This was clunky...

[Chess Ref]

R1 on 3B. I'm in C slot.

Grounder to F5, on the throw I move in towards 1B, and have one of those "did she pull her foot" deals. I couldn't see the pulled foot , just noticed there was a giddup over there, so I came up with the out.

After about 10 seconds or so, the 1B coach, asked if I could go for help on the pulled foot. I did, partner had a pulled foot, ruled runner safe, and all hell broke loose.

The defensive team was still on the field making there way to their huddle outside the dugout. The runner was still standing on 1B.

Is there anything I could have done differently in this sitch to be more fluid ?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

R1 on 3B. I'm in C slot.

Grounder to F5, on the throw I move in towards 1B, and have one of those "did she pull her foot" deals. I couldn't see the pulled foot , just noticed there was a giddup over there, so I came up with the out.

After about 10 seconds or so, the 1B coach, asked if I could go for help on the pulled foot. I did, partner had a pulled foot, ruled runner safe, and all hell broke loose.

The defensive team was still on the field making there way to their huddle outside the dugout. The runner was still standing on 1B.

Is there anything I could have done differently in this sitch to be more fluid ?

I always recommend going for help first rather than cleaning up a $h!t storm afterward. Others disagree with that, but I have yet to hear a logical reason why. For 15 years + I have simply said, ", was her foot on?" Followed by saying "yes" or "no." Of all the stupid things that umpires call "preventative umpiring" that amount to nothing more than coaching, I don't understand why more umpires don't PREVENT themselves from getting into these situations. I am going to strive to prevent myself from getting into trouble before I prevent a team from doing something wrong.

Some people say, "Well, what if the plate umpire isn't looking?" That is a cop out BS answer. We shouldn't avoid using good mechanics because we have a partner with bad mechanics. If we work with a lousy umpire, do we no longer go for help on checked swings? Umpires need to pay attention and anticipate plays or the partners going for help. They should not anticipate calls; but they ought to be on guard and be prepared and alert to help when needed.

What are you going to do with the runner from 3rd base? Score her? Send her back? Did she just fade away and go to the dugout when you called the BR out? Sure, you need to employ the, "Umpires can put runners in jeopardy" theory, but why not avoid the jeopardy in the first place?

[shagpal]

Ask first if you have a pulled foot before making your call.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Ask first if you have a pulled foot before making your call.

NO, but immediately after, not waiting for the OC to "make the call".

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

NO, but immediately after, not waiting for the OC to "make the call".

Agree - always make your call first.

[shagpal]

Why make the call, then go for help unrequested?

You will be asking either way, but asking after suggests you are willing to make up calls before making the call.

Originally Posted by CecilOne

NO, but immediately after, not waiting for the OC to "make the call".

[EsqUmp]

There has to be a reason that this issue comes up on multiple forums multiple times a year. There is a common thread as well: The umpire didn't go for help right away. Usually, all $h!t breaks loose, even if the game ends all warm and fuzzy.

You know what you don't see? Umpires who go for help right away posting this issue.

This has nothing to do with appeasing coaches, because I appease them as much as I do clones on this forum. It has to do with getting the call right as quickly as possible and doing it on my own, not at the request of the coaches. One way to keep coaches in the dugout is to get calls correct. That's what I prefer to do.

I've always said to be prepared to help your partner out, but not to the detriment of your own calls. Here, we have a runner on 3rd. The plate umpire ought to move up the 3rd base line and keep on eye on the play, while checking for obstruction at 3rd base. That's not so difficult. If you can't do that with two eyes and a head that can rotate, you ought to quit officiating and perhaps see a doctor. The plate umpire's angle is going to be better than the base umpire's angle for at least 40 feet up the 3rd base line from home plate.

Proof, meet pudding.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

There has to be a reason that this issue comes up on multiple forums multiple times a year. There is a common thread as well: The umpire didn't go for help right away. Usually, all $h!t breaks loose, even if the game ends all warm and fuzzy.

You know what you don't see? Umpires who go for help right away posting this issue.

This has nothing to do with appeasing coaches, because I appease them as much as I do clones on this forum. It has to do with getting the call right as quickly as possible and doing it on my own, not at the request of the coaches. One way to keep coaches in the dugout is to get calls correct. That's what I prefer to do.

I've always said to be prepared to help your partner out, but not to the detriment of your own calls. Here, we have a runner on 3rd. The plate umpire ought to move up the 3rd base line and keep on eye on the play, while checking for obstruction at 3rd base. That's not so difficult. If you can't do that with two eyes and a head that can rotate, you ought to quit officiating and perhaps see a doctor. The plate umpire's angle is going to be better than the base umpire's angle for at least 40 feet up the 3rd base line from home plate.

