From another board

[shagpal]

and what makes you so certain that this is a misapplication, or/vs misinterpretation. are you so sure your judgement is superior?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not to kill this overly dead horse...

The reason for my question, and for Manny's attempt at clarification, is that contrary to your insistence that this can only be a judgement call on BU's part, I think it's extremely clear (to me at least) that there is both judgement and rules interpretation in play here.

If you disagree, then fine. And if PU disagrees - and thinks this mistake HAS to be simply horrid judgement on his partner's part - then I agree with you that he should let it lie.

My point was, however, that I find it MUCH MUCH more likely that BU made this call because he misunderstands the interference rule wrt retired runners.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

and what makes you so certain that this is a misapplication, or/vs misinterpretation. are you so sure your judgement is superior?

Huh? The video clip. I might not have had the same surety of judgement real time, on the field. But when you have the luxury of video - seems to me this is rather clear.

I assumed from the get-go that you (like just about everyone else here) could agree, from the video, that interference is the wrong call. That's not personal superiority of judgement on my part at all.

"Not Inferference" on this video is as clear as "Not Safe" is on the Jim Joyce video. If watching a video of the Jim Joyce play makes me claim the runner was out - would you say I was insisting my judgement was superior?

[shagpal]

"huh?" if you had "feelings", you are not sure. you even said so.

so I will ask you again. are you the one that is going to try to change your partners mind on this call?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Huh? The video clip. I might not have had the same surety of judgement real time, on the field. But when you have the luxury of video - seems to me this is rather clear.

I assumed from the get-go that you (like just about everyone else here) could agree, from the video, that interference is the wrong call. That's not personal superiority of judgement on my part at all.

"Not Inferference" on this video is as clear as "Not Safe" is on the Jim Joyce video. If watching a video of the Jim Joyce play makes me claim the runner was out - would you say I was insisting my judgement was superior?

[AtlUmpSteve]

My answer:

ASA 10.3-B. "Under no circumstances will any umpire seek to reverse a decision made by an associate, nor shall any umpire criticize or interfere with the duties of their associate(s), unless asked to do so. Similar wording exists in every other ruleset and mechanics manuals.

I may be missing the part inferred by others, but this doesn't say or differentiate between a judgment call and a rule application. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is only one right way to deal with this. Stay out of it. If a coach asks, you refer him to the umpire that made the call. Only if/when your partner asks do you suggest in live time it may have been a wrong rule application. Interfere on your own, and your interference is not only inappropriate and illegal, but any call reversal is now protestable, since YOU violated a rule seeking the reversal.

Post-game, have at it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My answer:

ASA 10.3-B. "Under no circumstances will any umpire seek to reverse a decision made by an associate, nor shall any umpire criticize or interfere with the duties of their associate(s), unless asked to do so. Similar wording exists in every other ruleset and mechanics manuals.

I may be missing the part inferred by others, but this doesn't say or differentiate between a judgment call and a rule application. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is only one right way to deal with this. Stay out of it. If a coach asks, you refer him to the umpire that made the call. Only if/when your partner asks do you suggest in live time it may have been a wrong rule application. Interfere on your own, and your interference is not only inappropriate and illegal, but any call reversal is now protestable, since YOU violated a rule seeking the reversal.

Post-game, have at it.

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My answer:

ASA 10.3-B. "Under no circumstances will any umpire seek to reverse a decision made by an associate, nor shall any umpire criticize or interfere with the duties of their associate(s), unless asked to do so. Similar wording exists in every other ruleset and mechanics manuals.

I may be missing the part inferred by others, but this doesn't say or differentiate between a judgment call and a rule application. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

There is only one right way to deal with this. Stay out of it. If a coach asks, you refer him to the umpire that made the call. Only if/when your partner asks do you suggest in live time it may have been a wrong rule application. Interfere on your own, and your interference is not only inappropriate and illegal, but any call reversal is now protestable, since YOU violated a rule seeking the reversal.

Post-game, have at it.

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

so I will ask you again. are you the one that is going to try to change your partners mind on this call?

You don't have to ask. This conversation started with me stating the answer to that question.

And "change my partner's mind" was not what this was about anyway.

And at this point, I've had enough.

[shagpal]

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

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You don't have to ask. This conversation started with me stating the answer to that question.

And "change my partner's mind" was not what this was about anyway.

And at this point, I've had enough.

[HugoTafurst]

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.....