Appeal on Possible Checked Swing/Dropped 3rd Strike

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

Once again your preference for arguing and defending your indefensible position is preventing you from learning something from umpires who are for more experienced, knowledgeable and competent than you.

1. It's actually a rule in OBR that you go to your partner on a checked swing if the defense requests it. It's not an option - by rule.

2. Your personal level of "certainty" is not relevant to the question. It's a rule.

3. Your belief that the PU has a "better view" than a BU in the "middle" is untenable. The PU is completely "straight-lined" in his view and is so close to the action that the scope of his peripheral vision is severely constrained. Also his primary responsibility is to call the pitch and, if he is doing his job properly, should be tracking the ball, not the bat. The BU has at least a slightly better angle than the PU, and is far enough away that it is much easier for him to see the entirety of the batter's action, including the "travel" of the bat as well as the batter's entire motion, which, I would argue can be equally important in determining whether or not the batter "offered" at the pitch.

This is how Jim Evans puts it (if you don't know who he is, it would not surprise me, but you can look it up):

The rule which mandates that the plate umpire must ask for help in this specific situation is a fair, common-sense solution to a very difficult play. Half-swings are very tough for plate umpires to accurately discern when the pitch is near the strike zone. ... A half-swing may occur out of the peripheral range of the plate umpire whi is focused on the pitch. ...

The base umpire should always render a decision which reflects his honest opinion. ... If it is a borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern, the base umpire should support his partner and rule no swing. ...

4. Minor league umpire training is geared towards the 2-man system because that is where minor league umpire start their careers. The vast majority of NCAA games below DI are also 2-man games. Minor league and NCAA instruction is to always go to your partner when requested on a checked swing the PU has ruled a ball, and for the BU to always give his honest assessment.

5. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER umpire has a particularly good look at the play - certainly not as good as the team in the dugout that the batter is facing.

6. By saying "He did not go" you are NOT expressing your degree of certainty, but acknowledging that you did observe the batter's aborted swing and judged it to not be an offer.

7. When you go to your partner two things can happen:

a. He concurs with your judgement and the defense now has two judgments that the batter did not offer.

b. He judges differently from a more advantageous perspective than the PU's (though admittedly not "ideal") that the batter did offer and we get another strike - which is always a good thing.

8. As in all things in life, do as you think best. But, once again, you are wrong and the people who are trying to help you that you choose to argue with instead of listen to are right.

That is all.

JM

JM,

Did you even realize that Jim Evans quote partially supports my stance? He says, and I quote: "If it is a borderline swing and is virtually impossible to discern then the BU should support his partner and rule no swing". That is what I've been stating from the get-go. It does not say "Do not take into consideration at all what your partner called and make your call as if there was no call by your partner".

On "borderline swings that are virtually impossible to discern" if my partner comes to me right away I have to discern regardless of my certainty. When he's already called it Jim Evans has affirmed that there has to be reasonable certainty or you should support your partner's original call.

There are really only two bones of contention here:

1. What is each person's definition of "borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern". - To me that would mean a swing that I was not certain of. If I can "discern" it then I saw it and have a definite call. All others that I have any doubt about fall under the "borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern".

2. Which position is easier to tell a checked swing on. - It does seem that Jim Evans and some others believe that it's easier to see from b/c then from behind the plate. I will have to check that out for myself. Sometimes your eyes work with your brain and develop habits. For example I'm more confident seeing the whole strike zone from over the catchers left shoulder with a LH batter. I used to stubbornly take that position because I knew I would call a better game that way. But now I get in that slot like is taught. I still feel less confident in my calls, but I'm getting better at it. In this same light when I'm in b/c I don't feel like I get a good look at those borderline check swings. As long as nothing happens to distract my view I feel more confident from behind the plate. When something blocks my view or I don't see it, then I go right to my partner, I don't guess. So I guess I have always operated under the assumption that's how others do it as well. I'M CLEARLY WRONG ABOUT THAT.

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

Once again your preference for arguing and defending your indefensible position is preventing you from learning something from umpires who are for more experienced, knowledgeable and competent than you.

1. It's actually a rule in OBR that you go to your partner on a checked swing if the defense requests it. It's not an option - by rule.

2. Your personal level of "certainty" is not relevant to the question. It's a rule.

3. Your belief that the PU has a "better view" than a BU in the "middle" is untenable. The PU is completely "straight-lined" in his view and is so close to the action that the scope of his peripheral vision is severely constrained. Also his primary responsibility is to call the pitch and, if he is doing his job properly, should be tracking the ball, not the bat. The BU has at least a slightly better angle than the PU, and is far enough away that it is much easier for him to see the entirety of the batter's action, including the "travel" of the bat as well as the batter's entire motion, which, I would argue can be equally important in determining whether or not the batter "offered" at the pitch.

