Tenn v. Bama

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Maybe they pregamed that.

I wouldn't recommend pregaming that a base umpire goes out on what amounts to an infield hit.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I believe bases were loaded at the time, so the third base umpire started off the 3rd base line.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I believe bases were loaded at the time, so the third base umpire started off the 3rd base line.

He started on the 3rd base line.

[shagpal]

I have had partners tell me they might only turn to make that call, and perhaps hold up a hand to indicate they are staying in. Not "pivot" in the college sense, but simply opening up, making the call, then turning back in.

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I wouldn't recommend pregaming that a base umpire goes out on what amounts to an infield hit.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I wouldn't recommend pregaming that a base umpire goes out on what amounts to an infield hit.

Sometimes a "pre-game" isn't so much between partners as it is a "from-me-to-you" from a UIC or other umpire supervisor.

Don't like it and have never done it, but know of UICs that instruct (not optional) BU to "go out on everything that is not in front of you". I think it is absolutely absurd, but it happens with some UICs of any type of softball game.

[Andy]

I would think that on a fly ball that shallow, with F8 charging in with the possibility of a shoestring catch, you would want an umpire chasing to get a good angle on that.

I don't work a lot of 3 umpire in the NCAA system, but I do know that the philosophy is to chase on "trouble" balls...and this meets that criteria from the initial description.

If I was U3 in this situation, I would expect my U1 partner to be chasing and I would have any calls at first or second.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

I would think that on a fly ball that shallow, with F8 charging in with the possibility of a shoestring catch, you would want an umpire chasing to get a good angle on that.

I don't work a lot of 3 umpire in the NCAA system, but I do know that the philosophy is to chase on "trouble" balls...and this meets that criteria from the initial description.

If I was U3 in this situation, I would expect my U1 partner to be chasing and I would have any calls at first or second.

That's because it only takes someone as big as you three steps to get into position

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

I would think that on a fly ball that shallow, with F8 charging in with the possibility of a shoestring catch, you would want an umpire chasing to get a good angle on that.

I don't work a lot of 3 umpire in the NCAA system, but I do know that the philosophy is to chase on "trouble" balls...and this meets that criteria from the initial description.

If I was U3 in this situation, I would expect my U1 partner to be chasing and I would have any calls at first or second.

What is often lost in the entire "chase" theory in softball is the fact that quite often, the umpire can't get more than two or three steps before the ball gets to the defender. As a result, far too many umpires are moving when the ball arrives, rather than stopping, getting set and focusing. In that case, the umpire is better off not going at all.

While there are some occasions where going out is helpful, all too often the resulting position isn't much better, if at all, than the original position. Another problem is that umpires "chase" fly balls. This is a horrible term as it implies that the umpire should, wait for it...chase the ball. That is far from the truth. The umpire should run to get as close to a 90 degree angle looking into the ball.

Consider this: A baseball umpire's starting position is approximately 115 feet from home plate. From his original position, the foul pole can be another 190 feet away. In softball, the foul pole is 190 from home plate. So a baseball umpire's original starting position is the same distance as the plate umpire's position in softball. Somehow the baseball umpire's get most correct and look at the difference in distance, plus the added difficultly because of the smaller ball.

In the play I brought up, the 1BU couldn't possibly gain an advantage by "going out." The most she could have taken was a step and she would have gotten the 90 degree angle. In all reality, if the 2nd baseman had been playing back and actually made a play on the ball, this could have been (though it ultimately wasn't) a potential infield fly. I tend not to go out on infield flies.

My primary point, however, is that if NCAA would simply let the base umpire have catch/no catch responsibility WITHOUT having to commit to going out, they would make must greater use of all umpires.

