Could we have done this different?

[HugoTafurst]

2 Umpire FP Mechanics
R1 (at 1st) -

Bunt 3/4 of the way to the pitcher's circle about 1/2 way between 1B foul line and line to pitcher's plate.

Ball is fielded and thron to F4 covering 1st.
BU calls the out.
PU having moved up first base line to observe the play then advances toward third as F4 throws across.
R1 is about 1/2 way between 2nd and 3rd as F6 gets the ball and tags R1 as she stops and then tries to retreat to 2nd.
BU calls the out...
3B Coach asks PU why he didn't call Obstruction at 2nd base.
Neither PU nor BU saw the possible obstruction at 2nd as they both were concentrating on the action at 1st.

PU broke off to cover R1 possibly advbancing to 3rd, but it was after any infraction would have occurred at 2nd.

Did we blow the mechanic or is this one of those $65.00 calls?

I was PU and having this happen, I tried to widen my field of view as I was watching the play at 1st, but in the end, I've got to see that pull/no pull.
My BU, of course has to get the out/safe.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

2 Umpire FP Mechanics
R1 (at 1st) -

Bunt 3/4 of the way to the pitcher's circle about 1/2 way between 1B foul line and line to pitcher's plate.

Ball is fielded and thron to F4 covering 1st.
BU calls the out.
PU having moved up first base line to observe the play then advances toward third as F4 throws across.
R1 is about 1/2 way between 2nd and 3rd as F6 gets the ball and tags R1 as she stops and then tries to retreat to 2nd.
BU calls the out...
3B Coach asks PU why he didn't call Obstruction at 2nd base.
Neither PU nor BU saw the possible obstruction at 2nd as they both were concentrating on the action at 1st.

PU broke off to cover R1 possibly advbancing to 3rd, but it was after any infraction would have occurred at 2nd.

Did we blow the mechanic or is this one of those $65.00 calls?

I was PU and having this happen, I tried to widen my field of view as I was watching the play at 1st, but in the end, I've got to see that pull/no pull.
My BU, of course has to get the out/safe.

This bold is where I have a problem and it isn't with you in particular. The lead runner belongs to the PU.

IMO, trailing the runner should be secondary and the PU only as a second pair of eyes when available. Yes, it is part of the PU's mechanics, but so is the lead runner. I'm not saying the PU should not trail or watch, but s/he needs to pay attention to the lead runner.

In this circumstance, what would hurt the offense more, the BR being called out with a pulled foot or the runner advancing to 3B being called out when she shouldn't be?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This bold is where I have a problem and it isn't with you in particular. The lead runner belongs to the PU.

IMO, trailing the runner should be secondary and the PU only as a second pair of eyes when available. Yes, it is part of the PU's mechanics, but so is the lead runner. I'm not saying the PU should not trail or watch, but s/he needs to pay attention to the lead runner.

In this circumstance, what would hurt the offense more, the BR being called out with a pulled foot or the runner advancing to 3B being called out when she shouldn't be?

I don't disagree. In fact intuitively that is what I would think.
Possibly I misinterpreted what I have been taught, but when I have commented at clinics or evaluations (formal or informal), I got the message that FIRST was the BR responsibilities - THEN was R1 to third.
Some of this was in response to the critique of "giving up on the BR too soon (to get to third)" The teaching was stay with the BR (cheating to the center) till that play is done THEN bust for the angle at third.
This is the first time the obstruction situation has come up.

Lesson learned (I hope).



edited to add: After mulling it over a little more - I can still think of "No win" situations here... you just can't see two things at once.

Maybe I'm not good enough for two umpire mechanics and should only work 3!! ;-)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I don't disagree. In fact intuitively that is what I would think.
Possibly I misinterpreted what I have been taught, but when I have commented at clinics or evaluations (formal or informal), I got the message that FIRST was the BR responsibilities - THEN was R1 to third.

It is, for coverage on a play at that base. But, you cannot just ignore other runners to "back up" the BU.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I don't disagree. In fact intuitively that is what I would think.
Possibly I misinterpreted what I have been taught, but when I have commented at clinics or evaluations (formal or informal), I got the message that FIRST was the BR responsibilities - THEN was R1 to third.
Some of this was in response to the critique of "giving up on the BR too soon (to get to third)" The teaching was stay with the BR (cheating to the center) till that play is done THEN bust for the angle at third.
This is the first time the obstruction situation has come up.

Lesson learned (I hope).



edited to add: After mulling it over a little more - I can still think of "No win" situations here... you just can't see two things at once.

Maybe I'm not good enough for two umpire mechanics and should only work 3!! ;-)

There's a middle ground that doesn't (necessarily) contradict; at least not obviously. One of the finest softball minds regularly states that our mechanics stress umpiring by priorities, and that is where those telling you your priority is the pulled foot are missing it.

The BU has the primary for the play at first; every part of it. PU is secondary, providing a back up angle. So, what is the PU's PRIMARY??