This is how Jim Evans puts it (if you don't know who he is, it would not surprise me, but you can look it up):

The rule which mandates that the plate umpire must ask for help in this specific situation is a fair, common-sense solution to a very difficult play. Half-swings are very tough for plate umpires to accurately discern when the pitch is near the strike zone. ... A half-swing may occur out of the peripheral range of the plate umpire whi is focused on the pitch. ...

The base umpire should always render a decision which reflects his honest opinion. ... If it is a borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern, the base umpire should support his partner and rule no swing. ...

4. Minor league umpire training is geared towards the 2-man system because that is where minor league umpire start their careers. The vast majority of NCAA games below DI are also 2-man games. Minor league and NCAA instruction is to always go to your partner when requested on a checked swing the PU has ruled a ball, and for the BU to always give his honest assessment.

5. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER umpire has a particularly good look at the play - certainly not as good as the team in the dugout that the batter is facing.

6. By saying "He did not go" you are NOT expressing your degree of certainty, but acknowledging that you did observe the batter's aborted swing and judged it to not be an offer.

7. When you go to your partner two things can happen:

a. He concurs with your judgement and the defense now has two judgments that the batter did not offer.

b. He judges differently from a more advantageous perspective than the PU's (though admittedly not "ideal") that the batter did offer and we get another strike - which is always a good thing.

8. As in all things in life, do as you think best. But, once again, you are wrong and the people who are trying to help you that you choose to argue with instead of listen to are right.

That is all.

JM

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? That is the entire problem with this thread. You are so hell-bent on stating that I'm wrong that I think you've lost sight of what I'm even saying. So please do not answer this with "me versus the world" hyperbole or anything else. Just deal with point #8. Using my own words from the thread to indicate what I'm "wrong" about. The only thing that I could be construed as being wrong about is what vantage point is better behind the plate or b/c. But I don't see how that is proven as different people's eyes work in different ways.

I've seen a ton of posts telling me I'm wrong and not one of them has told me what it is that I'm wrong about.

[Jocko]

Scott, if you learn nothing else from this thread, read post #92.

:banghead:

[umpire_scott]

Scott, if you learn nothing else from this thread, read post #92.

I read #92 after my further posts. And I was expecting some sage wisdom about check swings in #92. Realize that others are still posting as well. That dead horse is getting beaten by many people from many different directions.

That being said I am pretty stubborn by nature. I usually run my stubbornness by my wife. She almost always says I'm being too stubborn. The "expert" umpires on this site have the dubious honor of my wife claiming they are being the arrogant asses and not me. I don't know if that's ever happened before.

[zm1283]

Scott,

Once again your preference for arguing and defending your indefensible position is preventing you from learning something from umpires who are for more experienced, knowledgeable and competent than you.

1. It's actually a rule in OBR that you go to your partner on a checked swing if the defense requests it. It's not an option - by rule.

2. Your personal level of "certainty" is not relevant to the question. It's a rule.

3. Your belief that the PU has a "better view" than a BU in the "middle" is untenable. The PU is completely "straight-lined" in his view and is so close to the action that the scope of his peripheral vision is severely constrained. Also his primary responsibility is to call the pitch and, if he is doing his job properly, should be tracking the ball, not the bat. The BU has at least a slightly better angle than the PU, and is far enough away that it is much easier for him to see the entirety of the batter's action, including the "travel" of the bat as well as the batter's entire motion, which, I would argue can be equally important in determining whether or not the batter "offered" at the pitch.

This is how Jim Evans puts it (if you don't know who he is, it would not surprise me, but you can look it up):

The rule which mandates that the plate umpire must ask for help in this specific situation is a fair, common-sense solution to a very difficult play. Half-swings are very tough for plate umpires to accurately discern when the pitch is near the strike zone. ... A half-swing may occur out of the peripheral range of the plate umpire whi is focused on the pitch. ...

The base umpire should always render a decision which reflects his honest opinion. ... If it is a borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern, the base umpire should support his partner and rule no swing. ...

4. Minor league umpire training is geared towards the 2-man system because that is where minor league umpire start their careers. The vast majority of NCAA games below DI are also 2-man games. Minor league and NCAA instruction is to always go to your partner when requested on a checked swing the PU has ruled a ball, and for the BU to always give his honest assessment.

5. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER umpire has a particularly good look at the play - certainly not as good as the team in the dugout that the batter is facing.

6. By saying "He did not go" you are NOT expressing your degree of certainty, but acknowledging that you did observe the batter's aborted swing and judged it to not be an offer.

7. When you go to your partner two things can happen:

a. He concurs with your judgement and the defense now has two judgments that the batter did not offer.

b. He judges differently from a more advantageous perspective than the PU's (though admittedly not "ideal") that the batter did offer and we get another strike - which is always a good thing.

8. As in all things in life, do as you think best. But, once again, you are wrong and the people who are trying to help you that you choose to argue with instead of listen to are right.

That is all.

JM

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? That is the entire problem with this thread. You are so hell-bent on stating that I'm wrong that I think you've lost sight of what I'm even saying. So please do not answer this with "me versus the world" hyperbole or anything else. Just deal with point #8. Using my own words from the thread to indicate what I'm "wrong" about. The only thing that I could be construed as being wrong about is what vantage point is better behind the plate or b/c. But I don't see how that is proven as different people's eyes work in different ways.

I've seen a ton of posts telling me I'm wrong and not one of them has told me what it is that I'm wrong about.

You were wrong early on when we told you that as BU you can't change a strike to a ball.

You are still wrong when you say that if the PU says "Ball, he didn't go", he is certain so you won't change it.

You were wrong when you were talking about the PU looking bad if the BU gets a few check swings during a game.

I have PM'd with you and tried to reason with you. You are making this waaaaay more complicated than it needs to be. Just give what you have when the PU comes to you no matter where you are on the field, no matter if the batter is right or left-handed, no matter how the PU may feel or react or what words he uses.....period.

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

Once again your preference for arguing and defending your indefensible position is preventing you from learning something from umpires who are for more experienced, knowledgeable and competent than you.

1. It's actually a rule in OBR that you go to your partner on a checked swing if the defense requests it. It's not an option - by rule.

2. Your personal level of "certainty" is not relevant to the question. It's a rule.

3. Your belief that the PU has a "better view" than a BU in the "middle" is untenable. The PU is completely "straight-lined" in his view and is so close to the action that the scope of his peripheral vision is severely constrained. Also his primary responsibility is to call the pitch and, if he is doing his job properly, should be tracking the ball, not the bat. The BU has at least a slightly better angle than the PU, and is far enough away that it is much easier for him to see the entirety of the batter's action, including the "travel" of the bat as well as the batter's entire motion, which, I would argue can be equally important in determining whether or not the batter "offered" at the pitch.

This is how Jim Evans puts it (if you don't know who he is, it would not surprise me, but you can look it up):

The rule which mandates that the plate umpire must ask for help in this specific situation is a fair, common-sense solution to a very difficult play. Half-swings are very tough for plate umpires to accurately discern when the pitch is near the strike zone. ... A half-swing may occur out of the peripheral range of the plate umpire whi is focused on the pitch. ...

The base umpire should always render a decision which reflects his honest opinion. ... If it is a borderline swing that is virtually impossible to discern, the base umpire should support his partner and rule no swing. ...

4. Minor league umpire training is geared towards the 2-man system because that is where minor league umpire start their careers. The vast majority of NCAA games below DI are also 2-man games. Minor league and NCAA instruction is to always go to your partner when requested on a checked swing the PU has ruled a ball, and for the BU to always give his honest assessment.

5. The fact of the matter is that NEITHER umpire has a particularly good look at the play - certainly not as good as the team in the dugout that the batter is facing.

6. By saying "He did not go" you are NOT expressing your degree of certainty, but acknowledging that you did observe the batter's aborted swing and judged it to not be an offer.

7. When you go to your partner two things can happen:

a. He concurs with your judgement and the defense now has two judgments that the batter did not offer.

b. He judges differently from a more advantageous perspective than the PU's (though admittedly not "ideal") that the batter did offer and we get another strike - which is always a good thing.

8. As in all things in life, do as you think best. But, once again, you are wrong and the people who are trying to help you that you choose to argue with instead of listen to are right.

That is all.

JM

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? That is the entire problem with this thread. You are so hell-bent on stating that I'm wrong that I think you've lost sight of what I'm even saying. So please do not answer this with "me versus the world" hyperbole or anything else. Just deal with point #8. Using my own words from the thread to indicate what I'm "wrong" about. The only thing that I could be construed as being wrong about is what vantage point is better behind the plate or b/c. But I don't see how that is proven as different people's eyes work in different ways.

