umpire_scott

^^^This^^^ From a coach's POV, this is all I'd hope would be considered in making the call.....worst case scenario for the offense, if the ball is caught or dropped. In the OP's case, what's the "ordinary effort" of all involved (offense also), should the ball being dropped going to yield....once all is said and done? Sort of a "worst case scenario" thing.... From the sounds of it, you've got a couple probables: Ball caught: 1.) Runners return to their bases easily, and you've got the same thing whether IFF is called or not. - Offense not hurt. 2.) R2's tagging on the play, and takes off for third on the catch. Whether he makes it or not, is no different if IFF is called or not. - Offense not hurt either way. Ball dropped: 1.) Runners scramble to advance.....even if F3 or F4 recover, pick up the ball and attempt to start the DP at 2B, if BR makes an "ordinary effort" to get down the line, there should be no chance of him getting doubled up on the throw to F6, and back to whoever's covering 1B. - Offense improves position(s), as now runners are at 1B and 3B (or one possibly scored as "JH" points out). 2.) Depending on level of play, I have seen runners take off running after the IFF was called and the ball dropped, which then due to the "advance at their own risk" clause, got them thrown out, and in this case....inning over. - Offense actually hurt by the IFF call (although admittedly because offense doesn't understand the rule, and not because of the rules themselves). So forgetting about the HTBT "what ifs" that are always there to some extent.....in the situation described, a no call would either not hurt the offense's position(s), or possibly allow them to be improved, whereas an IFF ruling, could possibly even hurt the offense for which it was designed to protect. IMO, not calling it in the situation described, I can't imagine either coach getting upset, if his players (offense and defense) are all putting in their "ordinary efforts". If they're not, that's on them, not the umpire or the rules. I have less than 2 seconds to decide "ordinary effort". There is no way based on placement of fielders I'm going to run through 5 different scenarios about what might happen. The rule is in place to protect the offense. So all of your scenario situations were considered when the rule was put into place. My job is to enforce the rule, not to go back and decipher intent of the rule and how that applies while the ball is in the air. It's really simple I decide whether the ball could be caught with "ordinary effort". In my opinion "ordinary effort" is not hard to judge at all. I've never remotely doubted myself on whether "ordinary effort" applied. It is one of those when you see it you'll know it types of things. If I have doubt whether it was "ordinary effort" then it wasn't.

And if there is no cuttoff I assume you go back to the standard mechanic? I had this bite me in the ass this weekend. My fault for not pre-gaming it. Ball bounded up the line and over first base, F3 was about 4 feet behind the back and gloved it in foul territory. I had it fair, but because we had not pre-gamed it I didn't want to make the call. With no verbal I quickly pointed fair to sort of let PU know what I had. Just as I do this he yells foul and kills it. I was hoping no one saw me, but alas the coach in the 3rd base dugout did and mentioned it to PU. He answered it quickly and we moved on so no controversy.

complete control, to me, means he released the ball voluntarily. It's semantics, whether the terminology differs, but the meaning is the same. I guess there are possible ways he could drop the ball involuntarily after I've ruled it a catch, but that's just gonna be a weird htbt play. Most of the time, secure posession means he had it and intentionally let go. YMMV. complete control, to me, means he released the ball voluntarily. It's semantics, whether the terminology differs, but the meaning is the same. I guess there are possible ways he could drop the ball involuntarily after I've ruled it a catch, but that's just gonna be a weird htbt play. Most of the time, secure posession means he had it and intentionally let go. YMMV. Here are the 2.00 wording and definition I used to, in my opinion, completely justify my call: A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and securely holding it; . . . In establishing the validity of the catch the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to show he has complete control of the ball and that release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder. Based on these two definitions the "voluntary release" verbiage clearly refers to thrown balls the same as batted balls. I think Rich's example refers to the validity of the tag and not the validity of the catch.

I fully understand your thoughts. But I won't allow coaches to attack my partner, regardless of his zone. The time to deal with training and teaching is OFF the field. But, while we're a crew, we're a team. Ppl won't differentiate one ump from another most of the time. You're "the umps" or "those umps." The only friend you have on the field is your partner. Even if he's bad, he's still your teammate. Look for timing/head height/tracking issues and maybe tell him between innings what you see. But ffs don't just stand there while he gets raked across the coals. We've all had those horseSH*# games. If he's off, the complaining will only be compounded by your lack of teamwork. And his zone will deteriorate even further. Don't just be a partner, be the partner YOU would want to work with. That's just it. If the coaches are complaining about my zone I don't want my partner to intervene. I want to handle it. And I'm talking about comments directed at me or chirps from the dugout about my zone. So being the "partner YOU would want to work with" would be to keep my mouth shut. All umpires have different thresholds. Mine may be less and therefore I don't want to infringe on my partner's threshold. I work a lot of games with umpires that I've never met before. If it is clearly a less experienced umpire that is probably looking for the help then I'm more likely to step in. But if it is not evident then I'm reluctant to for fear of undermining his authority.

