|
Fri Jul 18, 2003, 01:58pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
I work big boy ball, Stevie. I work college, high school, MSBL, and semipro baseball. Most of my baseball in the summer is pretty high level wood bat baseball.
I still get on the first base side of the mound. Here's why: The appropriate place for an umpire to be BEFORE the fielder commits is the working area behind the mound. It is the best place for the BU to go in EITHER direction. EXAMPLE: R2. Ground ball to F6. The base umpire in C steps UP and opens himself up to the ball as the ball is passing him. After the ball passes the BU, he quickly cross-steps so that he is directly behind the mound. If F6 throws to third, the BU takes a few steps to get an angle (like on a steal of third, he heads to the midpoint between third and home) and makes the call on the tag. If F6 throws to first, the BU takes a few quick steps to get an angle on the foot at first base. Your post is condescending, but since you bothered to type rather than cut-and-paste I'll throw in some small diamond stuff since I worked my first 2 small diamond games in 10 years on Saturday. It is much harder to call this play on the small diamond. The BU in C stands BEHIND F6 and has to wait until R2 crosses in front of him before coming into the infield. Those of us on the 90 foot diamond can move and get angles without worrying about runners and fielders being in the way. I still don't remember involving the plate umpire in my job, though. My experience umpiring is that those umpires that ask for help on swiped feet and other squirrels usually ask because they didn't work to get in the right position to make the call themselves. Some probably think: Why bother, I can just ask my partner. Well, the reason to bother is because that is solely the base umpire's call. Rich 
|
|
Fri Jul 18, 2003, 04:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rich, I agree totally with your mechanic, and that's what most use. Still, with the speed of the game, you don't get half way from behind the rubber to a corner base---not with the speed of the throws of college players. Unless, of course, you are continuing to move with the play as the throw is being received. But I was taught to set and freeze the camera..........
You can say it on paper, Rich, and it's frequently highly effective on the field. Yet there are rarities when it is not, and those are the times we have been discussing. IMO, it's better to admit that they exist---as rare as they may be---than deny that they don't. That split second throw can pull F3 in a direction straight toward the BU, and you can't see it as well as PU. It's a flaw inherent with the 2-man system, and not a weakness of the umpire. A2D Freix
|
|
Fri Jul 18, 2003, 04:16pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't care about getting half-way to the base, though. I'm after angles.
If there's a play at third base, which would be EXTREMELY rare, I don't care if I'm on top of it. THAT'S how I reconcile the weakness of the 2-umpire system. If the throw beats the runner there, I'll call him out. I'm getting the best position for FIRST base. Rich
|
|
Fri Jul 18, 2003, 05:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 That's effectively the second time you've admitted to our common belief that the "correct" call might not always be the "right" call. I guess this thread is headed for a record 5th page!  Cheers
__________________
Warren Willson
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 01:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
3rd base is not most important
Rich [/B][/QUOTE]Geez, Rich, you're really in trouble now! That's effectively the second time you've admitted to our common belief that the "correct" call might not always be the "right" call. I guess this thread is headed for a record 5th page! Cheers [/B][/QUOTE] I think Rich makes a very valid point. Too many umpires continually cheat towards 3rd base (saying its the most important base etc) and end up getting themselves in trouble at first. Our local group did some checks and I'm sure its pretty accurate but less than 5% of all calls are made at 3rd, and then most of them will be a second throw which involves the PU also. Making the call at 3rd is also a lot easier with kids that shave. They generally make the tag right etc., Its the little kids that cause the problems with the bad tag, bad slide, blocking someone off the bag etc., So I don't think Rich is saying he doesn't care about the call at 3rd, just that's its easier to make from a longer distance. And of course, no matter how close you are the coach always will complain on the call at 3rd since he had a great look at it, (g) thanks David
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 05:04am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3rd base is not most important
Quote:
The whole tenor of the debate has been that, especially in 2-man mechanics, the umpire has to make choices that may mean he is not in the ideal position to make EVERY SINGLE CALL. That is NO EXCUSE for going to your partner for help ANY TIME a player, coach or manager complains that from his angle you got it wrong. GET YOUR OWN CALLS! We've been chanting that mantra to BFair throughout the debate, but he still wants to see umpires ignoring 9.02(a) and going for help anytime a coach, manager or player "appeals" a judgement decision. I believe Rich was simply saying, in his own inimitable and shorthanded fashion,
Cheers [Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 20th, 2003 at 05:11 AM]
__________________
Warren Willson
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 09:24am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actualy, Warren, I'm getting rather tired of your constant lies (yes, Warren, that means that I am now calling you a liar) when you purposely and intentionally mistate what I have said in order to support your weak argument. This is not the first time you have lowered yourself to that level.
