Helping a partner with his call

[youngump]

One from this weekend has been on my mind a while.
I'm behind the plate when R1 tries to steal second. The throw beats her by a good bit and she dives to the outside. From my position (I got maybe a couple of steps up the line to increase my angle), it looked like F6 didn't manage to get a tag on her. Partner calls her out. Third base coach comes partway out to him and yells about a missed tag and then he comes over to me.

He asks me if I saw the tag. I told him that I didn't think she made it from where I was but that he had a much better look than I did. He stayed with the out call.

I'm kind of thinking I should have spent more time talking through what he actually had on the call and why he came to me. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it and I should be content just giving him what I had. Thoughts?

[SWFLguy]

Base umpire's call. That's it.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Some time ago, I posted my opinion regarding where you draw the line in "never guessing an out". There are any number of times that we just have to make a call, because everything tells us it was an out, but we don't have the perfect angle to see it. I compared it then to court cases; civil cases decided by "a preponderance of evidence", and criminal cases by "beyond a reasonable doubt".

My point here is that we make our own judgment calls based on a preponderance of evidence, but to advise your partner to change a call, you need to be sure; sure enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone use this explanation, so maybe I'm off base compared to what others believe. But it has stood me well over the years. Hope it helps you with your quandary.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Some time ago, I posted my opinion regarding where you draw the line in "never guessing an out". There are any number of times that we just have to make a call, because everything tells us it was an out, but we don't have the perfect angle to see it. I compared it then to court cases; civil cases decided by "a preponderance of evidence", and criminal cases by "beyond a reasonable doubt".

My point here is that we make our own judgment calls based on a preponderance of evidence, but to advise your partner to change a call, you need to be sure; sure enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone use this explanation, so maybe I'm off base compared to what others believe. But it has stood me well over the years. Hope it helps you with your quandary.

I completely agree with you on your thinking. I don't think I've ever heard it in legal speak, but it makes sense.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Some time ago, I posted my opinion regarding where you draw the line in "never guessing an out". There are any number of times that we just have to make a call, because everything tells us it was an out, but we don't have the perfect angle to see it. I compared it then to court cases; civil cases decided by "a preponderance of evidence", and criminal cases by "beyond a reasonable doubt".

My point here is that we make our own judgment calls based on a preponderance of evidence, but to advise your partner to change a call, you need to be sure; sure enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone use this explanation, so maybe I'm off base compared to what others believe. But it has stood me well over the years. Hope it helps you with your quandary.

This makes more sense than anything else I have ever read about the philosophy/psychology of officiating. I love it; thanks, Steve.

[prab]

As PU, I would not give the coach my view/opinion/thoughts on a play which was obviously the BU's call. I would provide what information I had to BU IF AND ONLY IF I had "beyond a reasonable doubt" information or if BU asked for my input.

I agree that AtlUmpSteve's explanation is as good as I have ever heard.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

One from this weekend has been on my mind a while.
I'm behind the plate when R1 tries to steal second. The throw beats her by a good bit and she dives to the outside. From my position (I got maybe a couple of steps up the line to increase my angle), it looked like F6 didn't manage to get a tag on her.

A couple of steps up the line to increase your angle? As PU, you should be moving up the line after the throw by the catcher so that you have the call at third should the ball get past F4/F6. Moving just a couple of steps to get a better angle on the play is really not your responsibility, because it could cause you to be late getting to third.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by prab

As PU, I would not give the coach my view/opinion/thoughts on a play which was obviously the BU's call. I would provide what information I had to BU...

If you are referring to the OP's description of events, I think there may be some pronoun confusion.

When the OP says,

Originally Posted by youngump

...He asks me if I saw the tag. ...

... I think the "He" in question is his partner. At least, that is how I read it.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If you are referring to the OP's description of events, I think there may be some pronoun confusion.

When the OP says, ... I think the "He" in question is his partner. At least, that is how I read it.

Yeah, he in this case is my partner.

[prab]

OK. Now it makes sense. Pronouns were never my strong suit. Thankfully there were no subjunctive clauses or adverb phrases or I would really have been confused.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

A couple of steps up the line to increase your angle? As PU, you should be moving up the line after the throw by the catcher so that you have the call at third should the ball get past F4/F6. Moving just a couple of steps to get a better angle on the play is really not your responsibility, because it could cause you to be late getting to third.

I'm not sure this is right. I went and double checked and if I read the right part of the manual the correct behavior is to step out from behind the plate and read the play. I thought by the book that the call at third belonged to the BU (there's no exception that I could find but I'd be happy to be corrected.)
It is common around here to read this play and if the BU can't get to third to the PU will sometimes call them off (deviating only if we communicate). But it wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood how to do something.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I will agree and disagree with both of you.

Manny, we are always expected to be a second set of eyes with a different angle on any play (remembering we are there to help our partner only if asked). Same as U1 with R1 on 1st stepping up to watch the tag on a steal even though U3 is there waiting. You never know .....

As to a possible following play at third, YoungUmp, it is the BU's call ONLY for the understanding that there are times when PU can get trapped by the catcher and the ball, and cannot immediately and automatically always have that play. That said, it is EXPECTED that PU WILL verbalize and take the play if not trapped. Go to the holding zone by default; but the same few steps that get you prepared can allow you the angle for help at 2nd.

[Rich]

Just another example in the idiotic practice of a coach getting a second opinion cause he didn't like the call.

The BU should've sent the coach (quickly) back to the dugout. "No, I'm not asking him. Let's play."

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Some time ago, I posted my opinion regarding where you draw the line in "never guessing an out". There are any number of times that we just have to make a call, because everything tells us it was an out, but we don't have the perfect angle to see it. I compared it then to court cases; civil cases decided by "a preponderance of evidence", and criminal cases by "beyond a reasonable doubt".

My point here is that we make our own judgment calls based on a preponderance of evidence, but to advise your partner to change a call, you need to be sure; sure enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Honestly, I've never heard anyone use this explanation, so maybe I'm off base compared to what others believe. But it has stood me well over the years. Hope it helps you with your quandary.

I have had many cases over the years of saying I wasn't sure enough of a call by a partner to say he/she should change it. This week, runner returning to 3rd on pickoff attempt. The BU called safe, then asked me when requested. I thought out based on a stutter step, but in a straight line behind the runner could not be sure if her foot was touching before the stutter. So, he stayed with safe.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

As to a possible following play at third, YoungUmp, it is the BU's call ONLY for the understanding that there are times when PU can get trapped by the catcher and the ball, and cannot immediately and automatically always have that play. That said, it is EXPECTED that PU WILL verbalize and take the play if not trapped. Go to the holding zone by default; but the same few steps that get you prepared can allow you the angle for help at 2nd.

I think you and I are saying the same thing. But let me restate it a little bit so you can correct me where I've still got it wrong.

The book says that the BU takes the call. But the PU has nothing to do so he should move out. Then watch the tag at second. Then if necessary move up to third and call off BU. The book doesn't mention this but it's expected and the way it's done. Pre-gaming this is a good practice.