I've seen a ton of posts telling me I'm wrong and not one of them has told me what it is that I'm wrong about.

You were wrong early on when we told you that as BU you can't change a strike to a ball.

You are still wrong when you say that if the PU says "Ball, he didn't go", he is certain so you won't change it.

You were wrong when you were talking about the PU looking bad if the BU gets a few check swings during a game.

I have PM'd with you and tried to reason with you. You are making this waaaaay more complicated than it needs to be. Just give what you have when the PU comes to you no matter where you are on the field, no matter if the batter is right or left-handed, no matter how the PU may feel or react or what words he uses.....period.

1. I admitted I was wrong early on about changing a strike to a ball. So that is not relevant to the last several pages of me being told I'm wrong.

2. I never said if plate umpire says "ball he didn't go" he is certain. I said that I am. I have consistently stated that I have learned that other's do this differently than me. I even stated it in ALL CAPS in my last post since people still didn't get it.

3. This one is my favorite. How can you possibly know if I'm wrong about the PU looking bad? That might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. So you claim to know that I'm wrong about the thoughts that fans, players, and coaches have regarding an umpire. You can't possibly know what they think. Neither can I. But I've been a coach before. And I've coached and umpired many games. In general if one official is changing the calls made by another the players, fans and coaches will lose confidence in the official that is having their calls changed. Only an absolute idiot would argue that. Now I do get that appeal plays are different. But is insane to argue that you know that when a ball gets ruled a strike that no one is thinking about how the PU and BU disagreed. What's even more profoundly stupid is that in another thread I'm being told by some of the same people that you need to "sell your call" to sound confident, and that you will appear weak if you go to your partner for help to often. I realize that this is on the pulled foot not the check swing. But fans, players and coaches are not umpires. They don't get that these two situations are different. All they know is that the call was changed. At least on the pulled foot I'm ruling that I could not see the space when I go for help. On a check swing both umpires are ruling on the same thing.

So you've said I was wrong about 3 things. One I admitted being wrong about several days ago. One I never said. And the last one you have zero evidence to validate your claim that I'm wrong.

[UmpJM]

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? ...

Scott,

Each of these statements you made in this thread are "wrong" (this is meant to be a representative sample, rather than "exhaustive").

#11

...But if I thought I saw it clear enough to call it, and I did call it as you did, then I would bring him back immediately. If that got appealed and my BU overruled me on the appeal, we'd be having a talk about that.

#14

If a PU says "No he didn't", I'm not going to overrule that as the BU, EVER! In a case where the PU needs help he should ask before he makes an emphatic call. ...

#18

As a PU I only verbalize "yes he did" or "no he didn't" if I'm reasonably certain I saw it. Now if the catcher ask me to appeal I have the choice of saying "no I saw it and made the call" or I can go to my BU for his call. ...So I will appeal to my BU, but my expectation is that he's going agree with me as I will ALWAYS agree with him in those cases.

#23

PU makes verbal call of "Yes he did" and the strike signal. Or "no he didn't". If the catcher asks him to get help from the BU and I'm the BU I'm going to agree with my PU 99% of the time. For me to take an emphatic "yes he did" and change it to a ball makes my PU look like a moron. Now if I think it's a really bad call I might call time and discuss it with him to see what he saw, and how he would feel about changing the call. But I'm not throwing my partner under the bus like that.

#33

My point is that for a simple ball/strike call where it's close, I'm taking into consideration whether it's worth making my partner look bad to get that one call right (right as I saw it).

#35

I think it's clear that there is a difference when a PU goes immediately to his partner with a "did he go?", versus saying "no he didn't", then appealing after the catcher asks him too. I look at those two situations differently. I can assure that most PU's look at those two situations differently as well.

Let me ask this: What if you were in "C" position and it was a RH batter? Do you still give your honest answer? You clearly are in no better position to make that call than the plate umpire is.

#38

I will also give him what I honestly saw in a case where he asks immediately. If he makes an emphatic "no he didn't". Then the catcher asks him to come to me for help, I'm not overturning him from a bad position to do it in the first place. I can't believe that you can't see how that would make him look really bad.

#51

So when I'm on the bases if the PU comes to me, and it's for help on a call that he had confidently and emphatically made I'm going to think long and hard about overturning the call because it will make him look bad.

#94

However if I emphatically stated "no he didn't" it's because I saw it clearly. If I did not see it or had any doubt then I would make no call and go right to my partner with a "did he go". This way I avoid most situations. But if my partner is making a habit of turning many of my "no he didn'ts" into strikes then we have a problem. He is probably just wanting strikes to get the game over with, which is an integrity issue. And it's especially a problem if he is doing it from "B" or "C" where his angle is not as good anyway. ...