Here's another example: No runners on. Low liner to the right fielder. NCAA would have the base umpire go out and then have the plate umpire take the play on BR at 1st base. Reality: 1BU can't take but two steps before having to get set. Getting 6 feet closer does virtually nothing to help get the call right. Why not have 1BU turn, signal fair/foul & catch/no catch, then turn back and make the call at 1st base?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

What is often lost in the entire "chase" theory in softball is the fact that quite often, the umpire can't get more than two or three steps before the ball gets to the defender. As a result, far too many umpires are moving when the ball arrives, rather than stopping, getting set and focusing. In that case, the umpire is better off not going at all.

While there are some occasions where going out is helpful, all too often the resulting position isn't much better, if at all, than the original position. Another problem is that umpires "chase" fly balls. This is a horrible term as it implies that the umpire should, wait for it...chase the ball. That is far from the truth. The umpire should run to get as close to a 90 degree angle looking into the ball.

Consider this: A baseball umpire's starting position is approximately 115 feet from home plate. From his original position, the foul pole can be another 190 feet away. In softball, the foul pole is 190 from home plate. So a baseball umpire's original starting position is the same distance as the plate umpire's position in softball. Somehow the baseball umpire's get most correct and look at the difference in distance, plus the added difficultly because of the smaller ball.

In the play I brought up, the 1BU couldn't possibly gain an advantage by "going out." The most she could have taken was a step and she would have gotten the 90 degree angle. In all reality, if the 2nd baseman had been playing back and actually made a play on the ball, this could have been (though it ultimately wasn't) a potential infield fly. I tend not to go out on infield flies.

My primary point, however, is that if NCAA would simply let the base umpire have catch/no catch responsibility WITHOUT having to commit to going out, they would make must greater use of all umpires.

Here's another example: No runners on. Low liner to the right fielder. NCAA would have the base umpire go out and then have the plate umpire take the play on BR at 1st base. Reality: 1BU can't take but two steps before having to get set. Getting 6 feet closer does virtually nothing to help get the call right. Why not have 1BU turn, signal fair/foul & catch/no catch, then turn back and make the call at 1st base?

I disagree for a couple of reasons. First...one or two steps often does provide a better angle or view in most situations. Of course, there will always be exceptions and perhaps your play is one of them.

I also don't like the idea of "shared responsibilities" as you call them. I believe it can lead to too much confusion between the crew as to who is going to take what call in what situation, and what happens if the two umpires that are "sharing" responsibilities come up with two different calls on the same play? The other issue I have is how to read that your partner is going to turn to take an outfield call, then come back in to make an infield call...I worked with a guy in a two umpire system game this past year that would do this on any ball to right field when he was on the line. He would turn and even take a step or two, which I read as chasing the ball, then he would come back in to pick up runners. We even had a double call at first on one play, fortunately, we both had the same call. For umpires that work together infrequently, even those at a very high level, I just think this could cause more problems than it solves.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

I also don't like the idea of "shared responsibilities" as you call them. I believe it can lead to too much confusion between the crew as to who is going to take what call in what situation, and what happens if the two umpires that are "sharing" responsibilities come up with two different calls on the same play? The other issue I have is how to read that your partner is going to turn to take an outfield call, then come back in to make an infield call...

Allow me to clarify what I mean by shared responsibility. It isn't that both officials have the right to call in the same zone. It is that the field is divided so that the umpires have different areas to cover. For instance, with no runners on base in the two umpire system, the base umpire would have from the center fielder to the right field fence. The plate umpire would have from left of center field to the left field fence. In other words, the coverage is the same as if the umpire went out. The difference is, the umpire wouldn't have to go out to be responsible for the call. That isn't to say that the umpire shouldn't go out if it were necessary.

With respect to not knowing whether your partner goes out, your partner simply has to put his hand out like a traffic cop to let you know you don't have to come up the line for the call. I've heard every argument there is about this, but those who try it find that it works great and the umpire who's in a better position to make the call doesn't have to decide whether to give up on the infield just to assume responsibility for the call.

