Whaddaya Do?
 

Tonight was a varsity HS game. I am PU and in my pregame, I said "I have the lead runner on tags with multiple runners on base". To me, that's pretty self-explanitory. In the fourth inning with R1 on 2nd and R2 on first, the batter hits a ball to left center and R1 rounds 3rd heading for home. As the throw comes to F2, R1 heads back to 3rd. F2 makes a snap throw back to 3rd and actually puts the tag on her. My partner, who moved into the infield, is right there - everyone in the park is looking at her waiting for the call and she looks at me and says "that's your call". Whaddaya do?

I made the call and explained to her in great detail between innings what is meant by my taking the lead runner. She thought I had the lead runner for EVERYTHING with multiple runners on base. Sheeeeeesh!

Of course, the situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that we date too!:rolleyes: Therefore, I bailed her out, made the call - VERY late - and had a coach want to climb up my a$$ for it. She's a 3rd year umpire and should have known this - and I did tell her so and explained that she kinda hung me out on the play. How would you have handled this one (assuming it wasn't your girlfriend!)?:D

Maybe it was your "personal" aspects of your life that caused her to want to let you do what she thought you wanted to do because of what you said, take all calls on all lead runners with multiple runners. She was there, sounds to me like she knew where she should be, but didnt want to jump on what she thought you wanted to be your call.

If you are going to make it a habit of working with your girl friend you better get used to any mistake being your fault.

And if you get married, then you need to find a new umpire partner, and make it a man.

She's not my partner on the softball field. I think our assigning committee thought it would be "cute" to have us work together. One of the college conferences I work in has a husband/wife that work together sometimes. I'm not a fan of the idea. She honestly thought it was MY call based on something a couple of "seasoned" (notice the quotes) umpires did in a previous game. Needless to say, it's on the agenda for discussion at our local board meeting this Sunday!

We are not getting married - I did that for 16 years. I was furious about it last night but I'm much calmer this morning.:D

Why would you be "furious" at all? She's a THIRD year umpire - and you weren't clear.

[QUOTE= How would you have handled this one (assuming it wasn't your girlfriend!)?:D[/QUOTE]


I would have (girlfriend, good friend, wife, or other) re-discuss coverage assingments at thte next half inning!

BTW, I would NEVER call a game with my girlfriend. The wife would probably find out and I'd get in trouble!

I have called with many different guys and gals, and several times a year wind up covering games as a "favor" to other associations that need the help (usually on very short notice) and wind up with a partner I have never met. If you call "by the book", and communicate, all usually goes well.

The easiest, and often the smoothest games I call are done with my wife. After 28 years of living together, we can communicate without even speaking! I know where she will be on the field, I know when she needs help with a call, and the same goes for her. If either needs help on a possible tag, pulled foot or such, we know by eye contact what the other saw. It's really neat, and no one else can pick up the "telepathy"! Without my having said a word about it, she will ask sometimes why I thought she missed that strike (or ball, safe, or out call).

We have 3 husband and wife combos in our group. Often we work as a "mom and pop" teams. I did have one coach say to me (I was PU) "well I guess you won't over-rule that call since you are together". I told him I wouldn't (or couldn't) over-rule her if she was his wife! That may be the only drawback in that coaches may feel they are being double teamed of sorts, but that is really a mis-perception!

Guess what Larry - that was your call! As that play developed you should have been in a holding area between home and 3B. If R1 went home with no play on her, you let her go and you had R2 if she came to 3B. If the throw went home, then you slide back home for that play.

If R1 went back, you have any call at 3B. Your partner should have been inside watching R2 at 2B and B-R at 1B. My only issue is that she may have been too close to 3B. Her only reason for even looking over there would have been to support you in case of a missed tag or dropped ball.

Get the salt and pepper out!

WMB

I happen to agree with WMB here and was wondering why no one else had brought it up before this......

I just logged in and thought the same.
But it raises another situation about whose call if R1 went home and was played on drawing the PU home, but then a subsequent play went to 3rd. My knowledge is that the BU has 3rd if there is a play at home.

Shouldn't an umpire know that well before third year, and I think ''I have the lead runner on tags with multiple runners on base" is clear.

Because I don't know what type of arrangements he has with his partner other than what was stated earlier.

If it was indeed a snap throw back to 3B, his partner may very well had position. If she was there and he was not, it is simple to deviate from the prescribed mechanics. BU could have simply called: "I've got third", and then made the call.

A lot of this may depend on how committed the runner acted toward the plate prior to retreating to third.

Think about it. If a runner is making a mad dash toward the plate, are you going to sit in the holding zone and wait on a play, or move just ahead of the runner. In a perfect world, the umpire can stay with a runner, but in the real world, the umpire doesn't know s/he is going to need to change directions until the runner actually has a couple of steps on you moving AWAY.

