Partner makes major mistake

[tmielke]

Coming from a rookie (4 games so far)

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

This question keeps coming up: Do you intervene when your partner makes a major mistake? Generally the answer seems to be, “No, wait for a coach to challenge the call. If they don’t – too bad; go on with the game.”

Sit: A- Here is one that occurred several years ago: two good varsity teams, the BU called a LBR violation for the 3^rd out. The defense ran off the field; the runner looked at the umpire, but gave up and left the field. No one questioned the call. I guess that I was the only person on the field that saw F1 fake a throw – and the runner stopped to look at her.

Question: do you let it go when it was obviously a wrong call?

Leave this alone. Partner made the correct judgement call based on the information available to them. If the coach wanted the BU to get other information to help with the call, then they should ask. Leave the judgement call alone.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Sit: B – low level JV game last week, rookie umpire behind the plate. R1 on 1B; I am in “B.” D-coach comes on field with scorebook and confers with PU who looks at her line-up card. They both go over and confer with the O-coach. I assumed that if the PU needed me she would call; otherwise I was out on the grass chatting with F9. When it broke up I went back to my position and on the first pitch I realized that I no longer had a runner on 1B. Oops, must have been a BOO; and I retreated to “A.”

Between innings I asked BU what happened. Illegal sub, she said; she wasn’t on the line-up card. Actually she was a legal player; I told PU she was an unannounced sub and that there was no penalty.

I think the key here is "Rookie". If you are working with a rookie, you really have two jobs that night, watch the rookie and call the game. Maybe some pregame instruction on when to ask for help etc. I am not sure. I know if I was in a conversation with a coach about a rule and my experienced partner walked up to see what was going on, I would welcome it. I have been told the most important thing is to make the right call. This isn't a judgment situation, you have the ability to teach the rookie what to do.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Question: if you were paying attention and you saw the runner being taken off the base would you get involved? You could have corrected a bad umpire call, and educated the PU and both coaches.

YES

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Sit: C – same game, next inning. Opposite coach comes out with scorebook; same procedure as before. Now the PU is looking at me; obviously not sure of herself. I ask her what is wrong; she says, “Same thing.” “Unannounced sub by the other team.”

Question: do you say let’s treat it same; call the out, neither coach knows the difference anyway?

OR – do you say – we know the rule; we have to do it right even though one coach gets the short end?


There are really two questions here. (1) Do you intervene to prevent partner from making an incorrect rules call? (2) If it were called wrong against one team, would you allow it to be wrong against the other team?


WMB

I don't think it should have come to this. The rookie should have already received the training on how to handle an unreported sub.


There is a reason you don't have two rookies working together, you want to avoid the dumb and dumber situations. I think being willing to step on the field with a rookie increases the responsibility of the experienced partner of making sure the rules are applied correctly.

Tom

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by tmielke

I don't think it should have come to this. The rookie should have already received the training on how to handle an unreported sub.

Yes, but I can't train ALL of them.

One thing that needs to be pointed out (IMHO, some may yet disagree) is that if it is the misapplication of a rule, such as fixing the BOO, and a coach utters that dreaded "protest" word, then the veteran better damned well be in there with bells on fixing it.

I have done this only once with a veteran and avoided said protest. I don't remember the exact sitch. I do remember the umpire. We'll call him "Three and out."

"Three and out" was going to do something third-worldish in the placement of a runner or somesuch. (Sorry, before last August I could have remembered this crap inch by inch...) Wronged coach comes off the bucket screaming, already LOUDLY uttering the P word. I told him I have it, don't worry, went out and fixed it. "Three and out" had deer in the headlights look as I tried to explain. Then he threw this "I've been doing this for umpteen years and I do college ball and blah blah blah..." I told him I didn't give a big rippin f**k what he did, we weren't going to have a protest and if he didn't like it I would GLADLY work single-man, which I basically had been doing anyway.

So..."three and out" finishes up, won't shake my hand on the way to the car, and leaves. Later that night, get a call from someone else who explained that while "three and out" wouldn't apologize to me, he did now know he was wrong and I was right.

Only other person who was mildly upset was the almost-offended coach. He had been wanting a piece of "three and out" for years and I deprived him of the chance. For THAT I felt bad...that I had deprived a coach of his rightful *** chewing of this umpire.

BUT...he said he was serious about the protest right then and there.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

We'll call him "Three and out."

[BoomerSooner]

My spin on it goes like this....The "D-coach" in the OP that made a fuss about the unlisted (but legal) sub may have known the rule and pulled a fast one on the rookie ump. The "O-coach" didn't know the rule and had a fast one pulled on him as well. Now that the situation is turned around let's say the original "D=coach" is now the O-coach and is under the threat of having his runner removed, but knows the rule. You can't just make the same ruling as before because now you are faced with a protest that would be upheld.