Not to be snarky, but threatening coaches is a major game management issue. Perhaps we just have different ideas about what a "warning" is: what I mean is, "That's enough!" Some folks like to add, "...and that's your warning." I would discourage you from ever using the expression, "one more word...." which paints you into a corner. Thank you, that helps. In my mind it doesn't seem like a huge difference between the two types of warnings, but if using the phrase "one more word" is that frowned upon then I will attempt to refrain. My thought process is that generic stuff like "that's enough" are less likely to get the point across so my first instinct is to be very specific. The way I look at it there is no room for misunderstanding there. I think that high school coaches and above are very likely to hear "that's enough" and know exactly what is going to happen if they continue. I do worry that travel ball coaches that I often do games for will only see it as a response in the argument and not adhere, which will lead to more ejections. But I guess "that's your warning" will suffice in that regard.

That is kind of how it went. He expressed his opinion. I attempted to explain. He clearly was not listening to my explanation and wanted to continue to argue his same point so I put a stop to it. When he "called me a cheater" I warned him. Not to be snarky but it appears that you said I still have issues with game management and then described a 4-step process that was almost exactly as I explained it in the OP? Maybe I'm missing something?

I would like to get some of the experts thoughts on ejecting someone that is complaining about/to your partner. I'm sometimes reluctant to step in, not because I don't have my partners back but rather because I think it can undermine my partner's authority a little. So in the situation described in the OP I could have seen me acting very similar as the BU and not tossed until the conversation was directed at me. Thoughts?

Had a situation yesterday where at the time I was about 90% certain I got the call right and then after rules clarification I am 99%. R1 with 1 out. Batter hits a shot right at F4. He catches it and throws to F3 for the attempted DP. Throw beats R1 and F3 cleanly catches the ball. But he was stretching to make the catch towards RF. After making the catch he lost his balance and started to fall to the ground. As he was falling the ball popped out of his glove and then he caught it in the air with his bare hand. By the time he caught it with his bare hand his foot had come off the bag and R1 was on the bag. I ruled R1 safe. The DC was incensed. He correctly argued that with his foot on the bag he secured the ball. He felt that was enough. He could not understand how him dropping after he was falling could take away the out. Of course I had no luck in attempting to explain it as he was being a douchebag so I had to simply direct him back to his dugout. Next batter gets a hit to put runners in the corners. Next batter after that drives in two with a gapper. AS the runners are crossing the plate I here from the area of the first base dugout a few times "those two are on you blue". After play has ended I called time and told the coach "We are moving on. One more word regarding that play from a coach or fan and I'm ejecting you. So you better control your side." After reading the rule I got clarification that "in flight" refers to a ball that is batted, pitched, or thrown. The voluntary release verbiage refers to a ball "in flight", but much of the case play verbiage refers to catching a batted ball. This is where the 1% of doubt comes in. Thoughts on ruling and how I handled the coach?

@umpire_scott - What about white under light blue? I've worn that before, but mostly use black under light blue. FYI when I said I would not consider any other color of shirt I meant the jersey. I generally wear the last strip color as my undershirt, but will also wear the shirt color as well (i.e. black under black, navy under navy, etc)

In the OP, R1 is past 2B when the ball is caught. That seems unlikely if F3 catches a line drive, even if R1 is stealing. Be that as it may, if F3 catches a liner with R1 stealing, R1 is going to be out on appeal. I don't care who he runs into, he's out. A retired runner cannot be obstructed. Now, if F7 catches the liner and R1 bumps into F4 on his way to retouch, we're more likely to have OBS. OBR: If he's obstructed with a play being made on him it's an immediate dead ball. The out never happened. It's automatically a minimum one base award. I thought for Type A the play had to be more in the vicinity of the where the runner was obstructed. If the ball is in the OF when he's obstructed I thought it would be Type B. Isn't a play always potentially being made on a runner? If a runner is running then the defense may attempt to retire him.