Without actually being there, we don't know. Maybe the BU should have picked up the play. Maybe Larry could have given her a heads up that he wasn't going to be able to get in position with a quick, "you got third". Or maybe Larry kicked his assignment. We just don't know.

In different areas, the particulars on plays may differ. But yes, I would assume that this girl, working 3 years in the same area, would know what Larry meant ... but as I read this, it seemed to me that it was LARRY who meant something different that I expected. With anyone I work with, PU would have had this call. If what he said means something different where he works, then he should have been clearer.

Here, PU has that call. It's a tag play, on the lead runner. LR belongs to PU.

No it wasn't. BU has first play on the infield. I had a throw coming to the plate and I'm there. BU is in the C position. Lead runner on tags is on a caught fly ball. Under no circumstance would this have been my call. At least that's the way we are told to do it by our interpreter and our guy on the national rules committee . . .

His pregame aside.. with this scenario -

She starts in C and moves in on a play from the left side and you categorically state this is PU's call?

I dont agree at all. She would have button hooked in. Shes of course in a great spot for this call, doing what she should be doing. PU is nailed home, or close to home, on this play unless there is a play somewhere else first. At a minimum, PU is probably behind a quick throw back to 3B.

I dont agree in general principle with you at all.

There are things that could have happened where things could change, but you are pretty categoric that this is PU's call and that is not accurate.

Defending my position.

1. Maybe this is a HTBT, but I saw a runner round 3B, then scramble to get back to beat a “snap throw” by someone in the infield. I don’t see her even halfway home, only a few steps past third. So why can’t the PU make that call?

2. I don’t interpret a throw from the outfield and a second throw from the infield as being the “first play on the infield.” I am not sure there is any difference if the ball went directly from the outfield to 3B, it is still the PU’s call.
<O:p
3. If the throw went home, and the catcher made the throw back to 3B then I assume the PU should have been closer to home and the call now belongs to the BU. I can also assume that the runner was more than a few steps towards home (if F1 let the ball go through).
<O:p
4. If the throw goes home too late, and the catcher steps out and “cuts” the throw and throws to another base, including 3B, then the call belongs to the BU.
<O:p
5. The BU should be coming inside and moving towards the center of the infield. Her first obligation is to find the ball so that she doesn’t get beaned. Then the flight of the ball will indicate her next play. Still has to watch B-R at 1B.
<O:p
6. IF the throw from the OF goes home then BU needs to be prepared to take any base that the catcher throws to. Unfortunately, has to wait until the catcher makes a motion; anticipating the play will get you in trouble.

WMB

NOW I see what you meant by that vague statement that "I have the LR on tags". And perhaps this was the confusion with your girlfriend as well:

On Tags - means to me (and everyone I work with) - plays in which a fielder is trying to tag a runner.

"On Tag-Ups" is a completely different thing, and apparently what YOU meant. Apparently girlfriend (and I!) took it the other way. (I usually actually say, in the conference, "On fly balls, I have the lead runner's base".)

Let's use Modern Mechanics on this one.
 

This is an easy play to cover if umpires use Modern Mechanics and get rid of the antiquated Inside-Out/Outside-In principle.

On the play discribed, the BU would rotate around 2nd base staying outside the diamond. His/her primary responsibilty on the base hit is to watch R2 touch 2nd and BR touch 1st and make sure there is no OBS at either base. The BU should now be positioned near the normal 'B' starting position where he/she can move to cover any play at 1st or second.

The throw from LCF should be going to Home, in which case the ball is now in the infield and the BU is properly stationed 'outside' and out of the throwing lanes.

The PU would have all calls at 3rd and Home on initial or subsequent plays, unless it is on the BU (trail runner) at 3rd, when the BU has that play.

Should the PU need 'help' on the snap throw back to 3rd, the BU has a great angle to see the play from his/her position near 2nd. Remember that angles are much more important than proximity when making calls.

Since our association has gone to teaching and using Modern Softball Mechanics, all the umpires are finding out that the ASA manual (what the NFHS basically uses) that was written back in the 70's has no place in 21st century fast-pitch softball.

Other Modern Base Mechanics include doing away with the 'button hook'; staying outside the diamond as much as possible, and using a new 'D' position anytime a runner is on 3rd.

I can't wait for the traditionalists to respond.

I'm not necessarily a traditionalists, but the mechanics you describe, in my experience (and I have tried the "stay outside") does not place members of an umpire crew in the best position to make vaious calls at multiple bases.

Been there, done that. When it comes to balancing the pros and cons, I'll stick with what works. Just because the present mechanics and I/O was developed a while back, doesn't mean it has become stagnent as they change annually as the game and player's skills change.

Call me what you want, but I'll cover any game better than you and your fellow "Modern Mechanics" umpires. :p

R1 rounds 3rd heading for home. As the throw comes to F2,

The throw did come to F2 and, to me, the "heading for home" would indicate the runner was going beyond a simple "rounding" of the base.

