This was clunky...
 

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, "<Partner>, was her foot on?" Followed by <partner> 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?

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".

Agree - always make your call first.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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" ?????

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

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.

Everything I have ever been told is that you make the call the way you see it, then if needed go for help from your partner. Sometimes you can immediately go for help on the call, and sometimes you need to wait until all playing action is completed. If you have any question on the call I do suggest going for help with the call at your earliest opportunity rather than wait for the coach to start arguing the call and then go for help. If you don't have any question about a call but the coach insists you go for help you can always got for help and quietly tell your partner you were 100% sure of the call and won't change it. This will appease the coach a little, while at the same time allow you and your partner to look like you are working together.

I always believe it is best to get together to make a call and make sure it is correct rather than blow a call.

Have never had a problem, whether on the local field or ASA HOF Stadium or Plant City Stadium when the need arised to ask for help and possibly correct a call. Never anything other than a note of appreciation for checking even from the folks who didn't get what they want. Don't know why you seem to have a problem.

You may guess, a good umpire will make a decision based on all the information available to them at the time.

You may change it, I don't. I strive to get the call right every time.

Speaking of bullshit. So, you are telling me that if you hear F3 slap a BR on the back, you know, the side you cannot see from your position, you are not going to make a call because you did not SEE the tag?

So you officiate a game in a manner to placate the coaches and avoid controversy?

Ever have a gun pointed at you in an attempted armed robbery? Do you wait to hear the round leave the barrel to confirm the shot before you react? I've known people who have hesitated on the job or didn't get the chance. They are in the ground.

Wow, you are really stretching, but let's play the game. Here's a thought, don't lock the door. If someone wants to get in, the lock isn't going to stop them and the attempt to deter them will only instigate the cause of damage to the house that can be expensive, but not enough to make it worth filing a claim.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Watch out, next thing you know someone will be calling you a clone! ;):D

I hope so! :cool:

Interesting, since the approved mechanic in baseball (at least it was in the years I actively umpired the game, which was from 1997 until 2011) is to request help first if--and only if--you feel there is something you didn't see. For example, the throw is slightly off line causing the first baseman to make a long stretch, or the first baseman has to make a swipe tag. On routine plays where the first baseman should have been able to easily stay on the bag, there is no need to get help before making the call.

And because that's the case in baseball, PUs always look to provide help in those cases. Any umpire worth his/her salt will watch that play at first, even when he/she has other base running responsibilities, such as a runner rounding third. Yes, a touch of third is his/her first priority, but chances that the runner will hit third at the precise moment that the play takes place at first are slim. So he/she should be able to handle both requirements. And if he/she can't, that's just the nature of the two-man beast.

So I believe that's the primary reason why this comes up so often. Many umpires have worked both baseball and softball, and the mechanic for this particular situation is 180 out, at least in my experience after having attended many baseball clinics in the past.

Mechanics that might work on a 90 foot diamond are not always useful on a 60 foot diamond. When it takes 12-15 steps for a runner to get from one base to another, there's a greater likelihood that said runner will not be at or near a base when the action happens at first base. With 8-10 steps, coincidental action is far more likely.

As PU, YES, you want to see the play at first base if possible, but not to the detriment of seeing your primary responsibilities.

Also ... ASA and NFHS both train BU to make the call, and go for help WHEN REQUESTED. If you're the guy who makes no call, asks for help, and then makes a call --- you're the guy that caused the S-Storm in the OP when he did it correctly, and coaches are expecting incorrect mechanics because the coach saw you do it your way.

So Irish you say in the bottom of the 7the inning of a FP game 2 outs home team down by one run. R1 on 3B, BR hits to F6 and the BU in C position with a possible
Pulled foot or swipe tag. Make the call, croud goes crazy, the home team throws there gloves up and starts to celebrate !!!!! Now the 1B coach asks you to ask for help and all of your posts you say you should go for help at that time. PU says she pulled her foot, I have live ball R1 scores From 3B to tie the game and the alert BR/R2 runs all the way home to win the game. I am just asking you is this the way you teach with 46 years of experience ? This year I am close to 100 games and I had to ask once and we got the call right.

If you've umpired as much as you claim, surely you're aware that we are responsible for placing runners in the event a changed (or erroneous) call places one team or the other at a disadvantage. BR stays at first.

No way in hell would the BR be allowed to score in this situation.

I can see both sides of this issue.

When I was starting out, I was trained under EA, who at that time advocated asking first before making the call. It was also being trained that the PU should be ready to help on the pulled foot, swipe tag, etc., in addition to other responsibilities.

I've since come to realize that there are instances where the PU may not be able to help due to other priorities with lead runners. I now adhere to the training of make the best call you can with the information you have, then go for help if necessary or requested. By waiting, you can kill the play, confer with partner(s), and make the call. Most of the time, going for help immediately before making the call will work, but making the call, then going for help, will work every time.

If the bolded part is true.....the advice that followed is the absolute wrong thing to do.

If you have no question about the call you simply quietly, calmly, confidently, tell the the coach that you saw all the elements of the play that you needed to see to make the call.

It's one of the reasons that proper timing is so important to not only getting calls correct but also 'selling' the fact that you did.

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.

Different but Related Scenario
 

Is that also what is taught on a wild pitch/passed ball with two strikes where the PU feels the batter checked his/her swing, and the uncaught third strike situation is in play? Does the PU not go for help until it is requested?

If so, that's another mechanic that is different in baseball. When that happens in baseball, the PU goes to his/her partner immediately for a checked swing ruling, even if the defense doesn't initially ask.

There is no requirement that the PU wait to be asked to go for help on a checked swing. The PU can initiate a request on his/her own.

I have been taught and I teach that with a check swing not initially called a strike and U3K situation, go for help immediately, don't wait to be asked.

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.

This room ain't that hard to read.

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

Learn to read. I'm not talking about opinions expressed when the question is raised whether to ask first and try to sort out the shit storm later. The point I raised is that multiple people bring this up every year. And the people who bring it up are always those who didn't think things went as smoothly as they could have and are seeking opinions and advise.

It looks like the clones (not referring to anyone in particular so please safe your demerits) are demonstrating their vulnerability here.

There are umpires from all walks of life disagreeing with them and no despite the number of valid points brought up, they reject them all.

Considering not all associations even agree on the issue, it makes the "It's ASA's way or the highway" argument even weaker.

Nah, it would make so much more sense to wait a while, let R3 from third score the tieing run while the BR does go because she only heard "ball." Wait a few more seconds, then ask for help, get the ol' yes she swung, as the catcher tags her out.

Sorry coach, line 'em up.

Wouldn't that make so much more sense? Just ask a clone!

That's what I would do as well. But is that the ASA "approved solution"? Or do they teach the PU has to wait until someone requests that he/she go to his/her partner first?

There should be some consistency here. Either we always make the call first, or we always leave the door open to ask for help before making that call if need be. We subject ourselves to criticism if we can go for help without being asked on the checked swing, but we don't go for help without being asked on a potential pulled foot/swipe tag.

But that's just my opinion. When in Rome...

Probably where my earlier confusion came from. :rolleyes:

Except that's not the teaching at the clone schools I've been to. On a D3K check swing, PU should ask for help immediately ... for exactly the reason that you would think they should.

1) So what? We subject ourselves to criticism when we walk on the field. If we are umpiring to avoid controversy, we are not umpiring.
2) No we don't. Two completely different situations; two completely different reasons for the mechanic.

I hoped he was being facetious. :rolleyes:

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

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).

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.

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.

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.