This was clunky...

[MD Longhorn]

I think that some posters have posted good advice and correct rulings for long enough that when they post one can feel confident they are giving good advice.

And I think the opposite is true as well. I just hope the newbies and lurkers can tell the difference. The endless supply of completely and utterly incorrect advice from a couple of posters is becoming tiresome.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think that some posters have posted good advice and correct rulings for long enough that when they post one can feel confident they are giving good advice.

And I think the opposite is true as well. I just hope the newbies and lurkers can tell the difference. The endless supply of completely and utterly incorrect advice from a couple of posters is becoming tiresome.

Fair point.

I'm just not a proponent of the practice of 'sham' conferences with my partner(s) just to appease a coach who disagrees with a call.

And yes, it's especially important that the newbies here when and how to properly go to your partner for help.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I just hope the newbies and lurkers can tell the difference.

This room ain't that hard to read.

[EsqUmp]

Actually, NCAA says to go for help first; not blow the call and try to straighten things out later on.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Actually, NCAA says to go for help first; not blow the call and try to straighten things out later on.

Probably where my earlier confusion came from.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Actually, NCAA says to go for help first; not blow the call and try to straighten things out later on.

Is that how you interpret page 33 of the 2013 manual?

[shagpal]

Yes. Attend any NCAA camp, that is exactly how it is interpreted.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Is that how you interpret page 33 of the 2013 manual?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Yes. Attend any NCAA camp, that is exactly how it is interpreted.

I have, and let's just say that it was never discussed.

Mostly, this play, in an of itself, is a very, very very very low chance possibility in the eyes of the manual. The manual is designed for 3 umpire system (even removing the two umpire mechanics in 2013), and a base umpire will never be in this situation.

I actually had another point about this. In a former version of the manual (2012 and prior), it did allow an umpire can go for help on his or her own, however, you do this at the conclusion of the play (or you kill the play).

[shagpal]

This exact play has been discussed over and over, and beaten to death.

On a simple call, like a swipe tag or a pulled foot, do not wait. Go immediately and directly to your partner openly and ask aloud yes or no, and by openly, I mean out in the open, no conference, no calling dead ball to get help. Then make the call, and the coach cannot come out to ask you to ask for help, because you already did, just like on a check swing. One caveat, word the question so that if your partner cannot help or is blocked, he will default to answer NO.

If your partner cannot help, he simply answers no, and end of story.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I have, and let's just say that it was never discussed.

Mostly, this play, in an of itself, is a very, very very very low chance possibility in the eyes of the manual. The manual is designed for 3 umpire system (even removing the two umpire mechanics in 2013), and a base umpire will never be in this situation.

I actually had another point about this. In a former version of the manual (2012 and prior), it did allow an umpire can go for help on his or her own, however, you do this at the conclusion of the play (or you kill the play).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by shagpal

Yes. Attend any NCAA camp, that is exactly how it is interpreted.

Sorry, no. There isn't universal acceptance of that method, even among the SUP and recent D1 WCWS umpires. If there was, it would be clearly stated, in the manual, or in a written directive on the Central Hub. And the cited paragraph wouldn't include the caveat that the partner be in a credible position if it were universal.

I listened just this week to open give-and-take (off the record, at a sports bar, with adult beverages) supporting both positions between a current SUP member, a former SUP member (mentioned earlier in this thread), several multi-year (and including the most recent years) WCWS umpires, a D1 coordinator, and other highly regarded clinicians in several conversations. Better than a camp, IMO; this was the camp evaluators interacting as equals, and obviously disagreeing on a tricky topic.

There was no consensus that I heard, other than both positions have merit, in some cases, (agreed) one may have more merit than the other most often, but neither is totally best all the time. The personal opinions and preferences indicated were strongly stated on both sides; and some had obviously mixed feelings. If there is to be a final word, that individual wasn't present this year. I suspect there will NOT be a written directive for one or the other; rather, the continued expectation and option that thinking umpires will use what works best in a specific situation.

Again, and as most often is the case, ASA does NOT want adapted situational mechanics, and will continue to direct the preference of the current Director and Supervisor of Umpires as the one way to handle going for help.

Frankly, I find it absurd that a discussion of alternate mechanics that aren't anywhere near as absolute as one/some might suggest would degrade to this level of insult and personal disrespect. Thanks for suggesting your preferences and supporting your reasoning; let's leave it there, please.

[shagpal]

Thank you Emily.

This is for BU in the C, two-man, for simple plays, a pulled foot, or straightlined swipe tag clearly before reaching first, Not for situations that are complex and require more than yes no reply, which requires a conference.

Its not for all plays.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sorry, no. There isn't universal acceptance of that method, even among the SUP and recent D1 WCWS umpires. If there was, it would be clearly stated, in the manual, or in a written directive on the Central Hub. And the cited paragraph wouldn't include the caveat that the partner be in a credible position if it were universal.

I listened just this week to open give-and-take (off the record, at a sports bar, with adult beverages) supporting both positions between a current SUP member, a former SUP member (mentioned earlier in this thread), several multi-year (and including the most recent years) WCWS umpires, a D1 coordinator, and other highly regarded clinicians in several conversations. Better than a camp, IMO; this was the camp evaluators interacting as equals, and obviously disagreeing on a tricky topic.

There was no consensus that I heard, other than both positions have merit, in some cases, (agreed) one may have more merit than the other most often, but neither is totally best all the time. The personal opinions and preferences indicated were strongly stated on both sides; and some had obviously mixed feelings. If there is to be a final word, that individual wasn't present this year. I suspect there will NOT be a written directive for one or the other; rather, the continued expectation and option that thinking umpires will use what works best in a specific situation.

Again, and as most often is the case, ASA does NOT want adapted situational mechanics, and will continue to direct the preference of the current Director and Supervisor of Umpires as the one way to handle going for help.

Frankly, I find it absurd that a discussion of alternate mechanics that aren't anywhere near as absolute as one/some might suggest would degrade to this level of insult and personal disrespect. Thanks for suggesting your preferences and supporting your reasoning; let's leave it there, please.