyone learn about umpiring baseball. It's not going to make the person reading your post take in or accept ANY of the positive instructional stuff that followed that comment.

Even worse coming from someone with Carl's position on this board.

Let me ask this---Are you saying that a comment lacking in a positive effect on a conversation is grounds for censorship?

Really?

Then get ready to delete half the posts made here, including several of yours.

I'm not interested in getting to an argument simply for the sake of arguing. Have a good afternoon.

It is called having a conversation. I did not ask the original question. I know what I would do or talk about in pre-game or at meetings. I do not need this conversation to shape my previous experience or understanding of mechanics. Guys like you really surprise me when you do not seem to realize that someone asking a question and giving their opinion with facts of what is written are two different things.

Peace

Carl has always gotten upset when people challenge his positions or state something that is not in his books (As I said I have had conversations with him since the mid-90s). That is nothing new here. Actually I did not even get upset by the comment because that is where he is at in his life. The problem is he does not want to realize that not everyone is using his books as the law of any sport. As I said we talk more about Referee Magazine literature in these parts and get people from that magazine to come and talk to people. In one association I belong to they have had more than one person from Referee Magazine to speak. Carl's books are great reference tool, but that is what it is to most that I know or work personally with.

Peace

I go away from this board for over four years, and now that I'm back, I see that some things have not changed...

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.

Agreed.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

It's just the nature of the beast. It will die, and become extinct in a few days, or until it mutants into something more vial.

I will put it this way. If you want to do what you do or believe what you believe, go right ahead. At the end of the day I really could give a damn. This sport is my least favorite to work and often discussions like this are the reason that is the case most of the time. You cannot have a discussion with people like you because someone told you to do something years ago. Well I was told a lot of things to do and I do not do those things anymore because clinicians or trainers decided what once was advocated does not work. Just like the "Get it right philosophy." People take a lot of things in baseball too far. I just was stating that the BU in rare situations should make this call. If that is a sin that call me a sinner, because I really did not think that would be that controversial. This is my 18th year of officiating and I worked a State Final in this sport not doing things that the powers that be do not approve of. Again, I just said it was rare and I said there is no support that only the PU makes this call or always makes this call.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the rest.

Peace

Agreed, kind sir.

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.

No need to. I screwed the pooch on this one. I was clearly thinking wrong on this one. Glad it's cleared up now (unlike the rest of this thread).

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.

Bases loaded, infield in, and the batter hits the ball to F6. F6 throws home just slightly too late to get R3, and the PU makes an emphatic Safe call. Then F2 throws to first to make the play on the BR. BR is a few steps from first base, with his left foot outside the lane. U1 clearly sees that F3 couldn't find the throw until it gets past the BR, and F3 reacts too late to make the catch.

U1 is supposed to be silent here?

So, why can't the PU also see the RLI in this circumstance?

Two person game my lips are sealed. Three person game I'll answer it like this. I've had hundreds of plays involving bunts, swinging bunts and the play you described. I'm too busy watching the ball, the feet, the catch etc. the last thing I'm going to make note of is where BR feet are in relation to the running lane. Besides in the play you described BR MUST leave the running lane to attain first base since first base is in fair territory. No violation. No ****ing way I will ever make that call as U1. If you choose to make that call do so at your own peril.

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.

There are 2 plausible positions being defended here:

1. PU will ALWAYS take a RLI call.

2. PU has PRIMARY responsibility for a RLI call and will make it 99.9% of the time.

These positions are practically indistinguishable for nearly all umpires for nearly all of their umpiring careers. Chances are, if PU doesn't make this call, it doesn't (and shouldn't) get made.

Not much point arguing over the 0.1% of cases, IMO.

Manny,

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. Suffice it say if you're U1 NEVER make that call because it's not yours to make.

Who said BR LEFT the lane to attain first base - who said he was ever in the lane in the first place?

Make this sitch clearer - BR is CLEARLY inside the line, was never in the lane, and the ball hits him in the back. And PU is not looking as he's dealing with something at home plate (for example, R3 hurt, F2 arguing with ump, play was close so he decided to point at home plate several times like in the other thread, etc.)

To say U1 can NEVER make this call is mistaken. Rare? Yeah, probably. But NEVER??? No way.

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.

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

FPSR can be at home.

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

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?

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 (:eek:) 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Peace

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

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

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.


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.

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.