The lead runner, as soon as it is determined the initial infield play isn't on her!! PU can take a few step trail, but has to keep the lead in (at least!!) peripheral vision. We cannot allow that lead runner to cut the corner unobserved and never touch the base, we cannot allow her to be obstructed unobserved, and we canot ignore any other possible play. And, we have to know if we will have a follow-up play at third, and we can only know that if we see the runner take a turn.

So, we shouldn't head to third "too" soon; that doesn't mean the play at first becomes our priority, it means we don't head to third too soon!! See what happens at second, and momentarily divert our attention to the play at first while we are at the best angle to help, but not focusing solely on that secondary responsibility. We keep that timing in our head all the time when seeing multiple runners touch bases, and we are ONLY HELPING with pulled foot or swipe tag; we can try to sense the timing, and pick up the throw to see/know if the play we might need to help with is developing. Clean throw, covering defensive player looks solid, we can give more attention to the lead; bad throw, F3 or F4 still trying to get there, maybe we need to give MORE attention there, but certainly NOT ALL of our attention. Play at first is over, give full attention back to the lead, and get to third if a play develops there.

All that said, sometimes you just miss what happens when you have multiple responsibilities. Know your priorities, see what you can; and tell the coach honestly what you did or didn't see happen. In this case, "Coach, with so many different things happening at the same time, I just didn't see what you are referring to. I can only call what I see; I'm giving you my best effort." And, "Two umpires is a system with holes; we umpire by looking at many things at one time. Even the MLB umpires with 4 and 6 umpires (during postseason) on the field, plus instant replay available in some cases, miss things. We are doing everything we can to see as much of the critical issues as we can."

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There's a middle ground that doesn't (necessarily) contradict; at least not obviously. One of the finest softball minds regularly states that our mechanics stress umpiring by priorities, and that is where those telling you your priority is the pulled foot are missing it.

The BU has the primary for the play at first; every part of it. PU is secondary, providing a back up angle. So, what is the PU's PRIMARY??

The lead runner, as soon as it is determined the initial infield play isn't on her!! PU can take a few step trail, but has to keep the lead in (at least!!) peripheral vision. We cannot allow that lead runner to cut the corner unobserved and never touch the base, we cannot allow her to be obstructed unobserved, and we canot ignore any other possible play. And, we have to know if we will have a follow-up play at third, and we can only know that if we see the runner take a turn.

So, we shouldn't head to third "too" soon; that doesn't mean the play at first becomes our priority, it means we don't head to third too soon!! See what happens at second, and momentarily divert our attention to the play at first while we are at the best angle to help, but not focusing solely on that secondary responsibility. We keep that timing in our head all the time when seeing multiple runners touch bases, and we are ONLY HELPING with pulled foot or swipe tag; we can try to sense the timing, and pick up the throw to see/know if the play we might need to help with is developing. Clean throw, covering defensive player looks solid, we can give more attention to the lead; bad throw, F3 or F4 still trying to get there, maybe we need to give MORE attention there, but certainly NOT ALL of our attention. Play at first is over, give full attention back to the lead, and get to third if a play develops there.

All that said, sometimes you just miss what happens when you have multiple responsibilities. Know your priorities, see what you can; and tell the coach honestly what you did or didn't see happen. In this case, "Coach, with so many different things happening at the same time, I just didn't see what you are referring to. I can only call what I see; I'm giving you my best effort." And, "Two umpires is a system with holes; we umpire by looking at many things at one time. Even the MLB umpires with 4 and 6 umpires (during postseason) on the field, plus instant replay available in some cases, miss things. We are doing everything we can to see as much of the critical issues as we can."

Thanks to you and Mike for putting words to the description.

FWIW, not quite so eloquently but that's pretty much what I told the coach.
I even checked with my partner and included the "Sorry, but I can't call what I didn't see".
Guess what he still didn't like it.. imagine that.

[txtrooper]

That is definitely a thought provoking scenario. I believe that is a tough situation for the 2 man system and is best covered with 3 umpires. It sounds like you did the best you could in explaining it to the coach. Thanks for posting that scenario.

[CajunNewBlue]

No reason why the PU couldnt/shouldnt see the OBS that most likely occurred while R1 was rounding 2nd by F6 (im assuming this from the OP).... thats way too long to be focusing on the B/R for a simple pulled foot that your BU (coming from B) should have no problem seeing... (C position.. maybe... B position.. no)
I think the PU used the wrong angles to pick up the play. (this was not a foul line bunt.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

No reason why the PU couldnt/shouldnt see the OBS that most likely occurred while R1 was rounding 2nd by F6 (im assuming this from the OP).... thats way too long to be focusing on the B/R for a simple pulled foot that your BU (coming from B) should have no problem seeing... (C position.. maybe... B position.. no)
I think the PU used the wrong angles to pick up the play. (this was not a foul line bunt.)