#95

I'm just flabbergasted that people are having trouble accepting what I'm saying. I know that umpires need to put their egos away a little. But when a PU emphatically says "no he didn't", I assume he's saying "I saw it clear and he didn't go". So if for instance 3 times in the same game he yells "no he didn't", the catcher asks if he can get help, he goes to his partner and his partner signals strike each time. I find it hard to believe that no PU's would be somewhat miffed by this. ...

Specifically, what is wrong is....

1. You suggest that it is optional to go when requested when, by rule, it is mandatory.

2. You suggest that the degree of emphasis with which the PU makes his call - or the PU's "degree of certainty" about his call - should color the BU's judgment of his own call when the PU comes to him. It should not. They are two independent call and each umpire should use his own best judgment in making it. If the BUs judgment differs from the PUs, the BUs call supercedes - by rule.

3. You suggest that under certain circumstance - specifically, when the PU gives an emphatic "NO he didn't!" on his initial call - the PU is justified in being a bit miffed that his partner has shown him up or thrown him under the bus if he reverses the initial call. The PU has no justification for getting bent out shape if his partner makes a different call.

4. You suggest that the PU's view of a checked swing is somehow intrinsically superior to that of the BU. It is not.

Over the course of the thread you have come to the realization/recollection that checked swings which were judged strikes by the PU are not appealable, so we can just skip that one.

No one on this thread has suggested that the view from the middle is a great view or better than from the wing; no one has suggested that you reverse your partner's call if you are not confident in your judgment.

What level games does your wife umpire, and what umpire training and experience has she had?

While I suspect she is eminently well-qualified to judge YOUR stubbornness, I suspect she is not in any way qualified to judge who is and is not being an "arrogant ass" in this particular discussion.

JM

[zm1283]

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? ...

Scott,

Each of these statements you made in this thread are "wrong" (this is meant to be a representative sample, rather than "exhaustive").

#11

...But if I thought I saw it clear enough to call it, and I did call it as you did, then I would bring him back immediately. If that got appealed and my BU overruled me on the appeal, we'd be having a talk about that.

#14

If a PU says "No he didn't", I'm not going to overrule that as the BU, EVER! In a case where the PU needs help he should ask before he makes an emphatic call. ...

#18

As a PU I only verbalize "yes he did" or "no he didn't" if I'm reasonably certain I saw it. Now if the catcher ask me to appeal I have the choice of saying "no I saw it and made the call" or I can go to my BU for his call. ...So I will appeal to my BU, but my expectation is that he's going agree with me as I will ALWAYS agree with him in those cases.

#23

PU makes verbal call of "Yes he did" and the strike signal. Or "no he didn't". If the catcher asks him to get help from the BU and I'm the BU I'm going to agree with my PU 99% of the time. For me to take an emphatic "yes he did" and change it to a ball makes my PU look like a moron. Now if I think it's a really bad call I might call time and discuss it with him to see what he saw, and how he would feel about changing the call. But I'm not throwing my partner under the bus like that.

#33

My point is that for a simple ball/strike call where it's close, I'm taking into consideration whether it's worth making my partner look bad to get that one call right (right as I saw it).

#35

I think it's clear that there is a difference when a PU goes immediately to his partner with a "did he go?", versus saying "no he didn't", then appealing after the catcher asks him too. I look at those two situations differently. I can assure that most PU's look at those two situations differently as well.

Let me ask this: What if you were in "C" position and it was a RH batter? Do you still give your honest answer? You clearly are in no better position to make that call than the plate umpire is.

#38

I will also give him what I honestly saw in a case where he asks immediately. If he makes an emphatic "no he didn't". Then the catcher asks him to come to me for help, I'm not overturning him from a bad position to do it in the first place. I can't believe that you can't see how that would make him look really bad.

#51

So when I'm on the bases if the PU comes to me, and it's for help on a call that he had confidently and emphatically made I'm going to think long and hard about overturning the call because it will make him look bad.

#94

However if I emphatically stated "no he didn't" it's because I saw it clearly. If I did not see it or had any doubt then I would make no call and go right to my partner with a "did he go". This way I avoid most situations. But if my partner is making a habit of turning many of my "no he didn'ts" into strikes then we have a problem. He is probably just wanting strikes to get the game over with, which is an integrity issue. And it's especially a problem if he is doing it from "B" or "C" where his angle is not as good anyway. ...