I am having trouble having you focus on the point I am trying to make, that's my fault not yours. I will try, one more time. I understand what an opinion is. I offered some differing thoughts, you wrote after some time, and I am paraphrasing, that you were not interested in my opinion or others' opinions on this matter I bailed and wondered why others didn't respect your wish. You entered, again, into the fray I received noisy signal; ie, a mixed message. The signal I received was that you might be interested in dialog after saying that your were not interested in dialog. I found this message confusing. You made some ad hominem remarks toward me, I responded with my thoughts on those things. You continued to respond again reiterating that were you not interested in mine or others opinions because you did not and will not work for us. Fair enough.

Then I ask why engage us if this is the basis from which you are engaging us?

Is this true only for this thread, some threads, for all all threads?

The answer to this question seems important. If it is the first, ok we can work from the premise that you are open to opinion. If it is the second, we need to know when you enter the thread if this is the case. If it is the third, then we don't have to engage you at all. Just read what you write mark it as your opinion and move on.

And finally, please don't make conclusions about my state of mind concerning this thread. I have given you know indication that I am upset by this or any other thread. I did confess to being flabbergasted, but flabbergasted does not mean upset, instead it means overwhelmed by surprise or wonder in the context I used it.

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.

Thank about what you just said. Because I am having a discussion does not mean I need to hear other opinions to draw a different conclusion. Now if I was asking for opinions because I was not sure in my position or what I should do, that would be a little different. Not all conversations are had to change an opinion. As some here will know I love politics, but the simple discussion of politics is not going to change who people vote for or why they feel the way they do. If you think this place is a constant conversation to convince people they are right, then you are at the wrong place.

Peace

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

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.

If you do not want to have a conversation with me, then don't. You honestly will not have much to worry about because other than the rare topic, I will not be talking a lot of baseball. Just look around on this board and see how little I even discuss any baseball topic. I love football and basketball officiating much more than baseball umpiring. I talk baseball when something happens that I might see that might spark some interest. I watched more NFL football than I have a single baseball game on Sunday. I am just telling you honestly my approach. Do not think I am alone. And it should not surprise you that people that have been doing something for a long time and been through the fires do not go around changing their positions because someone has a different idea. My opinions are not just based on some opinion; I have done this quite a lot and done it at a high level with many other high level people. Experience has told me what is important, not what we say here is more important than my experience. In my opinion it is silly to have a position that something must always be some way when there are a lot of exceptions to what we do. The story I told you I would have never told anyone to do what I suggested until it happened to me in a game and a high profile game. I am amazed to that day that worked out the way it did. And long before you were here and long before you knew this place existed I was told by folks here to stay away from the "always" and "never" wording when it comes to situation that certainly could have dual or multiple officials watching the same area. Again, I said it would be rare for the BU to call this, but I do not want to take lazy people off the hook because people gave an opinion and no such published mechanic supports that position. It would be better if your position was 100% supported by mechanic, but it is not.

Peace

No question there are times to improvise but concerning Running Lane Violations it's the plate guy all the way. Carl Childress he's an authority to me. The mere fact that he's written BRD and numerous other books is good enough for me. I don't think you can find an assignor or a clincian in Illinois that would agree with you. If you're working a college game or even a high school varsity with a veteran coach who knows what's going on sure you can make that call and I gurantee you'll have an ejection. I can also gurantee you that your assignor will throw you right under the bus because it runs counter to how that play is expected to be handled and who is to make that call. It is absolutely positively Plate Umpires call. I'll positively never call it if I'm working the A position. You can blaze that trail if you like.

Actually Gordon I have had clinicians in our state take similar positions. Where do you think I got this idea from? I ran a camp for several years that was one of the biggest until recently, these issues came up with campers or myself in discussions. And you should know if you do not have something in writing that people will justify a lot of different opinions. Now there are not many clinicians, but you would be wrong that I could not find one if I gave them a couple of situations. And I have never heard one say always or never in those conversations, just like I am not advocating here. Just stating that there are situations where the PU is not in the best position to cover such a play and if the call is obvious, who should make the call. Remember I am a basketball clinicians and there are differing opinions all the time about specific positions in that sport as well. Some of those opinions are based off of more than what the mechanics says, but what are best practices and reasoning for those best practices.

And I can guarantee that I do not have an assignor as I do not work for one person. You work for an organization that I do not work for, so not sure you can make that claim. And if they did throw me under the bus, that would be a first. It is not like they are going to see me work in person very often if ever. It is not like it is going to change the status I have in the state. So if they disagree with a call I make or a way I handle a situation, it will not be the first time. But baseball is a sport in our state that most coaches want two umpires on the field, not always the best of the best when they are not available.

Peace

OK here's your challenge. Find a clinician that would agree with you that it's OK for the field guy to make that call.