While I agree with other people saying the focus HAS to be on the lead runner... your statement here confuses me. What is "way too long to be focusing..."? He mentions no time frame - it could be (and often is) that the runner is rounding 2nd right as the play at first happens. There's no "too long" here. Angle is irrelevant too (although it sounds like OP's angle was right).

[txtrooper]

I want to throw this out here; the two umpire system is designed to cover 90 percent of the situations that will ordinarily arise. Aside from a pulled foot, bobbled ball, swipe tag or interference with the play at 1st, PU also has responsibility to see any violation of the three foot running lane and it sounds like there was potential in this scenario. R1 was tagged out ½ way between 2nd and 3rd base and the coach claimed that the obstruction occurred at 2nd. The obstruction was not noticed by either umpire. Let’s say that staying with the lead runner is more important for discussion purposes. So we move to the holding zone and observe that R1 is obstructed rounding 2nd and we miss the pulled foot, swiped tag, bobbled ball or interference. Would the coach not be equally upset about an umpire missing this situation? Any one of us could do the same thing and I do not believe that I would have handled it any differently than Hugo. The bottom line is, we can not cover every situation that will occur on the field in the two umpire system. Coach, I really wish you would have hired three umpires today.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

I want to throw this out here; the two umpire system is designed to cover 90 percent of the situations that will ordinarily arise. Aside from a pulled foot, bobbled ball, swipe tag or interference with the play at 1st, PU also has responsibility to see any violation of the three foot running lane and it sounds like there was potential in this scenario. R1 was tagged out ½ way between 2nd and 3rd base and the coach claimed that the obstruction occurred at 2nd. The obstruction was not noticed by either umpire. Let’s say that staying with the lead runner is more important for discussion purposes. So we move to the holding zone and observe that R1 is obstructed rounding 2nd and we miss the pulled foot, swiped tag, bobbled ball or interference. Would the coach not be equally upset about an umpire missing this situation? Any one of us could do the same thing and I do not believe that I would have handled it any differently than Hugo. The bottom line is, we can not cover every situation that will occur on the field in the two umpire system. Coach, I really wish you would have hired three umpires today.

Who said anything about going to a holding zone? No one said not to trail the BR. That doesn't mean you cannot still keep an eye on the lead runner.

No, the coaches should not be upset if they have an iota of game intelligence.

BTW, this conversation seems to be reaching the point that the BU can not possibly make any call other than safe/out at 1B. The field isn't that big and if the BU is doing the job, s/he shouldn't be that far off the play.

[SpringtownHawk]

Was it just me or did the words obstruction at 2nd get mentioned in the description of the play at hand? Seems like a rules test question in that you shouldn't be reading any more into the question than is stated. Now, whether or not there was obstruction at 2nd is a different story all together and unfortunately not uncommon these days.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

I want to throw this out here; the two umpire system is designed to cover 90 percent of the situations that will ordinarily arise. Aside from a pulled foot, bobbled ball, swipe tag or interference with the play at 1st, PU also has responsibility to see any violation of the three foot running lane and it sounds like there was potential in this scenario. R1 was tagged out ½ way between 2nd and 3rd base and the coach claimed that the obstruction occurred at 2nd. The obstruction was not noticed by either umpire. Let’s say that staying with the lead runner is more important for discussion purposes. So we move to the holding zone and observe that R1 is obstructed rounding 2nd and we miss the pulled foot, swiped tag, bobbled ball or interference. Would the coach not be equally upset about an umpire missing this situation? Any one of us could do the same thing and I do not believe that I would have handled it any differently than Hugo. The bottom line is, we can not cover every situation that will occur on the field in the two umpire system. Coach, I really wish you would have hired three umpires today.

Mechanics, let alone calls, are not decided by whether coaches get upset.
Also, if the PU is really so myopic not to see both, getting the lead runner correct is higher priority.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SpringtownHawk

Was it just me or did the words obstruction at 2nd get mentioned in the description of the play at hand? Seems like a rules test question in that you shouldn't be reading any more into the question than is stated. Now, whether or not there was obstruction at 2nd is a different story all together and unfortunately not uncommon these days.

From the OP:

3B Coach asks PU why he didn't call Obstruction at 2nd base.
Neither PU nor BU saw the possible obstruction at 2nd

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

While I agree with other people saying the focus HAS to be on the lead runner... your statement here confuses me. What is "way too long to be focusing..."? He mentions no time frame - it could be (and often is) that the runner is rounding 2nd right as the play at first happens. There's no "too long" here. Angle is irrelevant too (although it sounds like OP's angle was right).

seriously blue? (another of my fav. coach questions).... but no, seriously?. read the last few lines of the OP and tell me what the PU was focusing on?.

that being said.... if he was "focusing on/trying to get" the "must get the pull or no pull" his angle had to be poor to pickup the lead runner. or did he mess up both?.... i couldnt say.

2-man isnt perfect... but done well, this shouldnt have been a problem.

(assuming there was actually OBS to begin with..... assuming)

and a parting shot.... since when is angle EVER irrelevant? .... EVER?..... maybe im old skool..... angle is everything.