#95

I'm just flabbergasted that people are having trouble accepting what I'm saying. I know that umpires need to put their egos away a little. But when a PU emphatically says "no he didn't", I assume he's saying "I saw it clear and he didn't go". So if for instance 3 times in the same game he yells "no he didn't", the catcher asks if he can get help, he goes to his partner and his partner signals strike each time. I find it hard to believe that no PU's would be somewhat miffed by this. ...

Specifically, what is wrong is....

1. You suggest that it is optional to go when requested when, by rule, it is mandatory.

2. You suggest that the degree of emphasis with which the PU makes his call - or the PU's "degree of certainty" about his call - should color the BU's judgment of his own call when the PU comes to him. It should not. They are two independent call and each umpire should use his own best judgment in making it. If the BUs judgment differs from the PUs, the BUs call supercedes - by rule.

3. You suggest that under certain circumstance - specifically, when the PU gives an emphatic "NO he didn't!" on his initial call - the PU is justified in being a bit miffed that his partner has shown him up or thrown him under the bus if he reverses the initial call. The PU has no justification for getting bent out shape if his partner makes a different call.

4. You suggest that the PU's view of a checked swing is somehow intrinsically superior to that of the BU. It is not.

Over the course of the thread you have come to the realization/recollection that checked swings which were judged strikes by the PU are not appealable, so we can just skip that one.

No one on this thread has suggested that the view from the middle is a great view or better than from the wing; no one has suggested that you reverse your partner's call if you are not confident in your judgment.

What level games does your wife umpire, and what umpire training and experience has she had?

While I suspect she is eminently well-qualified to judge YOUR stubbornness, I suspect she is not in any way qualified to judge who is and is not being an "arrogant ass" in this particular discussion.

JM

Game......blouses.

[zm1283]

3. This one is my favorite. How can you possibly know if I'm wrong about the PU looking bad? That might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. So you claim to know that I'm wrong about the thoughts that fans, players, and coaches have regarding an umpire. You can't possibly know what they think. Neither can I. But I've been a coach before. And I've coached and umpired many games. In general if one official is changing the calls made by another the players, fans and coaches will lose confidence in the official that is having their calls changed. Only an absolute idiot would argue that. Now I do get that appeal plays are different. But is insane to argue that you know that when a ball gets ruled a strike that no one is thinking about how the PU and BU disagreed. What's even more profoundly stupid is that in another thread I'm being told by some of the same people that you need to "sell your call" to sound confident, and that you will appear weak if you go to your partner for help to often. I realize that this is on the pulled foot not the check swing. But fans, players and coaches are not umpires. They don't get that these two situations are different. All they know is that the call was changed. At least on the pulled foot I'm ruling that I could not see the space when I go for help. On a check swing both umpires are ruling on the same thing.

I don't give a rat's a** what the players and especially the fans think about anything we do on the field. I only very slightly care what the coaches think in certain situations. You are entirely too concerned with how things might look.

So how many check swings being changed does it take for all of these parties to lose confidence in the umpires? Two? Four? Six? What if you just happen to have three or four of them in a game that the BU gets for strikes? That almost never happens, but it can.

The pulled foot/check swing things are totally different situations and are handled differently. The rule book specifically says that the PU MUST ASK for help if the defense asks. The rule book does not say that the BU must ask for help on a pulled foot if asked. Again, why do you care if the players and fans don't know that these situations are different? It is not our job to coddle them and make them feel better.

No one is being an arrogant ass in this thread. You made several definitive statements that JM has outlined for you, and when people tried to help you, you refused to believe that you could be wrong. You have made several incorrect statements and have backtracked many of them already.

[Jocko]

Scott, for Pete's sake, you don't have to agree, just let it go. You are not going to change anyone's mind, and it's obvious noone will change yours. What's left to say?

Insanity - Doing the same thing time and again and expecting a different result.

Change the verb from "Doing" to "Saying"

By definition, everyone still trying to persuade the other party is insane.

Just like on the field, IT'S NOT PERSONAL

And like I said in another thread, Umpires don't give 2 SH*#s what coaches, players, or fans think. If they liked me, great. Didn't? That's cool too. What's more important is what your peers/colleagues/partners/evaluators/assignors think. As long as you have good relationships with them, the rest be damned.

[umpire_scott]

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? ...

Scott,

Each of these statements you made in this thread are "wrong" (this is meant to be a representative sample, rather than "exhaustive").

#11

...But if I thought I saw it clear enough to call it, and I did call it as you did, then I would bring him back immediately. If that got appealed and my BU overruled me on the appeal, we'd be having a talk about that.

