A situation to defuse

[rwest]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

This may be a good example of why it is better to go for help first when you can. Even more so if BU went for help later, the runner gave up and then ended up getting thrown out once they reversed the call at first and kept the inning alive.

There are ways to correct these problems, but I would rather prevent something than correct it.

Your point has some merit. Having said that I still don't use it. There are three reasons.

1. I don't like giving up my responsibilities to another umpire. Its not an ego thing, its a "do your job" thing. Now I know the counter argument is that its our job to make the correct call, why not get it right the first time. Well that leads me to my second point.

2. Consistent Philosophy. If I am straight lined on a call, I make the call based on what I see. If I missed it and the defense or offense wants me to go for help I will. This is no different than the play at first. Why don't we immediately go for help on any call that we think we might have missed some piece of information?

3. This is not the Plate Umpires primary responsibility. He is there only to help out. If there is a runner at 2nd he is to go to the holding zone and let the play develop. In the holding zone he is not going to have the best angle on the pulled foot. Maybe there is a runner at third and he is watching for obstruction on the third baseman. The PU has other responsibilities that take precedence over a secondary call.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rwest

Your point has some merit. Having said that I still don't use it. There are three reasons.

1. I don't like giving up my responsibilities to another umpire. Its not an ego thing, its a "do your job" thing. Now I know the counter argument is that its our job to make the correct call, why not get it right the first time. Well that leads me to my second point.

2. Consistent Philosophy. If I am straight lined on a call, I make the call based on what I see. If I missed it and the defense or offense wants me to go for help I will. This is no different than the play at first. Why don't we immediately go for help on any call that we think we might have missed some piece of information?

3. This is not the Plate Umpires primary responsibility. He is there only to help out. If there is a runner at 2nd he is to go to the holding zone and let the play develop. In the holding zone he is not going to have the best angle on the pulled foot. Maybe there is a runner at third and he is watching for obstruction on the third baseman. The PU has other responsibilities that take precedence over a secondary call.

+1

This, exactly.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

2. Consistent Philosophy. If I am straight lined on a call, I make the call based on what I see. If I missed it and the defense or offense wants me to go for help I will. This is no different than the play at first. Why don't we immediately go for help on any call that we think we might have missed some piece of information?

Then there is the don't call an out you don't see. Of course, we never "see" EVERY tag or foot, but there is that preponderance whatchamathingy Steve talked about.

Point is that the umpire needs to call what s/he sees. If you want, we can have a 3-page thread on "what ifs" that could demand a request for help on a ****load more calls than even remotely necessary.

3. This is not the Plate Umpires primary responsibility. He is there only to help out. If there is a runner at 2nd he is to go to the holding zone and let the play develop. In the holding zone he is not going to have the best angle on the pulled foot. Maybe there is a runner at third and he is watching for obstruction on the third baseman. The PU has other responsibilities that take precedence over a secondary call.

Yeppers, but think about it. Say the PU does see something with other runners on base. The defense and offense are not going to stop playing. And if they do, one team is justifiably going to be pretty upset when all is said and done.