You state:
Warren, I challenge you to show where in this thread or any thread I've stated or implied that an umpire should be "going for help anytime a coach, manager or player "appeals" a judgement decision." This is a lie, Warren, and you are smart enough to know this is not what I have stated. Provide your proof of this statement, Warren, else all will know it is a lie...... With your lies, Warren, you attempt to portray, that which is not so. You do that purposely. What I've indicated is that it is not illegal to do so. That disagrees with your opinion---an opinion for which you have not yet provided a single statment from the rules to support you. All you have is "your interpretation" that it is illegal which is based on your twisting of words from the rules. Yet arriving at your interpretation you continually ignore the actual statements provided in the rulebooks, rulings, and examples made by OBR, NCAA, PBUC, and Fed indicating that not only is it not illegal, it is desirable. An official should put his perceived dignity secondary to his need to get the call right when he's made an obviously blown call. If you want me to provide the writings to support that, Warren, I will. You know they are there, and there's no need for redundancy. Advocate your opinion if you so desire, Warren, but cease from stooping to your twisted lies to denigrate and open to ridicule those who feel differently than you, and those who, unlike yourself, do not ignore the directives and examples provided by the rulesmakers. Freix
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 11:15am
|
||||
|
||||
|
I guess Warren's right -- this IS heading for a fifth page.
Both Warren and David are right. I head to the back of the mound because the play at third is unlikely. I also head there because getting the angle at first is more important. I don't care too much if there's an actual tag at third. The correct call when a throw beats a runner by a considerable amount is OUT. Since this play happens 1-in-20 times, I'm not worried about it too much. Rich
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 05:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
First of all I have no intention of answering certain inflamatory allegations while ever the person making them remains uncontrite for their previous foul, personal suggestions.
That said, I would like to summarise what I think is the sensible position adopted by most experienced officials on this question of getting help:
Cheers
__________________
Warren Willson
|
|
Sun Jul 20, 2003, 09:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Appeal of checked swing FED & OBR
We seem to have two threads here - One on reversal of judgement calls in which I clearly agree with the reasoning of Warren, the umpire from down under. Nice to see your posts again. The other is concerns mechanics on checked swings.
Brian 43 seems to want to make clear the requirement for the PU to appeal to BU is different in FED vs OBR. This may be true. Although I almost always officiate under OBR I would recommend that under FED rules PU check as well especially if the BU is in a position to see a swing such as RHB and A or C position or LHB in C or D position. OBR does not differentiate where BU is positioned in order to appeal although I think that the requirement (perhaps Baseball Umpire Development) that (in a three-man system) the PU must ask the "proper" ump would imply that RHB and BU in C isn't going to have much more info than the PU. Of course the PU can check on his own and should do so in all cases where on a two-strike count the pitch gets behind the catcher. Jim/NYC
__________________
A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart, and can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words. - Donna Robert
|
|
Mon Jul 21, 2003, 01:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, my, my. Where to begin.
I agree with Steve that each official should be responsible for his own calls. That's the whole premise behind "mechanics". I also agree with Rich that you need to be in the proper position to call the "expected" play. If however, the play goes to another base (which often happens on the small diamond), that doesn't exonerate the BU from making and living with the call. In a 2-man system, there are very few instances where both umpires SHOULD be looking at the same play. A simple response to arguments or requests to "get some help" is, "That's my call . . . he's watching (the runner) (the batter)(the cute girl in the 3rd row). You can even make it look good by "consulting" with your partner . . . and then keeping your original call anyhow. Jerry
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003, 09:23am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Been away for a while, but after reading this entire thread I have to lend my support to Bfair.
Some will say I should have stayed away, but their entitled to their opinion. I have found that in officiating of different sports (including baseball), there are those officials that believe that maintaining their image on the field of play, is what gets them through the contest. The thought of someone questioning their judgement is an impeachable offense, let alone, what they may perceive as a possible violation of the rules. The official is respected and very knowledgeable of the rules. He/she is also a master of the necessary mechanics to perform there duty at a high level. This is an officials, official. Perfect. Now lets discuss the exceptional official. Being approachable, yet firm and fair in their decisions, is what gains them their respect. Their confidence and rules knowledge is also exceptional however, their understanding of the game and situations, and the application of rules during those situations is what enters into their decision making and establishes their image. They are not only masters of officiating their sport, but they also have a complete understanding of the sport and are totally confident of their ability to handle each and every event that may arise in that contest. Even if they have to walk away knowing that some of their decsions were changed, this has no effect are their self-confidence level. They are personable, yet have no problem walking away from what others may feel is an unfavorable decision. They are TRULY in charge of the contest they are officiating. Having said that, each of us have to decide what type official we want to be. The one that puts image first, or the one that truly understands what their there for. The decision to change or not change a call, will be relatively easy after that.
