Tenn v. Bama

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

I didn't see the play you refer to. But one thing that bugs me (and a lot of umpires) is that from 8U to 18U Gold, from JH to Varsity, from NAIA to Div2, from MiLB Rookie to MiLB AAA - both softball and baseball, we are all taught the protocol for changing a call on the field, and it is exactly as you describe.

Yet they throw out that training at the highest collegiate level and highest professional level - so people who know no better think that umpires over-ruling other umpires is the norm - because they see it on TV. You are exactly right about how this SHOULD be handled - and if everything you said in your post happened as you said it, those umpires did all of the rest of us a disservice.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I didn't see the play you refer to. But one thing that bugs me (and a lot of umpires) is that from 8U to 18U Gold, from JH to Varsity, from NAIA to Div2, from MiLB Rookie to MiLB AAA - both softball and baseball, we are all taught the protocol for changing a call on the field, and it is exactly as you describe.

Yet they throw out that training at the highest collegiate level and highest professional level - so people who know no better think that umpires over-ruling other umpires is the norm - because they see it on TV. You are exactly right about how this SHOULD be handled - and if everything you said in your post happened as you said it, those umpires did all of the rest of us a disservice.

As far as I can tell, it was never clear which umpire made the erroneous out cal in the first place. I did not see the play, either, but from the description and depending on the placement of runners, it is entirely possible that U3 chased on this call, made the out call based on what he saw, then got the crew together, got more information and reversed his own call. Which would be the correct procedure.

Basically what Steve said.....

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by 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.

Given that you didn't see where U3 came from, nor did you indicate what runners may have been on base; and since you appear to be relying on what the announcers were saying ....

My suspicion is that U3 made the call because it was U3's call all along; everyone else was focused on something/someone OTHER than U3. If a double call because PU didn't read U3, it is still U3's call.