Unusual dropped third strike

[AtlUmpSteve]

I have struggled to understand that thought process before, too. While I have great respect for WMB, and despite the fact we (respectfully) disagree on several points, I just don't get that one.

The way I see it, he is saying that failing to catch the third strike (if it was one) negates the right of the defense to have it called properly. And/or that since the PU didn't call it immediately, the defense is no longer entitled to have it ruled on correctly.

The way I see it is that the batter (possibly) made a swing that should be called a third strike. That swing put the batter in jeopardy; not the catcher failing to catch the ball, nor the PU concentrating on the pitch location over the bat movement. The rules provide a remedy for both; the catcher failing to catch the ball (put the BR out) and the PU possibly not recognizing a swing (a checked swing appeal). No rule or written umpire mechanic supercedes the remedies allowed.

I just don't get it. But I respect his right to believe it.

[WestMichBlue]

What is so hard to understand that the umpire put the batter in jeporday? The PU said "BALL!" The batter has not struck out; she has no reason to move, even though the ball is rolling away.

You guys sit at a keyboard and conjure all these scenarios about what a 16 y.o. girl is supposed to run through her mind. She is required, by you, to consider the possibility that another umpire may overrule the PU who did not call her out, and maybe she should run to 1B just to protect herself - even though the PU said that she did not strike out.

Because some girl does not think this through as specified, you will allow the defense to get a cheap out. Cheap, because you, the PLATE UMPIRE, in essence, told her to stay at the batter's box.

My way is easy. Don't honor the appeal. The explanation (to the coach) is simple (and understandable). The ball game hasn't changed. We just have another ball on the batter; she is still up, the pitcher and catcher can still pitch and catch again, runners can still run - play on!

WMB

BTW - those that say there is no rule to support my position; I say there is no rule forcing me to go to my partner on a checked swing (or any other call that a coach is challenging). It is always my option to stay with my call. In this unique situation, I will stay with my original call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

BTW - those that say there is no rule to support my position; I say there is no rule forcing me to go to my partner on a checked swing (or any other call that a coach is challenging). It is always my option to stay with my call. In this unique situation, I will stay with my original call.

Then we can assume, since I haven't seen a sanctioning body yet mentioned, you do not call NCAA ball. I believe an umpire is required to check when asked in that game.

BTW, ASA does not discourage an umpire to go for help, and the manual actually directs the umpire to call a ball and go to you partner, if unsure.

I must have missed the part in the manual about "leaving no doubt that is what I want called" instead of getting it right.

There is no doubt that a check swing on a decisive pitch can be a touchy situation, but that's life. You cannot satisfy everyone, all the time, so you just as well get it right.

Okay, the catcher didn't hold the ball. Well, the batter is just as guilty of causing this fustercluck, so why would they receive extra protection?

Under WMB's scenario, instead of being stubborn about going for help, you just as well kill the ball, then ask for help. Then after you award the batter 1B and throw out the defenses' coach, you can calmly clean the plate, return to your position and return the ball to live status.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

What is so hard to understand that the umpire put the batter in jeporday? The PU said "BALL!" The batter has not struck out; she has no reason to move, even though the ball is rolling away.

You keep focusing on assigning blame or fault to either the defensive or offense player. My focus is on the umpire. What do you do in any other situation where the umpire put the players in jepordy?

R1 at 1B, D3K, batter starts to run, umpire loudly yells "batter is out!" Batter stops and walks back to p/u her bat and catcher tags the batter. Umpire forgot there was two outs!

Now what do you say? DMB?

WMB

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You keep focusing on assigning blame or fault to either the defensive or offense player. My focus is on the umpire. What do you do in any other situation where the umpire put the players in jepordy?

R1 at 1B, D3K, batter starts to run, umpire loudly yells "batter is out!" Batter stops and walks back to p/u her bat and catcher tags the batter. Umpire forgot there was two outs!

Now what do you say? DMB?

WMB

Much as you will hate the answer, the proper ruling in ASA is batter-runner is out. The umpire calling "batter is out" is equivalent to an umpire telling a player there is one out when there are two. The teams (players and coaches) are responsible to know the game situation and rules. In this play, both teams were potentially disadvantaged by the umpire, as the defense assumably stopped making the play to first base, so how could you then decide you are protecting one over the other?