Proof, meet pudding.

Proof? Are you one of these people who just keep on throwing shit while screaming "roses" hoping that eventually, everyone will believe it is roses?

Opinions are not evidence of proof, right Puddin'?

I disagree with your opinion based on my 46+ years of experience in multiple games at multiple levels. I have always made the call first, even in 1966 when I was doing baseball & have never had a problem. As I've said before, response of the teams is usually that of appreciation of at least checking. And that was probably quite a bit before ASA decided to take that stance, so this isn't a following the leader thing.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Why make the call, then go for help unrequested?

You will be asking either way, but asking after suggests you are willing to make up calls before making the call.

Because if you ask before, and remember, the PU is not your personal back-up, and s/he cannot provide help, you have no choice, but to rule the runner safe even though s/he may have been out by steps. If you didn't call the out, you obviously did not see anything to make you believe the runner out.

If you aren't going to make the call, why not just give up the call all together?

And, BTW, while you are checking with your partner on this, who is watching the other runners and defenders still playing the game? In my experience, the players and coaches want a call because they need it to do their job.

Other than those with the ancient baseball mentality who still believe that once an umpire makes a call, even God cannot change it, why would anyone have a problem in getting a ruling correct based on the facts and rule book? And I'm talking about umpires as much as coaches and players. Once knew an umpire who would turn back any game for which he was assigned a partner, actually two of them and both with the same reasoning. Neither wanted to have to worry about having a partner to which the teams could ask them to go to for help. Or as one idiot umpire put it, "I don't want anyone appealing my calls."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

R1 on 3B. I'm in C slot.

Grounder to F5, on the throw I move in towards 1B, and have one of those "did she pull her foot" deals. I couldn't see the pulled foot , just noticed there was a giddup over there, so I came up with the out.

After about 10 seconds or so, the 1B coach, asked if I could go for help on the pulled foot. I did, partner had a pulled foot, ruled runner safe, and all hell broke loose.

The defensive team was still on the field making there way to their huddle outside the dugout. The runner was still standing on 1B.

Is there anything I could have done differently in this sitch to be more fluid ?

You called what you saw, what more could be asked. You went for help when asked because you realized there was an element you believed you could have missed. When you received more information, you made the call correct.

I would not have done anything different.

[RKBUmp]

Any clinic I have ever attended has said make the call based on what you have, then go to your partner if there is a question. You cant always immediately go to your partner, if you have runners advancing at other bases and possible subsequent plays you have to make the call and sort it out later if there is a question.

[EsqUmp]

Well the proof is in the pudding, folks. When you make the call first, then reverse it, there are problems. Saying that you "did things as taught" doesn't make it right because it doesn't make the teaching right.

How can anyone logically argue that it is wiser to guess a call, hope it isn't argued, but if it is, go for help then? How can anyone further argue that doing that is better than simply doing something to get the call right in the first place?

Everything we do on the field is in an effort to get calls right. Why in this case do we change that?

"Well, you called what you saw so great job buckaroo!" BS - Not knowing what you saw is not calling what you saw. It's calling what you didn't see. In this case, an out is called despite not seeing the foot on the base.

I would implore people to forgot what they were taught initially. Just envision the play. Envision how it would LOGICALLY, not historically, best be handled. Come to a conclusion that creates the least controversy, doesn't look as if a coach is influencing an umpire, keeps the coaches in the dugout, gets the call right from the start and doesn't put players in jeopardy.

In what walk of life does it not make sense to use a source of information to check or confirm something, rather than screwing it up and trying to rectify it?

If you're not sure whether you have your house keys on you, do you conclude, "Yeah, I must have them," then lock the door behind you saying, "Well, if I don't, I can always call a lock smith?" Or is it more logical to just check from the start?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I have a question: If there is a Runner on 3B, doesn't PU have more important things that watching to see if F3 pulled his/her foot?

MTD, Sr.

[xtremeump]

What If, What If, What If ???? The BU has a much better angle on a pulled foot or a swipe tag from the POP than the PU in "C" position... BU a simple "IS HER FOOT ON" PU "YES" PU "OUT" ?????

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have a question: If there is a Runner on 3B, doesn't PU have more important things that watching to see if F3 pulled his/her foot?

MTD, Sr.

If you go before making the call and the PU cannot help, you must call the BR safe.

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Don't you usually suggest checking immediately, after making the call?

Nope, and you have never heard me say that.

If you check every call where you do not have 100% bit of information, you would have to go on half your calls from behind SS you would spend half the game talking to your partner. And as has been pointed out, the PU has other responsibilities that have a lot higher priority than a play at 1B.

You see it, you do your job and make the call. If there is a question based on a valid point, you can ask for help then.