Another ASA test question
 

50. In the Two Umpire System with R1 on second base, B2 hits a fly ball to F8, who makes the catch. Which of the following
statements is correct?
A: The base umpire has the tag-up at second base and the plate umpire has the play on R1 at third base.
B: The plate umpire has the tag-up at second base and the play on R1 at third base.
C: The plate umpire has the tag-up at second base and the base umpire has the play on R1 at third base.
D: The base umpire has the tag-up at second base and the play on R1 at third base.

The 2011 Umpire Manual, on page 259:

There are four times a base umpire will make a call at third base:
1. On the B-R on a triple with no runners on base.
2. On the last runner into third base.
3. On a lone runner on fly ball advancement.
4. On any return throw from the plate area or a cut-off by a player.

This year's manual, on page 258 has the scenario for a runner on second base only -Fast Pitch:

Fly ball to the outfield:
P- Move out from behind the plate to get the best angle and distance possible. Responsible for fair/foul, catch or no catch, any play on the lead runner at 3B and any play at the plate.
B- Choose to go to the outfield to make the call or hustle inside the diamond toward 1B, buttonhook, pick up the ball and glance at the runner. Responsible for the tag up at 2B, any play at 1B, or 2B and the last runner to 3B.

The Umpire Manual section seems different this year. Was the between inning mechanics inadvertently omitted?

I don't have my 2012 rule book yet, but if what you quoted from it is exactly what appears then they must have at least revised the format.

As for the test question, you can toss out B & C since the base umpire has the tag up with only one runner on second. That just leaves the question, "Who has the play at third?".

I always took the phrase "on fly ball advancement" to mean specifically if it is a caught fly ball and tag up, as opposed to a runner advancing on a base hit-type fly ball. If you have an active, "unretired" batter-runner running the bases, wouldn't you want the base umpire to have his attention on him? Whereas, if the batter-runner was out on the catch, all the base umpire has to do is slide over a few feet to cover the play at third, with the plate umpire staying home in case the play develops there.

Not having seen the 2012 manual, I would have to say the answer is D.

Do we have a catch? Who takes the appeal of the runner leaving early? Who takes the last runner?

[I realize I may have been too vague. If you the answers to those questions, you have the answer to the question.]

I don't have my 2012 book yet, either. However, I don't believe the mechanic has changed. Whenever they've talked about the "lead runner," they're usually talking about situations in which there are multiple runners.

Base umpire always has the single runner in this situation for every base, but home.

B.

Lone runner is not a lead runner. To have a lead runner that PU must cover at 3rd, there must be a trail runner that the BU has responsibility for.

Ahh....I believe that would be D.

Yeah, typo, my bad. Meant B. as indicated by the explanation.

:d

I never thought it made much sense that ASA makes the base umpire responsible for both the tag up appeal at 2nd base and the tag play at 3rd base. Why ASA doesn't divide up the responsibility is beyond me. The plate umpire is doing practically nothing on a ball hit to center field.

So that there is an umpire at the base in front of the runner at the priority base. It isn't that difficult.

So then have the plate umpire cover 3rd base.

Any who is covering home which is the priority?

I would not agree with calling home plate the priority in that situation. I think that 3rd base is the priority.

Let's take care of 3rd base before we pour all of our energy into standing around home plate for a "maybe" call.

If there was an additional runner on 3rd base, obviously this would change my opinion.

Realistically speaking, if R2 is in a "tagging up" position, the odds on R2 scoring are poor.

I would prefer to have the base umpire get a good position to watch the tag and have the plate umpire be up the line in foul territory awaiting the throw. Should the play develop, the plate umpire can step into the calling position and make the call. If the plate umpire sees that the play won't develop (either no throw or an obviously errant throw), then the plate umpire can retreat to home plate. The plate umpire retreats in a similar fashion when there are runners on 1st and 2nd on the same type of play, so I don't accept "we don't want the plate umpire to have to run back home" to be a valid explanation.

I know that this is not what ASA has taught over the years. After years of using this mechanic in non-ASA games, I've found it to be beneficial and a better use of both umpires. It's at least worth some consideration.

So if the throw to 3rd base gets away from the fielder and the runner breaks for home without stopping, what do you do? Bust your butt to home plate and hope you have enough time to get set to see a bang-bang play?

Good luck with selling that call.

Which one puts a number on the board? Where is a missed call going to cause a greater effect on the score? Certainly not 3B.

As opposed to the BU standing in the middle of the field waiting on the very likely event that the runner will stop and return to 2nd? :rolleyes:

No kidding. If there was a runner on 3rd, we wouldn't be discussing this mechanic.

You making up ASA's interpretation as you go along? Who said anything about not wanting the umpire to return to the plate? Obviously, that is going to happen at some point, just as any umpire may have to reverse field when there are fewer umpires than bases. To the best of my knowledge, it has always been ASA's stand to get an umpire a base ahead when possible. In this case, it is possible.

Well, I believe that would also include NFHS & ISF.

I don't see the problem with the BU covering 3rd unless s/he isn't capable and if that's the case, s/he shouldn't be on the field which isn't that big to start.

You remind me of an umpire I worked with at a National in Lakeland who, after finishing a clinic go out and tell us (his crew), that we didn't need to rotate on the 3 umpire system. After all, he was a UIC somewhere (according to him) and he knew better than the UIC. We basically told him to do whatever he wanted, we were working the game by the book.