I agree with you 100% on this. I have many times either went to my partner or he came to me and the conversation is "Man those girls in the stands are smoking hot you think they would buy us some beer after the game? yeah I doubt it oh yeah runner was safe HC is a douche bag so shake your head like you agree with me it will make him feel better". What this does is make the coach feel better and it can stop him from getting fired up. Now that again does not mean I do it everytime he ask me to. Both of these practices are 100% do-do. If there is a reason to ask for help, ask. If you have the call, 100%, don't ask. You going to your partner to ask him what he had for lunch to make it look like your discussing the play is totally unprofessional. You may placate the fishing HC in your game, but you make it more difficult for the next crew that doesn't put up with HCs that are just fishing for a call that's to their benefit. Think of it this way. When I have done this it has been when the coach firmly believes that my partner had a better look at it than I did. So it depends on how he approaches it. If he comes out and politely says "I think from your partner's angle he may have seen what I saw and you couldn't see it from your angle. Would you mind asking him?". I'm probably going to ask. Now I had a situation when a guy was stealing third and I was in "C". I banged him out. Coach called time, came out and argued the call with me. Then he asked me to get help. No way in that situation. Each situation is different.

When I run into pitchers stretching before I put the ball in play, I will step out from behind the plate and instruct F1 not to start his stretch until I put the ball in the play. Most guys you tell once, and they're good. Some are a little more thick-headed. For those guys, I'll resort to holding the hand up until I point and say "play". If they're still going into the stretch while my hand is up, I'll continue to step out until he gets it. Thanks Rich I will start using this. I thought about it but feared holding the game up too much.

So this is probably the part of umpiring that I struggle with the most. Any suggestions beyond the obvious are appreciated. When the ball is in the dirt on a potential HBP or batted ball contacting the batter's foot I have a difficult time seeing for certain whether it actually did. I know the conventional theory of watching batter reaction and ball reaction and then take everything into account. But I've been burned by this a few times. A few games ago I had a batter hit the ball and it went near his foot and took a really strange bounce so I killed it. Third base coach asked his player if it hit him and he said no. He did not react, but the change in direction that I had the ball take made me believe it must have even though I did not see it hit his foot. What caused me to kill it is that I've been reluctant to in the past unless I was 100% certain and that too has bitten me when coaches have claimed to have seen it and their players "confirmed" this by stating it hit them. This has happened with and without player and ball reactions.

Not to hijack the thread but I had an addendum question regarding getting good timing on this. I would say I do this on almost every foul ball/time out/dead ball etc. But I was catching myself a few times a game where I would miss it. So I took the advice of others on here and started getting more of a routine down where I would say the count first and then point and say "play". I've found with this though that I run into more situations where I'm saying "play" as the pitcher is already starting to go into his windup or come set. This is obviously because too many umpires don't use this mechanic and so the pitcher generally just waits for the batter to be in the box (which is what I am waiting for as well). This is not a huge problem and I deal with it, but any advice on how you guys handle it would be appreciated. Do you always hold the hand up to designate time is still out until you point and verbal?

I dont want to bust your bubble, and this isn't criticism -- but these aren't any where near the "finer points." Heck, I'm not even sure it's umpiring 101. I dont want to bust your bubble, and this isn't criticism -- but these aren't any where near the "finer points." Heck, I'm not even sure it's umpiring 101. You need to get out more . I would say in the travel ball tournaments I do probably 5% of the umpires put the ball in play after every foul ball. 15% do it most of the time. 15% do it occasionally. And the other 65% never or hardly ever do it.

But I thought you hated Missouri?

Funny you should say that. I was at the game Wednesday and while I don't know the umpires by name I did notice that the dude at 3B looked old and slow. I checked the box and it was indeed Joe West. Although Alan Porter was the one that looked like he pulled a hammy doing the splits while getting low for play at second on a gapper.