The ruling would be that the ball was live, both teams had the obligation to complete the play; the one that did gets the result of the play. Only if the umpires actually declared a dead ball before the out was made would the offense then be protected from an out. Further, ASA NUS have stated (at the Advanced Umpire School, actually), that the "jeopardy" clause is meant to correct only instances where one team is completely disadvantaged, not as a "catch-all" to correct situations where there is a legitimate remedy.

Incidently, I only responded to your statement that the defense erred, and should not get the benefit. No blame is involved; the teams should get the result of the play; that's what we are there for. One of my favorite statements is that we don't call the game; we simply acknowledge and announce the results of the players play.

It seems to me that you are more concerned about protecting the batter (who has remedies, a) not swing, or b) advance to first base before being put out) believing you are or may be responsible for either, than getting the call right within the rules, which is supposed to be the primary objective.

It is also interesting to me that you started this branch of the thread acknowledging that "most" of your fellow umpires disagreed with you. Can you consider the possiblility that "most" may be correct. Reminds me of a favorite phrase of one of my peers; "if one person thinks you are an a$$hole, that is just one opinion. "If most people think you are an a$$hole, you probably are an a$$hole". Not calling you that name; just using the phrase as I know it. I suggest you replace the word with "wrong". After all, I don't see a lot of people jumping out to support you on this one.

[Dakota]

Was the original declaration by the PU of "ball" a call?

(Yes)

Is the subsequent declaration by the BU of "swing" a reversal of a call?

(Yes)

Did the reversal of the call place either team in jeopardy?

If you answer "no", then you allow the appeal and the players play it out.

If you answer "yes", and allow the appeal anyway, then you have more work to do (ASA 10-3-C).

If you answer "yes", and not allow the appeal, you take what amounts to an easier path than enforcing 10-3-C, but the same result.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Tom, by your logic, every checked swing that is called a swing is the reversal of a call; and since it changed the count, it put the batter in jeopardy, so it must be overruled by the plate umpire. In fact, every request for help on a missed tag, bobbled ball, pulled foot, etc., must therefore be disallowed and undone under your interpretation of 10-3-C; it is a call, that is reversed, and someone previously ruled safe is now out, or someone previously ruled out is now safe. Obviously, the reversal would have put the team that loses at a disadvantage, and in new jeopardy.

Consider this play; swinging bunt, F1 fields, makes a sweep at BR, BU calls "out". OC asks if he is sure, that at his angle, clearly a missed tag. BU questions PU, who advises missed. BU rules "safe", based on new information.

And, the defense made no further effort to complete the play; and DC now argues his defense was in jeopardy, as they had plenty of time to complete the out; the BU call made them think no further play was necessary. Reversal of a call, someone was in jeopardy, now. How do you want to apply 10-3-C now? Call the safe runner out? Do-over? No!!! You fix only what MUST be fixed when you left one team NO chance to be right. They live with the result of their play; F1 knew she missed, needed to complete the play, since it COULD be overturned.

The act of an appeal is a legal act under the rules, and the result is, therefore, anticipated. The act of asking for help is covered under the rules; and the result is anticipated, that someone loses because the call may be overturned to get it right. ASA 10-3-C is for unanticipated results. Not allowing the appeal is a cop-out, since 10-3-C is not the appropriate remedy. Running (playing) out the play is the appropriate remedy, because plays (particularly checked swings) can be appealed.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Tom, by your logic, every checked swing that is called a swing is the reversal of a call; and since it changed the count, it put the batter in jeopardy, so it must be overruled by the plate umpire.

You're putting words in my mouth (or out of my keyboard), and that is not remotely close to what I said.

It is not whether the correct call places either team in jeopardy, but rather did the umpire's original call place either team in jeopardy in light of the call reversal. It has nothing to do with the jeopardy that was already there due to the play of the players.

Example: Umpire calls infield fly, batter out, with a runner on 1B only. Defense misses the catch. Batter goes into the dugout. Umpires confer and reverse the call. Is the batter out for entering the dugout?

If you want to take the position in the reversed check swing call that the original call of BALL did NOT unnaturally place the BR in jeopardy due only to the umpire's call (and not the player's play), then fine.

However, that is not the position that WMB is taking. You may not agree with it, but what I don't understand is, why his position is hard to understand?