But it agree, this is definitely HTBT.

For MCROWDER: if you say to me "tags" as it refers to the LR, I'm thinking tag up on a fly ball as either you are responsible for a runner or you are not.

On a ball to the OF, how often are you going to see a put out by a force play? (I'm intentionally not using an exception for 1B as we have all discovered, that is not a force out :D ).

Well ... first I'd never say that. Honestly, reading the OP, his statement meant to me what it apparently meant to his partner. I thought it an odd statement, as with the mechanics I'm used to, that statement is not always true, but I am also aware that customs differ elsewhere. I guess it's like a dialect --- but the reference to "tags" didn't even vaguely refer to runners touching bases on a pop fly - I'm just not accustomed to the word "tag" (without the "up" on the end) being used that way. I NOW see, however, what he meant.

And I still wonder if perhaps the confusion his partner had is identical to the confusion I had.

:D Not often.

I'm glad you have a name for your adopted mechanics. Otherwise, I might have confused them with what was considered simply lazy and inefficient umpiring since the 70's.

I was thinking very much along the same lines. Man, imagine showing up and working a national in this guys area and you have a play like this and you think "OMG my BU spontaneously combusted, where the heck is he!" In a panic you search the field, fearing for your partners safety, thinking of his children.. and low and behold, you spot him. Hes over in B having a soda watching R3@1B while real plays are going on.

So between innings you ask "hey uh, wtf were you doing chilling out in B on this play" .. "Oh this is modern mechanics".

Jeez.

I'll go with "HTBT". Because of the quick throw back to 3b the water is a little muddy as to whose call this is "by the book". Argument can be made that this is a "first play by an infielder" or treated as a cut off situation and that would make this BU's call "by the book". (NFHS or ASA - NFHS having a more comprehensive mechanics training system IMO).

A few words of communication between the PU and BU on this play as it was developing and a little team work would have easily solved it.

WMB is pretty emphatic that this is PU's call and that interests me, because I dont think he can support that. Furthermore, I don't believe PU is in the best position/angle for the call at 3B in this situation - the runner isn't going into 3, she has rounded 3 and its essentially a pick off attempt. Once BU makes sure bases are touched @ 1B 2B, his initial responsibilities are concluded and the developing play will take the BU to the play in the infield, possibly with a great vieww (as happened in this case), and the BU could very well have the best shot at a good call.

We need to separate the questions,
1) what is accepted as primary responsibility
2) what could be acceptable deviations for 3rd base coverage
3) what actually happened in the OP play
and possibly ignore the pre-game in the OP and it's related semantics

1)
a) primary responsibility for LR (non-BR) is PU
b) primary responsibility for 3rd is PU, unless
- needed at HP
- first call in infield, other than HP
- BR
- see #2

2) primary responsible ump yelling "partner, take 3rd"
a) PU needed at home plate
b) BU trapped/screened away from 3rd
c) rundowns
d) etc.

3) we don't know how apparent the play at HP possibility was
a) if strongly apparent, it's PU and BU has 3rd
b) if not apparent, PU still "holding", PU has 3rd

If the terminology in the pre-game was confusing, that is another issue, possibly resolved by using "tag-ups" or some other specific. I would always think "tags" meant "tag-ups"; because a base coverage includes force-outs.

YUK! :( , especially "positioned near the normal 'B' starting position" :(

Hi Mountaineer,

I programmed this play (actually it was a fly ball to center field or left field with runners on 1st and 2nd) into my Umpire Mechanics Cd and it said:

1: The BU should release the lead runner to the PU and move to holding zone between 1st and 2nd base to make sure all touch base and if a play develops to move into best angle from there.

2: The PU is to move to his holding position between 3rd and home plate for he is responsible for a play at either one.

But I'm sure there are good arguments given by umpires on what works best for them. I guess the main thing is make sure your partner and you are on the same page. .Al

That was funny!

When you cannot get close to the play, then yes, getting the angle is very important. However, proximity with the appropriate angle to see the play is even more important.

The mechanics used by ASA are updated annually. Those who attend the clinics know that there is always something in the offing. The mechanics listed in the Umpire Manual are for the masses. And for that purpose, they are still very applicable.

Rimming, or staying outside the diamond has been played with in the past. It is currently being used in three man mechanics in the NCAA. However, nearly all advocates of rimming also recognize there is a time when you must come inside the diamond. Being in the diamond is not a bad thing, and is often necessary to get those angles we spoke of earlier. Besides, to keep the four elements of the game in front of you, it is often necessary to come inside. Or do "modern mechanics" not recognize the importance of this? The new "D" position is not really new. I have seen it ever since I began umpiring. It is also called the lazy man's C position.