#14

If a PU says "No he didn't", I'm not going to overrule that as the BU, EVER! In a case where the PU needs help he should ask before he makes an emphatic call. ...

#18

As a PU I only verbalize "yes he did" or "no he didn't" if I'm reasonably certain I saw it. Now if the catcher ask me to appeal I have the choice of saying "no I saw it and made the call" or I can go to my BU for his call. ...So I will appeal to my BU, but my expectation is that he's going agree with me as I will ALWAYS agree with him in those cases.

#23

PU makes verbal call of "Yes he did" and the strike signal. Or "no he didn't". If the catcher asks him to get help from the BU and I'm the BU I'm going to agree with my PU 99% of the time. For me to take an emphatic "yes he did" and change it to a ball makes my PU look like a moron. Now if I think it's a really bad call I might call time and discuss it with him to see what he saw, and how he would feel about changing the call. But I'm not throwing my partner under the bus like that.

#33

My point is that for a simple ball/strike call where it's close, I'm taking into consideration whether it's worth making my partner look bad to get that one call right (right as I saw it).

#35

I think it's clear that there is a difference when a PU goes immediately to his partner with a "did he go?", versus saying "no he didn't", then appealing after the catcher asks him too. I look at those two situations differently. I can assure that most PU's look at those two situations differently as well.

Let me ask this: What if you were in "C" position and it was a RH batter? Do you still give your honest answer? You clearly are in no better position to make that call than the plate umpire is.

#38

I will also give him what I honestly saw in a case where he asks immediately. If he makes an emphatic "no he didn't". Then the catcher asks him to come to me for help, I'm not overturning him from a bad position to do it in the first place. I can't believe that you can't see how that would make him look really bad.

#51

So when I'm on the bases if the PU comes to me, and it's for help on a call that he had confidently and emphatically made I'm going to think long and hard about overturning the call because it will make him look bad.

#94

However if I emphatically stated "no he didn't" it's because I saw it clearly. If I did not see it or had any doubt then I would make no call and go right to my partner with a "did he go". This way I avoid most situations. But if my partner is making a habit of turning many of my "no he didn'ts" into strikes then we have a problem. He is probably just wanting strikes to get the game over with, which is an integrity issue. And it's especially a problem if he is doing it from "B" or "C" where his angle is not as good anyway. ...

#95

I'm just flabbergasted that people are having trouble accepting what I'm saying. I know that umpires need to put their egos away a little. But when a PU emphatically says "no he didn't", I assume he's saying "I saw it clear and he didn't go". So if for instance 3 times in the same game he yells "no he didn't", the catcher asks if he can get help, he goes to his partner and his partner signals strike each time. I find it hard to believe that no PU's would be somewhat miffed by this. ...

Specifically, what is wrong is....

1. You suggest that it is optional to go when requested when, by rule, it is mandatory.

2. You suggest that the degree of emphasis with which the PU makes his call - or the PU's "degree of certainty" about his call should color the BU's judgment of his own call when the PU comes to him. It should not. They are two independent call and each umpire should use his own best judgment in making it. If the BUs judgment differs from the PUs, the BUs call supercedes - by rule.

3. You suggest that under certain circumstance - specifically, when the PU gives an emphatic "NO he didn't!" on his initial call - the PU is justified in being a bit miffed that his partner has shown him up or thrown him under the bus if he reverses the initial call. The PU has no justification for getting bent out shape if he does.

4. You suggest that the PU's view of a checked swing is somehow intrinsically superior to that of the BU. It is not.

Over the course of the thread you have come to the realization/recollection that checked swings which were judged strikes by the PU are not appealable, so we can just skip that one.

No one on this thread has suggested that the view from the middle is a great view or better than from the wing; no one has suggested that you reverse your partner's call if you are not confident in your judgment.

What level games does your wife umpire, and what umpire training and experience has she had?

While I suspect she is eminently well-qualified to judge YOUR stubbornness, I suspect she is not in any way qualified to judge who is and is not being an "arrogant ass" in this particular discussion.

JM

Thank you. Excellent post.

1. This is a misunderstanding, not a right or wrong. You'll notice I said "I always go when asked". But right or wrong there are umpires that don't. So when I say I have the choice I was not meaning that I felt the rules said I had the choice, but that all umpires can and many do tell the catcher I saw it and he's not in a good position to change it. I do realize that by rule you are supposed to go for help. And regardless of the rule I always have.