When it is as the OP described where he dragged his foot and clipped the front edge I would say that is a little strange and could possibly have thrown his partner off. We are used to looking at certain things as we've learned through mechanics training and any slight deviation from that could cause us to not process the play accurately. I'm not saying every deviation causes a problem just that you never know when it might. Sometimes those slightly strange variations are easier to see from further away. I know I've made calls before where I wasn't sure, but made the call I thought was the right one because something threw me off. Based on the OP's later post where his partner said that fan and coach reaction caused him to seek a second opinion it sounds like that was the case. As long as he really was unsure to begin with and did not let fan/coach reaction change his mind, I've got no problem with it. In the OP the BU said he missed the bag and the PU said he didn't, I would be curious to know what the manager said when he requested that BU go for help. Fan and coaches reaction be damned. It the BU's job to get that play, no reason in the world as described for him to need help. Do your job. Far too many partners will get help to appease a manager to get him to shut up, that makes it worse on the rest of us. Well obviously the discussion and disagreement was about whether he got the bag. "I saw his foot and I saw space between his foot and the bag" is different than "I didn't see his foot touch the bag". But in either case your response would be "I had him missing the bag" or "I didn't have him getting the bag". If the BU didn't have him missing the bag he would have called him out in the first place. When that is your call it's one of two things - I have him getting the bag or I don't. You have to make the call. The angle you get should be the best angle to call the sound glove versus BR foot hitting bag. If the throw pulls him forward and he brings his foot down on the front side of the bag facing home plate there is a chance that the PU had a better quick look at it from 45' feet away. Maybe the first baseman's other foot was behind his front foot and blocked the view. The same argument could be made that far too many umpires refuse to get help and it makes it harder on the rest of us. For this play I would hope that BU legitimately was unsure of whether the foot hit the bag. If he was confident in what he saw then he should tell the coach "this is my call and I called it as I saw it. I'm confident I got the call right. Nothing my partner says can change that". I've told many coaches that I won't go for help on a play that I saw all the way. But If I sense based on the game environment that pacifying a coach might be the thing to do at the moment, I've done that also. I've also worked tournaments were there was almost a mandate to go for help to pacify the coaches. Now was this mandate because coaches were rats or umpires were redasses or combination of both?

You may as well short cut the process and just ask everytime. Or, even better -- just have PU make all the calls. I don't think he literally meant anytime a coach asks him to get help. There would have to be some doubt or the situation might call for it. This is a case where in my opinion you have to umpire. You have to have that sense of what is best for the purpose of game management. Sometimes when you are 100% certain of your call, it may still work in your favor to go to your partner to pacify the coach a little (obviously you have to read it correctly and do it form a position of authority not submissiveness). In that case I would probably tell my partner during the conversation that I saw it and don't need to hear anything from him. Then I'd confirm the call. I've done this before and gotten a thank you from the coach and all was well. If it is a manipulative coach that I feel may try to use it again, I might just explain that it was my call and I saw it all the way so there is nothing for me to get help on. I think some of you feel that it is ALWAYS wrong to pacify a coach. I think anything that is not going against the rules, and makes our jobs easier is all good. If being a hardass and owning my call creates unnecessary tension on the field, then I think it is a bad decision, when a simple private meeting with my partner gives the coaches a warm fuzzy feeling.

When it is as the OP described where he dragged his foot and clipped the front edge I would say that is a little strange and could possibly have thrown his partner off. We are used to looking at certain things as we've learned through mechanics training and any slight deviation from that could cause us to not process the play accurately. I'm not saying every deviation causes a problem just that you never know when it might. Sometimes those slightly strange variations are easier to see from further away. I know I've made calls before where I wasn't sure, but made the call I thought was the right one because something threw me off. Based on the OP's later post where his partner said that fan and coach reaction caused him to seek a second opinion it sounds like that was the case. As long as he really was unsure to begin with and did not let fan/coach reaction change his mind, I've got no problem with it.

I would say once ball 4 is thrown he has completed his AB. Think about if he hit the ball in the infield and another runner was out by fielder's choice before BR got to first. He would still have completed his AB.

Maybe I'm just to fashion conscious or metrosexual? I just like the look of the red undershirt with the navy shirt and red piping. I have black. it's actually my most comfortable shirt material wise. I just like the look of the navy with the red. But I also like the look of the cream with the black. I can't stand how white looks under cream, they clash. As does black with navy under it.

It's very wreck ballish. When was the last time you saw any professional or college umpire wear navy? We spend good money buying pro gear. We spend a lot of time learning pro mechanics. Why then ruin all that by wearing a wreck ball shirt? That makes sense. But both states I'm umpired in required Navy for high school. So I more associate it with High School versus Rec Ball.

@umpire_scott - What about white under light blue? I've worn that before, but mostly use black under light blue. When I did softball in Arizona white or navy under light blue were both deemed acceptable. I prefer the look of the navy though so that is what I wear.

The Navy with red undershirt is actually my favorite combination. Why the hate for Navy?