You're attitude is dismissive. That's a dangerous state of mind for an umpire. The time it took you to reply tells me that you didn't take the comments under any valid consideration.

Your implication that I am making up my own mechanics or inventing this as the game goes along is a blatantly false accusation. You don't appear to be illiterate, although your reading comprehension skill do seem to be rather elementary.

I clearly stated that these are not ASA mechanics. They are, however, NCAA, PONY and many some state organizations' mechanics.

You seem to be one of those people I like to label an "ASA clone." You never had an independant thought on mechanics. Rather you take the ASA manual like a religious zealot might take the bible. You would also bash any association that would recommend trying mechanic "X" because ASA did mechanic "Y." Then if ASA actually got out of the 1930's and updated their mechanic to "Y" you would preach "Y" without hesitation because it all of a sudden became gospel because it was written in a book with ASA written on.

Without actually analyzing the mechanic or giving it a shot in a game that isn't ASA controlled, you shouldn't me so quick to knock it. I was originally trained under the ASA mechanic. I was, however, opened up to the alternative mechanic that I wrote about here. After 3500 games, I am endorsing the one where we put both umpires to work and have the plate umpire cover 3rd base. Experience, not ignorance or dismissiveness, has convinced me that this is a better use of the umpires.

I've never had a problem tracking back home when necessary. That's because I can read the play and I'm not stuck in the mud. I can read how the ball is fielded and thrown. If I need to track back home, I can do so without difficultly. I can track back home as quickly as a base umpire standing near 2nd base can move to 3rd for the play there (under ASA mechanics).

What is your basis for believing that this is the mechanic in ISF? Do you own an ISF manual or do you merely through that comment out there to bolster your position?

By your/ASA's statement that home plate is the priority base, wouldn't 2nd base be a priority base over 1st base since it's closer to home. While I am being somewhat facetious and wouldn't actually recommend doing this, why not put the base umpire at 2nd base to start the inning since the BR may go for a double and 2nd base is more important than 1st base?

Interesting that NCAA endorses the plate umpire covering 3rd base even in their game which includes some of the best and fastest players in all of softball. Apparently their experience is that the plate umpire is mentally capable of reading a play and physically capable of getting home for another play. Perhaps their philosophy is stronger than ASA's in that they believe it's best to get the first call right than speculating on a possible secondary play.

Last one and then I'm done with you

We are discussing ASA mechanics. You stated your personal preferences, and that is okay for whatever games you prefer to work other than ASA. I offered my opinions.

My reading comprehension? It wasn't an implication, but a citation. You stated The plate umpire retreats in a similar fashion when there are runners on 1st and 2nd on the same type of play, so I don't accept "we don't want the plate umpire to have to run back home" to be a valid explanation. Not only did you attempt to alter the scenario to fit your argument, you provided a citation that hasn't been offered, nor suggested, in the thread, umpire manual or any classes/clinics I've attended or conducted.

You are clueless as to what I believe, have done and continue to do. Like you I routinely question mechanics from all, just as you have. It is not unusual for myself and a member of the NUS to butt heads. The problem here is that you asked an ASA-specific question to which you didn't like the answer. And I don't care that you have your own opinion, nothing wrong with that, but please don't go around making claims that are misleading. A lot of people read this board and misinformation is not something that helps an umpire.

You ever work with BillyP? Again, you have no idea as to the manner in which I deal with mechanics. I have worked "alternative" mechanics in an ASA national. I have introduced a proposed mechanic change to ASA. I have used it and had others test run it (including a member of this board) in championship play. I have been dressed down by KR for doing so.

I have been publicly corrected by a member of the NUS for suggesting an umpire place the call before given mechanics. I've had nice conversations with OKC about how too many of the NUS are taking the DVD to heart and not allowing for an umpire's adjustment to the play on the field. Like I said, you have no idea.

I've got two world cups under my belt. You?

You mean like ASA has already done in SP and only haven't done so in FP due to the need for the umpire to see IPs? Even better, why not bring U3 to the 3B side of 2B with a runner on 1B only? Oops!!! Don't look now, but that is me thinking outside the ASA-bible.

And as has been repeatedly been noted on here and other boards, the NCAA has a single entity to address and endorses the 3-umpire game, demands it in many cases. And while I don't care for some of the mechanics, it is their game. I have used them all, still do in some games when and where appropriate. However, like in ASA, I will not use the mechanic for the sake of staying with the mechanic if the situation dictates otherwise and that means losing the call or placing myself in the middle of the play.

You know what I love? People who think they have "discovered" new ways of doing things as if Moses brought them down the mountain. In reality, many of these mechanics have been tested and used in the past in different games. Some work, some don't, but the success or failure often has nothing to do with the idea, but whether each can be applied to a certain game and with certain group of umpires. As Billy P stated often, it shouldn't be an advanced school for umpires, but a school for advanced umpiring. I agree, been there, done that. The only problem is that unless you are working with someone of equal ability and knowledge, those mechanics may often be useless.

Okay, I'm done pontificating. Say hi to JM

:d :d

Personal insults and degradation have no place on any forum, let alone this one.

Holy cow... I usually have to go to political sites to read something as blatantly wrong as this statement.

And then you immediately outdo yourself. If you only knew. I suggest that Mr 86 posts gets to know everyone a little better before making judgments as to who knows what, who thinks what, and who has done what.

See, you miss a couple days and it's like coming back to the future. :D

+1