C'mon coach

[tcblue13]

I'm BU in C - Play at 1B with a safe call. D Coach wants an appeal. I did not grant it as I saw the play and a pulled foot would have still resulted in a safe call. Next inning, play at first, this time called the BR out from C. O coach asks for appeal for a pulled foot. I check with PU who indicates pulled foot resulting safe call. D coach comes unglued thinking I didn't call it the same both ways since I didn't grant his appeal the previous inning. Never could get him to understand the difference in the plays. He even kept saying that he should have been able to appeal the pulled foot in the first case. Coach the girl in play 1 was safe. A pulled foot would have made her safe. chirp chirp chirp.

[tcannizzo]

Help us understand the difference in the two plays and the two appeals.

[Andy]

First of all, these are not "appeal" plays. There is a very specific definition of an appeal play in the book.

What is happening here is that an umpire is being requested to ask for help from his partner on the call.

In the first situation, did you ask the coach why he wanted you to go for help? If the answer is something along the lines of "your partner may have seen something different" or "I think you missed it", the answer is: "No, coach. I saw the play, it's my call, and you disagreeing with the call is not a reason for me to ask for help." I'm assuming that this was the case.

In the second case, I am assuming that the coach asked you to check with your partner because you didn't see the pulled foot. Perfectly valid. Partner saw a pulled foot, reverse your initial call and declare the runner safe.

Too many umpires will "go for help" anytime a coach asks them too...keep doing this and coaches will think they can ask for help on any call they don't like. I need a valid reason to go for help and " I don't agree with your call" isn't one....

[DaveASA/FED]

I'm not sure there are two possible questions about a pulled foot. 1) she didn't pull her foot (maintained contact) and the runner should have been out! and the other possible question 2) she pulled her foot so the runner should have been safe (2nd play you described)

So in my situation 1 and your first play maybe the coach was asking you to make sure that she actually did pull her foot, since his belief was that she did NOT and possibly the PU saw her maintain contact and you would have come back with an out call. Was there any chance that this is what the defensive coach was trying to say?? Or was he just crazy and wanted you to call the other teams runner even more safe than you already called her???

[tcblue13]

In the first case, he simply disagreed with the call and thought he could get it changed. I tried to explain that it was not subject for appeal and I saw it clearly.

In the second, the O coach saw the pulled foot and asked me to go for help which I did.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I'm not sure there are two possible questions about a pulled foot. 1) she didn't pull her foot (maintained contact) and the runner should have been out! and the other possible question 2) she pulled her foot so the runner should have been safe (2nd play you described)

So in my situation 1 and your first play maybe the coach was asking you to make sure that she actually did pull her foot, since his belief was that she did NOT and possibly the PU saw her maintain contact and you would have come back with an out call. Was there any chance that this is what the defensive coach was trying to say?? Or was he just crazy and wanted you to call the other teams runner even more safe than you already called her???

sounds like in sitch 1, the runner was simply safe anyway - arguing that there was a pulled foot would only make her also safe. Checking with partner to learn there was not a pulled foot would still leave her safe.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

sounds like in sitch 1, the runner was simply safe anyway - arguing that there was a pulled foot would only make her also safe. Checking with partner to learn there was not a pulled foot would still leave her safe.

egggggzackly

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by Andy

First of all, these are not "appeal" plays. There is a very specific definition of an appeal play in the book.

What is happening here is that an umpire is being requested to ask for help from his partner on the call.

In the first situation, did you ask the coach why he wanted you to go for help? If the answer is something along the lines of "your partner may have seen something different" or "I think you missed it", the answer is: "No, coach. I saw the play, it's my call, and you disagreeing with the call is not a reason for me to ask for help." I'm assuming that this was the case.

In the second case, I am assuming that the coach asked you to check with your partner because you didn't see the pulled foot. Perfectly valid. Partner saw a pulled foot, reverse your initial call and declare the runner safe.

Too many umpires will "go for help" anytime a coach asks them too...keep doing this and coaches will think they can ask for help on any call they don't like. I need a valid reason to go for help and " I don't agree with your call" isn't one....

Good explanation.

I had a very similar example that had me upset with umpires who ask for help on everything.

I was on the plate and had a sinking line drive to left center field. The CF dove and the ball bounced into her glove. I immediately gave the safe signal and verbalized NO.

After the play, the coach requested time and asked me to confer with my partner. I said, "Coach, I clearly saw the ball hit the ground." He said a couple of things and left in a huff.

One of the problems is many people do not think logically.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

sounds like in sitch 1, the runner was simply safe anyway - arguing that there was a pulled foot would only make her also safe. Checking with partner to learn there was not a pulled foot would still leave her safe.

I hate to say this based on some other discussions on this board right now...but that's why a lot of these plays / questions are a HTBT sort of thing. I didn't catch that the player was safe on judgement. I assumed (there I go again making an a$$ of at least myself I'll leave you all out of it) that the player had been called safe due to a pulled foot. In my case you could have a reversal of the call if you thought the ball was there in time, but she was off the base and your partner had the fielder on the base the whole time....again not saying it would happen very often or would be a high probablity but I could see it happening

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by Andy

First of all, these are not "appeal" plays. There is a very specific definition of an appeal play in the book.

What is happening here is that an umpire is being requested to ask for help from his partner on the call.

In the first situation, did you ask the coach why he wanted you to go for help? If the answer is something along the lines of "your partner may have seen something different" or "I think you missed it", the answer is: "No, coach. I saw the play, it's my call, and you disagreeing with the call is not a reason for me to ask for help." I'm assuming that this was the case.

In the second case, I am assuming that the coach asked you to check with your partner because you didn't see the pulled foot. Perfectly valid. Partner saw a pulled foot, reverse your initial call and declare the runner safe.

Too many umpires will "go for help" anytime a coach asks them too...keep doing this and coaches will think they can ask for help on any call they don't like. I need a valid reason to go for help and " I don't agree with your call" isn't one....

+1 Great Explanation.