A situation to defuse

[jmkupka]

R1 on 2nd, 2 outs, runner off with the pitch, grounder to F6, F3 catches ball with a pulled foot, my BU partner calls OUT (based on his angle).

R1 crossing home plate and defense leaving the field as 3B Coach is asking BU to come to me for help.

I tell him what I saw (pulled foot) and we put defense back to their positions.

DC wants R1 put back to 3B, as F3 had stopped playing upon the OUT call.

A HTBT situation for sure, but I'll try to remove one variable: In your judgement, R1 would have beaten any IMMEDIATE throw from F3 (I'm putting you in my place).

Should we have put R1 back to 3B? Would this be rewarding bad defense F3?
Were our mechanics correct, or should he have come to me for help before the out call?

[KJUmp]

What rule set?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 2nd, 2 outs, runner off with the pitch, grounder to F6, F3 catches ball with a pulled foot, my BU partner calls OUT (based on his angle).

R1 crossing home plate and defense leaving the field as 3B Coach is asking BU to come to me for help.

I tell him what I saw (pulled foot) and we put defense back to their positions.

DC wants R1 put back to 3B, as F3 had stopped playing upon the OUT call.

A HTBT situation for sure, but I'll try to remove one variable: In your judgement, R1 would have beaten any IMMEDIATE throw from F3 (I'm putting you in my place).

Should we have put R1 back to 3B? Would this be rewarding bad defense F3?
Were our mechanics correct, or should he have come to me for help before the out call?

Speaking ASA

If, IYJ, the runner would have scored regardless of the call at 1B, keep the run on the board. If not, put the runner back on 3B.

How is the BU supposed to come for help first for something s/he obviously hasn't seen?

Even if there was a question, the BU should call the play seen and then go for help if necessary.

[jmkupka]

Thanks Mike, & congrats on your dubious achievement of 12,000 posts (in case you didn't notice)...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Thanks Mike, & congrats on your dubious achievement of 12,000 posts (in case you didn't notice)...

I didn't, thanks for pointing out to everyone that I apparently don't have a life

[Andy]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Thanks Mike, & congrats on your dubious achievement of 12,000 posts (in case you didn't notice)...

...and that's only on this board.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

...and that's only on this board.....

Hey, you! Sit down!

[rwest]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

R1 on 2nd, 2 outs, runner off with the pitch, grounder to F6, F3 catches ball with a pulled foot, my BU partner calls OUT (based on his angle).

R1 crossing home plate and defense leaving the field as 3B Coach is asking BU to come to me for help.

I tell him what I saw (pulled foot) and we put defense back to their positions.

DC wants R1 put back to 3B, as F3 had stopped playing upon the OUT call.

A HTBT situation for sure, but I'll try to remove one variable: In your judgement, R1 would have beaten any IMMEDIATE throw from F3 (I'm putting you in my place).

Should we have put R1 back to 3B? Would this be rewarding bad defense F3?
Were our mechanics correct, or should he have come to me for help before the out call?

FED has a mechanic where you can go for help in this situation. However, I don't like that mechanic and I don't use it. I prefer to make the call and then go for help if asked. I agree with Mike on this. If you are certain the run would have scored, keep it on the books, if not put her back on 3rd.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by rwest

FED has a mechanic where you can go for help in this situation. However, I don't like that mechanic and I don't use it. I prefer to make the call and then go for help if asked. I agree with Mike on this. If you are certain the run would have scored, keep it on the books, if not put her back on 3rd.

From other discussions, and depending on who your UIC/clinician/NUS/guru is, there are no hard and fast rules that you may NOT ask for help immediately, or that you MUST go for help immediately without making a call. Seems the world is split, with valid arguments on both sides.

My personal preference, as has been stated before, is that BU has primary responsibility, PU secondary, and primary needs to make the call assigned by the manual. There can be any number of reasons why PU may not be able to assist; regardless, handing PU the call right off the bat may result in a "no call". So, make your call. Go for help if asked, go for help even without being asked if you truly suspect pulled foot and time is of the essence (like this particular play); I see that the same as asking for a checked swing appeal even if not asked, and immediately if D3k may put players in jeopardy.

Proponents of asking before a call suggest that would lor might fix the timing, but on this play (and I have been there, just not this time), where an immediate "safe" wouldn't have allowed the defense to make the play, then you now add the argument that all (umpires and players) were jeopardized by the distraction and extra step in getting ANY call, making the decision of timing more difficult to judge.

I really see almost no upside to asking first, rather than making the call and getting help (asked by teams, in most cases, or not, when judged necessary).

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

FED has a mechanic where you can go for help in this situation. However, I don't like that mechanic and I don't use it. I prefer to make the call and then go for help if asked. I agree with Mike on this. If you are certain the run would have scored, keep it on the books, if not put her back on 3rd.

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.

[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.