Appeal after defense vacates infield

[reccer]

Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Blues, I am a far better coach now than I was before I discovered this site.

My team is on offense, 2 outs, I'm in 3rd base coaching box. Little pop to F3, she dives and from my view, ball hits glove and then ground. My attention is diverted to one of my other base runners. Next thing I know defense is running to their dugout. On my way to my first base dugout I asked PU who was called out and why. PU says BU ruled a catch. I said ball was on ground, PU says he saw same thing. PU conferred with BU and call was reversed.

Defense coach says his team had already left infield and that my "appeal" was too late. Its true, they had left infield. Blues ignored him.

Is there a reasonableness standard you guys follow on these 3rd out appeals when defense vacates their positions? I'd like to calmly walk up to a Blue and make an appeal even though the kids have left the infield.

[SC Ump]

Please be aware that this is not really an "appeal play". I just mention it, because there are very specific rules about how appeals must be done and when they are no longer valid. Examples of appeal plays are when a runner misses a bag or leaves a base prior to a fly ball being touched. These are instances where the rules state the umpire should not rule until the offended team properly requests the ruling.

What you are doing in your situation is asking an umpire to reconsidered his ruling. I do not think there is anything officially stated in most rule books as to when this can or cannot be done.

Like this instance, I could see where it would be possible after the defense leaves the infield. I cannot imagine a situation where it would be possible after another pitch was thrown.

[debeau]

This is not an appeal play , there are only six .
This is just a matter of getting it right and as long as its done before the next pitch just do it

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by reccer
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Blues, I am a far better coach now than I was before I discovered this site.

My team is on offense, 2 outs, I'm in 3rd base coaching box. Little pop to F3, she dives and from my view, ball hits glove and then ground. My attention is diverted to one of my other base runners. Next thing I know defense is running to their dugout. On my way to my first base dugout I asked PU who was called out and why. PU says BU ruled a catch. I said ball was on ground, PU says he saw same thing. PU conferred with BU and call was reversed.

Defense coach says his team had already left infield and that my "appeal" was too late. Its true, they had left infield. Blues ignored him.

Is there a reasonableness standard you guys follow on these 3rd out appeals when defense vacates their positions? I'd like to calmly walk up to a Blue and make an appeal even though the kids have left the infield.

Coach,

The only problem I have here is why was the BU making a ruling on a batted ball. This is, without a doubt, the plate umpire's call. However, once the call was made, the PU should really not have said anything, but direct you to the umpire who made the call.

In this case, if I were the PU, I would be one step behind you as my presence at your conversation is going to make it difficult for the BU to just blow you off. If s/he doesn't ask for help, there is going to be a nice long conversation after the game about mechanics and responsibilities.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Dec 17th, 2005 at 04:31 PM]

[umpharp]

I agree with Irish. It really sounds like there were a few mechanical and protocol mistakes made on the play. If I was on the plate for the game...as soon as the base ump made the out call, I would have went to him and conferenced to see if he saw something I didn't see and to "get the call right." We would definitely talk after the game about who's call it was, etc. Maybe the base ump was a new guy who just didn't know that it wasn't his call. I've worked with guys that have done some weird things on the bases like signal a swinging third strike from the field.
and again like Irish said, if I did decide to go with the out, as a coach, you should be directed to talk to the blue who made the call and then he/she can come to me for discussion. The Plate ump never should have said he agreed with you, even if he was 100% sure you were right. A coach does not need to know when partners disagree with a call.

[Mike Walsh]

Originally posted by reccer
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Blues, I am a far better coach now than I was before I discovered this site.

My team is on offense, 2 outs, I'm in 3rd base coaching box. Little pop to F3, she dives and from my view, ball hits glove and then ground. My attention is diverted to one of my other base runners. Next thing I know defense is running to their dugout. On my way to my first base dugout I asked PU who was called out and why. PU says BU ruled a catch. I said ball was on ground, PU says he saw same thing. PU conferred with BU and call was reversed.

Defense coach says his team had already left infield and that my "appeal" was too late. Its true, they had left infield. Blues ignored him.

Is there a reasonableness standard you guys follow on these 3rd out appeals when defense vacates their positions? I'd like to calmly walk up to a Blue and make an appeal even though the kids have left the infield.

In addition to the comments about the mechanics, there is another aspect about changing the call and getting it right. If the call is changed, the umpires need to assess outs and place the runners where they would have ended up had the call been made properly. When that cannot be done, the play cannot be corrected. Calling the out killed the inning in this scenario. With multiple runners, perhaps force plays at bases other than 1st, would the defense have another play possible? Did the runners hold or advance? Because it was just a little pop-up to F3, it might be possible to know how the play would have ended up, but it might easily be a case of, sorry coach, the ball was caught, and we can't change it.

Mike

[AtlUmpSteve]

I have read other editorials (I suspect mostly in Referee Magazine) saying we should eat a bad call when the results may be controversial, too; but I don't buy it, in championship play. Rec ball, meaningless pool games, maybe you don't bother to enflame the natives. But, our job is to get the calls right, within acceptable protocol; and if a coach does his job right, and we umpires get together and realize a call was wrong, either because the wrong rule was applied (force out called when no force exists) or because the calling umpire lacked all the necessary information (couldn't see because of his angle, like this play), then it is our responsibility to make the right call. We can't fail to do our job solely because there is no absolute answer to what might have happened if the call was made correctly.

