Coming from you, this carries quite a bit of weight ... but I have to add that we've been told more than once, at multiple levels, that umpires should act to rectify protestable situations before they arise. The example(s) I've brought up in this thread is usually the example given when this is discussed. A partner incorrectly calls a batter out in IFF with 2 outs (or with runners not on at least 1st and 2nd) - you don't wait for the coach to come out and argue, you fix it. Less often, the other example I mentioned - awarding of bases from TOT instead of TOP (or vice versa) should be fixed without waiting for a coach.

If this is not what ASA wants - it needs to be better deseminated through the clinic process.

Steve, NCAA 15.9.2 does specifically mention that the "seek to reverse" prohibition applies to judgment decisions. The rulebook does not make mention if the same is true on a rule application. Perhaps that is covered in the CCA manual, I don't know.

Like Mike, I, too, have been told in clinics that I should have corrected a partner's erroneous rule application. I had a situation (in a FED game, not an ASA game) where F7 was running toward the foul line to catch a fly ball, and the ball deflected off her foot and went 90-degrees towards and over a DBT line (no fence). My PU partner awarded the batter third base on the play, informing the defensive coach that the award was two bases from when the ball hit the fielder's foot, and that the BR was past first base when that happened. The rule on a deflected batted ball is two bases from the pitch, so she should have only been awarded second, and I was told by clinic staff later when I described the play that I should have made the correction.

I only reply, because the question keeps getting asked as if challenging me to answer directly.

It depends on how it happens. In a few cases, I may be able to make a subtle indication (like maybe placing enters on the wrong base on a ball out of play our an interference call), but as rule, no, I would not correct my partner.
Isn't it a coaches job to question the call if he believes it is an improper application of rules?
If that happens and my partner wants to discuss it with me, I'll be happy to tell him what I know.
The last thing I want to do is get into a posting contest with my partner.

Had this a few months ago when we had a ball hit a stationary discarded bat on fair territory and she killed the ball and called the batter/ runner out.
Coach questioned her and she did call us in for a conference.
Her judgement was that the ball hit the bat, so we had to inform her that it should not have been a dead ball and the batter was not out.
Defense was not happy, but.....

OK, let me restate.

In the video that started this routine (note: I only watched the abbreviated version), the offensive coaches appeared to walk off with no comment. There is no way the PU should initiate this conversation unasked, unchallenged; I don't care if ASA, NCAA or NFHS. In NCAA, refer to "crewness", if nothing else. He kicked the rule, move on and discuss later. Nothing tells us to jump in unasked; plenty tells us not to.

Now, if the offended coach challenges, steer him to the calling official. We are taught to linger in the vicinity anyway; if needed (and if calling official is hesitant or bolluxing a response), be obviously available to your partner as a resource. Baseball suggests a look, or a signal, that you have something pertinent to add; valid here, maybe, but still following the "stay out unless asked" rule. If partner is handling professionally, even if wrong, stay out of it.

Avoiding a protestable situation means not letting it get to the "I protest" stage, it doesn't mean insinuating yourself into your partner's decision unasked. The coaches have a purpose; it isn't sniping about every pitch, but they sure as he!! need to know when to insist on an explanation, and a crew discussion, or else filing a protest. If the coach does his job, we have our crew discussion in live time; if he (coach) accepts the (wrong) ruling, we go on and address later.

If any clinician suggested you step in unasked, I would question the credentials of that person; it simply cannot happen like that.

You mean the PU shouldn't be running out to the BU telling him he screwed up? ;)

I couldn't agree more with Steve here. How many times over the years have we discussed Ol' Smitty or "the guy last night" which "sold" and inaccurate rule interpretation? How many times have we had folks on this and other boards openly state that the next time another umpire jumps in on a call/ruling uninvited, it would be the last time that person would work with them?

How many of us have had an opinion differing from that of the umpire who made the call and interjected themselves (Tom, that's for you) into the play uninvited? How many have found a way to get ones partner's attention in an effort to have a discussion prior to a final ruling? If they do, fine. If they don't, we will discuss it later.

Even when teaching a rookie umpire, I will let them make the call. I will also pre-game with them that if they see me pointing to myself and they are being questioned by the coach, I have input available. I do this as a matter of maintaining protocol on the field so teams don't see anything different than from a regular game. How many times have we been victims of what the "other guy" did in the game last night or last weekend's tournaments?

Fair enough, and noted...

Now... how to bring this up when they contradict it in the next wave of clinics! :)

but is it OK to gawk? simply agreeing per rule doesn't mean we do so just in fact, but also appearance. as umpires, does that mean we now gotta be thespians? well, are we not in a sense?

when you click a ball when you partner calls a strike, then you quickly flip your indicator wheels to correct, you don't think that base coach can hear and figure what you are thinking? you partner bangs a call, and you stare incredulously at the play. you mitght as well have said "WTF" out loud.

the partner that interjects openly is telling everyone what he is. the one that conveys nonverbally, that is the dangerous one. that is the one is critical of your zone on every pitch. that is the one evaluating your every call and movement. that is the one crying out that he thinks he is the better umpire.

to conform in fact is required. but to do so jn appearance is what separates the "me" umpire from the "we" umpire.

so, which one are you?

;)

Although, you should have typed "ourselves" rather than "themselves". :)

I started out as a baseball-only umpire, and that's how we were taught "over there". No matter how egregious the mistake, we were not to interject ourselves at all until the umpire who made the call asks for help.

It wasn't until I came over to the softball side where I was getting instruction that we could "help" our partner out without his/her request. Not so much to just jump in and say, "NO! NO! You got that wrong!" but to come in and provide assistance when a coach complains about the call even when the partner doesn't ask for help. I thought it was just one of those softball things. :p

I'll be more than happy to revert back to the way I was originally taught.

Cite the same thing Steve has, 10.3.B (ASA) and ask the clinician to explain it.

I have asked coaches to protest when they insisted I was wrong because the "other guy" ruled otherwise. What are you going to do when the umpire interjecting him/herself is WRONG? Being wrong when discussing it after the game is one thing, on the field would be a disaster.

so to avoid disaster for you, you urged coaches to protest in order to show that your other interjecting umpires are wrong? aren't you simply using the coaches to show up your partners?

Read the sentences in the order presented. The latter sentence is not related to the previous.

If I urge a coach to protest, it is to stop the incessant arguing over something I know to be correct. Are you suggesting the you just continue the argument and give weight to an inaccurate, and in some cases incorrect manner of presenting, specific ruling because you don't want to embarrass another umpire?

I am not suggesting anything, I am curious about your admission.

you wrote that you urged coaches to protest your partners (the "other" guys). this has nothing to do with allowing a coach the inherent right to question by protest. you are saying you would rather be vindicated and openly prove the other guy wrong on field by inviting protest than to wait and do so privately with the other guy in postgame.

You are misinterpreting him.

When he said "the other guy", he means someone who gave the coach bad information in a previous game.