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003, 10:42am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Having said that, each of us have to decide what type official we want to be. The one that puts image first, or the one that truly understands what their (sic) there for.
Putting image first can easily mean different things to different officials. Some I know want to have the image of an official who is open to go to his partner any time asked and be known as an offical who is ready to change his call. While others I know truly understand that that is not what officials are about. They know they have to work hard to minimize the necessity of getting help. They know that once they start getting help just because they were asked, they have opened a door that will never close. Coaches remember these things and will come out questioning every close call. "You got help last inning!" Sometimes you have to say no. The decision to change or not change a call, will be relatively easy after that. You bet.
__________________
GB
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
Simple Solution
There really is a simple solution to the original problem of the pulled foot at 1st base. The PU is coming up the line (ostensibly to help with such issues, but really to take runner's lane violations and dead ball responsibility) on ground balls in the infield. In the event of a swipe tag or pulled foot the PU from his set position makes a mechanic with his harm hanging down in front of him; closed fist for tag or on the bag or open hand for missed tag or off the bag. This mechanic is very subtle. The BU, if he as a doubt, looks at the PU to see what he has and then renders his decision. If the PU has neither (fist or open hand) asking for help later will be futile.
This mechanic can be used in a variety of plays. It can be used for the swinging strike three in the dirt. The BU helps the PU. It can be used in run downs. It can used in plays like the one Tim Tschida had with Chuck Knaublach (sp?). This offers a compromise between the old school live and die with your own calls and the new get help school. The help is gotten during playing action and after the play one can live and die with his call. Think about it. Tony Carilli
__________________
Tony Carilli
|
|
Tue Jul 22, 2003, 02:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Garth, I don't think anyone has advocated to get help "just because they were asked." Would you cite where anyone has advocated what you just stated? In fact, it's been stated not to get help merely to appease a complaining coach. Yet, as officials we know we are sometimes forced to rule on plays where we know we don't have all the information we would like to have---for whatever reason. What has been advocated is to seek help if you, in such situations, feel help is necessary to get the call right (or merely to confirm your call) AND your partner was in position to legitimately provide such added information. We are frequently made aware of such obviously blown calls when the coach vehemently complains about the decision. Without the complaint, we have the confidence we got the call right despite our known doubt regarding the added information. I also agree with you that officials need to "work hard to minimize the necessity of getting help." Still, you seem to acknowlege by using "minimize" that there are, indeed, times when you realize you may need that help. That would seem to agree with the authorities---and with me. However, I felt you were advocating never to seek that help---even when you have serious doubt about a call you were forced to make while lacking all the needed information. That, Garth, is not in agreement with the authorities. The attitude toward not seeking help when necessary is exactly what OBR, NCAA, PBUC, and Fed have addressed. They have stressed that in instances of decisions where you are forced to make a call, yet you know you are in doubt because you are lacking the certainty of needed information to make that call, that you be willing to seek that help to get the call right---despite how you feel it may effect your image.The authorities support getting the call right as being more important than protecting the perceived image of the official. Still, some officials choose to ignore the writings, direction, and examples provided by these sources and instead attempt to protect their perceived dignity by maintaining an obviously blown call. While you again address the fear of coaches asking for frivolous appeals, I feel confident you would agree that competent officials can quickly squelch such frivolous appeals. Do you feel the authoritative sources providing us our direction in these situations were unaware of that potential of frivolous appeals thereafter? Do you feel you are adding fact that the sources were unaware of? Are you that much more insightful than the authoritative sources? Perhaps so, but I would think they would have recognized that fact and taken it into consideration when deciding upon their directions to follow. An official seeking help when HE feels it's necessary does not necessarily mean he is an incompetent official. To the contrary, an official adhering to an obviously blown call is more likely to viewed as an incompetent official than one willing to make the needed correction to assure in his confidence that he's made the correct call. There is no support for maintaining this protection of the perceived dignity except for the opinion of some officials. This is a fact that some continue to ignore.......... IMO, that is an arrogance associated with past imaging of officials, and which today is viewed upon poorly by coaches as protecting your own being moreso than caring for the game----- their game, not yours. It also displays an arrogance by ignoring the direction of the authoritative sources. Calls are changed at all levels---even MLB. It is proven in the writings of the authorities and in actual practice that it is preferred to get the call right at the cost of perceived dignity when an obviously blown call occurs. Their is no dignity in maintaining an obviously blown call. Freix [Edited by Bfair on Jul 22nd, 2003 at 02:44 PM]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
