Tenn v. Bama
 

Bases loaded. Fly ball about 5 feet onto the grass directly behind 2nd base. CF runs in, bobbles the ball and drops it. They pick the ball up and get the force on R1 going into 2nd base.

To my surprise, I see the 3rd base umpire making the call. 1BU went out on the ball; however, there was no where to go out to. She must have gone out to accept responsibility for the call. Now the 3BU has to fly over to 2nd for the call.

It's rather shocking to me that the NCAA hasn't gone to shared responsibility on catch/no catch regardless of whether the umpire goes out.

Common sense umpiring would mean that 1BU turn to her right, signal "no catch" and then take the play into 2nd base. Why aren't umpires allowed to walk and chew gum at the same time?

When I first got into umpiring, our state mechanics used shared responsibility. It seemed to be logical and as a brand new umpire, I had no trouble using these mechanics. 15 years later, the mechanic is the same for my state and 2500 umpire use it without a problem.

Anyone who believes that there is a close correlation between proximity to the play and correctness of the call has to see the logic behind shared responsibility, without then wasting the umpire.

Maybe they pregamed that.

Where would U3 have been positioned with R1 on 1st?

That wasn't the situation, so I'm not sure why it matters.

If it was only R1 on 1st base at TOP, then 3BU would have been near 2nd base.

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

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.

That was my point, sorry for the misread. :o :(

OK, I was going by the "pick the ball up and get the force on R1 going into 2nd base."

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.

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.

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 :)

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?

It was your terminology that caused his misread. If R1 is on first, bases can't be loaded, can they? :)

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.

In FED mechanics, no. But is that the same convention that NCAA uses? I don't have a CCA Manual handy, but perhaps they use R1 for "Runner at first", R2 for "Runner at second", etc.

They do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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%?

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.

Many of the Fed umpires around here also do baseball.
In that game, from A, they chase. We've not gotten into chasing from other starting positions. I've done so much prodding at our high school meetings over the past several years that some are now starting to chase from A in softball. I've harped on using the same chase criteria:
a ball to the wall
a ball on the line
a fielder charging in
a fielder charging out
multiple fielders coming together

As we move into 4-man games (no 3-man) high school games here, umpires are more prepared to chase - recognizing trouble balls.

It is absurd because it is not necessary. I've seen umpires "go out" on a ball caught by an infielder that had time to camp simply because they were instructed to go out on any ball not in front of you. Same thing with a line drive leaving the IF at head level. I know where the outfielders are and if they are not going to be in a position to even come close to catching the ball. Why should I pivot, watch the ball hop three times and then have the OF pick it up and throw it in?

A good umpire knows how to handle this. There are UICs that don't trust all their umpires and will give a blanket command that, IMO, at a game at the national level, should never be necessary.

Same here
 

In our area, not counting the DI umps, we all work 2 man.

The sectional championship games are 3 man system.

So the vast majority of us have very minimal experience in 3 man.

We go out on all fly balls. Sometimes it looks silly, but it works, so we continue doing it.

Well, that's a bit different. I, too, agree that a base umpire has no business chasing under those circumstances.

I was really talking of those catchable fly balls where the umpires may not be that adept at judging if it's going to be trouble or not since, as others have said, they just haven't worked as 3- or 4-man crews for a while. By always chasing, the umpire should be moving right away. If you leave it up to him/her to decide when to/not to chase, the umpire may hesitate while trying to gauge if he/she should go or come into the diamond. And that hesitation suddenly puts him/her out of position to either make a call on the ball, or make a call on a runner in his/her area or responsibility. So he/she is moving instead of being set when the play happens.

At the national level, yeah, you may be blessed with good umpires. But in ASA and NFHS games at the local or even regional/state level, the UIC may not know the abilities of all the umpires he/she is working with. A blanket command is probably a safer bet.

How about the 7th inning ball U1 chased in the Texas-ASU game - she moved out, got a worse angle, and possibly incorrectly called a fair ball foul, all while PU had a better angle by far on that, and the 3 steps out she took didn't help at all regarding the catch/no catch on a can of corn (that was dropped).

I really don't know if you call it "going out" or "going away" on this play. I have no idea why an umpire wouldn't start on the line (with the ball near it) and "follow" the player away from the line, if necessary.