[chapmaja]

The Michigan-ULL game had a similar fly ball caught, not caught issue. I don't remember if it was game two or three. Michigan's batter hit a fly ball to CF that had a diving attempt made on. It was very clear watching on TV that the ball dropped in for a base hit. The umpire (I'm not sure which one), made an out call on the play, which was obviously not correct. The ball bounced up under the CF's chin, until she picked it up and threw in.

The umpires got together, and made the correct call on the play.

I thought it was the 3b umpire that made the reversal call on the play.

My potential issue with this entire sequence. This was a ball hit toward Left Center field, with the CF coming in at an angle. The way the CF dove, the plate umpires view might have been blocked, but the 3b umpire should have had a decent view (assuming he started near the 3b line, which I don't recall because I wasn't watching them closely).

Assuming this was a missed call by the plate umpire, wouldn't the plate umpire be the one to change his call after consulting with the other umpires? I have always been under the impression, that when umpires get together to talk about a call, the original calling umpire makes the final call, using the information gained from the other umpires as needed.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't like it and have never done it, but know of UICs that instruct (not optional) BU to "go out on everything that is not in front of you". I think it is absolutely absurd, but it happens with some UICs of any type of softball game.

Why do you consider it absurd?

Here's why I prefer to chase everything: It establishes a routine. Any fly ball that goes out, I know I need to make the call. If I don't make it a habit, that's when I go in and make my PU partner call a trouble ball that I really should have taken responsibility for.

Yes, I know all about Pause, Read, and React. But let's face it, even the best umpires sometimes React before they Pause and Read (how often have we seen MLB umpires make the dreaded "OUT...NO, SAFE!" call?) Stuff happens.

I've also heard the arguments that it makes zero sense to chase cans of corn. Perhaps. But those cans of corn can quickly turn to crap when the fielder suddenly raises his/her arms because he/she lost the ball in the sun, or he/she simply initially muffs it, and he/she adjusts at the last second to turn the ordinary into extraordinary. Ya just never know.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I've also heard the arguments that it makes zero sense to chase cans of corn. Perhaps. But those cans of corn can quickly turn to crap when the fielder suddenly raises his/her arms because he/she lost the ball in the sun, or he/she simply initially muffs it, and he/she adjusts at the last second to turn the ordinary into extraordinary. Ya just never know.

Fair enough, but consider this.

Is 1 umpire covering 4 bases better or worse than 2?
Are 2 umpires covering 4 bases better or worse than 3?

Depending on whether you started with 2 or 3 umpires - every time you go out on a can of corn, you've diminished your crew for the rest of that play.

So ask yourself ... what is the percentage of those cans of corn that you're going out on that turn into "something extraordinary"? 1%? Probably less if you're honest. The question then becomes - is it worth diminishing your crew 99% of the time so that you can briefly have better coverage on the 1%?

[Andy]

I am an advocate of chasing all fly balls in three umpire in ASA and HS play where the umpires are not accustomed to working in a three umpire system on a regular basis.

For umpires at the NCAA level who work 30-40 games a year in the 3 umpire system, only chasing trouble balls makes sense due to the fact that they have more experience in reading the hit and making a quicker decision to chase or not.

Yes, it is better to have three umpires covering 4 bases, but umpires frozen because of hesitation on a fly ball don't do any good either. Since most umpires are more instinctual in the two umpire system, chasing every fly ball is a better option. JMHO....

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Andy

I am an advocate of chasing all fly balls in three umpire in ASA and HS play where the umpires are not accustomed to working in a three umpire system on a regular basis.

For umpires at the NCAA level who work 30-40 games a year in the 3 umpire system, only chasing trouble balls makes sense due to the fact that they have more experience in reading the hit and making a quicker decision to chase or not.

Yes, it is better to have three umpires covering 4 bases, but umpires frozen because of hesitation on a fly ball don't do any good either. Since most umpires are more instinctual in the two umpire system, chasing every fly ball is a better option. JMHO....

You just saved me a heap o' typing. I was thinking these same thoughts as I read along.