In this play, the answer is, unless there was something more that was obvious, is that every runner advances one base when correcting the call. I wouldn't accept any discussion from the defensive coach that the F3 didn't complete the play because of the call; F3 knows (or should know) better than anyone else that she didn't make the catch, and if there was more play needed, she didn't make it. Might she have thrown the ball away, or other runners advance more? Certainly. But, like obstruction, you have to make a determination of what the disadvantage was, and rule on that basis.

I am NOT suggesting we start changing basic judgment calls because we see the play differently; those calls stand. But any play that is appropriate to "go for help" is appropriate to fix; no matter who on the other team doesn't understand it.

[booker227]

I see a few things wrong. First, umpire mechanics. In my pregame, if I'm the PU, I take all traps in the infield and the BU takes all traps in the outfield, so that situation "shouldn't" happen. (but, you never say never) The individual duties must be cleared before the umpiring partners take the field, so problems, hopefully, don't occur.
If a situation like the above comes up as discribed, and I'm the PU, I'm not saying anything to any coach, instead, I'll call time, I'm go to my partner and confer with them to get the call right. I will ask them what it is they saw and if they are certain of the call. I will decribed to them what I saw, and we will come to an understanding concerning the call. If we agree that the ball wasn't a catch, then I will get the coaches together, describe the call and the outcome, and since this isn't an appeal play, I will position the players where I feel they would have been had the play been allowed to play out. I will not forecast outs against the offense. If my partner is adament about the call, and detailed in their description of it, I will back the call, and continue play.

"My goal as an umpire is to interpret and inforce the rules within the spirit of the game; in order to create a level playing field and allowing the better team to prevail."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by booker227

"My goal as an umpire is to interpret and inforce the rules within the spirit of the game; in order to create a level playing field and allowing the better team to prevail."

Two problems with this statement

Can someone please define the "spirit fo the game"? Like everything else, this is probably something different to each person.

Some believe the spirit of the game is to allow the better team to win. Our job has nothing to do with allowing the better team to prevail. If it were, they wouldn't bother playing the game since the winner is not necessarily the "better" team. I believe the umpires are there to apply the rules and "given" interpretations by which the contest is being played.

[booker227]

Mike, if you're infering that my definition of "the spirit of the game" allows me to enforce the rules so that the better team will win is so far off the mark that it borders slightly on being insulting.

The better team is the team that throws the best, hits the best, catches the best, pitches the best, and finally, scores at least one more run than their opponent during the game at hand. It is not not based on affection, reputation or record, but by what happens on the field during the game.
My job, as I see it, is to interpret and inforce the rules in order to create a level playing field giving both teams an equal opportunity to win the game.

The better team today might not be the better team tomorrow.

The spirit of the game is an umbrella term, and has many different definitions for many people. But for me, it is The kids first and then the interpretation and enforcement of the rules, while allowing freedom for the players to express their abilities.

This is the philosophy I umpire by, and has served me wel.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by booker227
Mike, if you're infering that my definition of "the spirit of the game" allows me to enforce the rules so that the better team will win is so far off the mark that it borders slightly on being insulting.

You can infer what you please, but there was absolutely nothing to insinuate I was making such an accusation. Too often I've heard umpires/coaches use the "spirit of the game" as justification for something they cannot explain or justify in another manner.

However, now that you raised the issue, I have seen this happen in the past. This can go in so many directions, including the old "rewarding the player for a good play" train of thought. Ever hear an umpire make a comment like, "Give me a break, there is no way that team makes that play"? Sounds an awful lot like the umpire has already predetermined which team is the better team on the field in HIS/HER opinion and that is not part of our job.

The better team is the team that throws the best, hits the best, catches the best, pitches the best, and finally, scores at least one more run than their opponent during the game at hand. It is not not based on affection, reputation or record, but by what happens on the field during the game.
My job, as I see it, is to interpret and inforce the rules in order to create a level playing field giving both teams an equal opportunity to win the game.

The better team today might not be the better team tomorrow.

So the term "better team" is relative and we are all probably better off not using is as officials.

The spirit of the game is an umbrella term, and has many different definitions for many people. But for me, it is The kids first and then the interpretation and enforcement of the rules, while allowing freedom for the players to express their abilities.

This is the philosophy I umpire by, and has served me wel.

There will be some who take me to task for this comment, but it is my philosophy and has served me well. I'm not there for "the kids", I'm not there for the adults and I'm not even there for me. I'm there for the game of softball regardless of who is on the field, the level of play or the game being played.

[debeau]

You certainly kicked in with that one Mike .
But you are right about "the spirit of the game "
often I hear remarks get with the spirit of the game but as soon as you make a call against the person who made the remark you get crap thrown at you .
Where is the spirit of the game now ?
I too am there for the game of softball and I often venture from the lofty heights of Premier Mens ball to young girls and boys to help train Umps and I call the game the same .
I dont choose not to use rules because I think the kids arnt good enough I still use infield flys dropped third strikes and so on .
The only differences are the strike zone (take me to task )and a few minor things .