2. You are correct in me stating that when a PU seems to make that call with "degree of certainty", coupled with my uncertainty (which you left out), that I will be reluctant to change the call. Since Jim Evans agrees with me I think it's fine to continue this practice.

3. This statement was made with the belief that most umpires don't emphatically yell "no he didn't" unless they were trying to sell their call and that they saw it clearly. I have stated that I'm now aware that it may be the case. FWIW I've umpired with about 5 different partners since this thread started and none of them have given an emphatic "no he didn't" on a check swing. Most of them just said ball. So I have reason to doubt that an emphatic "no he didn't" is not a common mechanic that is used. So it would also stand to reason that an umpire that does use it may be doing so to communicate that he saw it clearly. Whether they have reason to be miffed is not really relevant. I don't want my partners miffed even if I don't think they should be.

4. I concede that most are of the opinion that the view is better from b/c than from behind the plate. I also concede that my wording was too strong in emphasizing that I think PU has a much better view. In reality neither of them have a very good angle. I will say that when in b/c I'm not confident in my ability to discern borderline check swings. Because of this I'm less likely to change a ball call to a strike. I'm even less likely to change one where the plate umpire seems quite certain of his call.

5. My wife has no opinion on umpiring. But she is a fan. Therefore she does offer insight into how fans view interaction between umpires. If my wife states that she would question the ability of a PU when they continually had their calls changed by the BU on check swings, then that is very relevant. I won't discuss her ability to detect arrogant asses on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

6. People most certainly have suggested that I should reverse a call that I'm not sure about. They have said I should give them what I have regardless of circumstance or anything else. We ALWAYS have something. If the PU comes to me right away I have to give him something. I can't shrug my shoulders. Only MsTaylor has acknowledged that as being acceptable. Unless you include whoever quoted Jim Evans who, accidentally I'm sure, validated my view.

[zm1283]

Overturned is just semantics. If the PU calls "ball he didn't go" then then BU is changing the call to a strike then the "ball" is being changed to a strike. That sounds like overturning the original call to me. My point is that in your example of the pulled foot there is no argument that PU does have a better view, then the BU in "C" on a pulled foot. I've been in "C" hundreds of times and I've been PU hundreds of times. I ALWAYS have a better view of a pulled foot from PU. I've also been in "C" hundreds of times on check swings from RH batters, and been the PU hundreds of times for check swings on RH batters. I can tell you that unless the catcher does something to obstruct my view I'd rather make that call from PU every time. So this now accepted mechanic is, in my opinion, taking that call away from the umpire that has the better view. So I will trust my PU partners view on that check swing when I'm in "C" and the batter is RH. I will affirm his call, unless I'm 100% certain that I have a swing.

The only time that the PU might always have a better look at a pulled foot is when he is trailing the runner to the 45-foot line. Otherwise with runners on, he can't really go anywhere and is looking right up the runner's backside and is watching other runners. This is your call as the BU, so make it and quit worrying about the PU's view.

As for the check swing, it does not matter what YOU would rather do. Call what you see and get help if asked. The call is not being taken away from the PU. The rules say that the PU must get help if asked, no matter where the BU is.

[umpire_scott]

3. This one is my favorite. How can you possibly know if I'm wrong about the PU looking bad? That might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. So you claim to know that I'm wrong about the thoughts that fans, players, and coaches have regarding an umpire. You can't possibly know what they think. Neither can I. But I've been a coach before. And I've coached and umpired many games. In general if one official is changing the calls made by another the players, fans and coaches will lose confidence in the official that is having their calls changed. Only an absolute idiot would argue that. Now I do get that appeal plays are different. But is insane to argue that you know that when a ball gets ruled a strike that no one is thinking about how the PU and BU disagreed. What's even more profoundly stupid is that in another thread I'm being told by some of the same people that you need to "sell your call" to sound confident, and that you will appear weak if you go to your partner for help to often. I realize that this is on the pulled foot not the check swing. But fans, players and coaches are not umpires. They don't get that these two situations are different. All they know is that the call was changed. At least on the pulled foot I'm ruling that I could not see the space when I go for help. On a check swing both umpires are ruling on the same thing.

I don't give a rat's a** what the players and especially the fans think about anything we do on the field. I only very slightly care what the coaches think in certain situations. You are entirely too concerned with how things might look.

So how many check swings being changed does it take for all of these parties to lose confidence in the umpires? Two? Four? Six? What if you just happen to have three or four of them in a game that the BU gets for strikes? That almost never happens, but it can.

The pulled foot/check swing things are totally different situations and are handled differently. The rule book specifically says that the PU MUST ASK for help if the defense asks. The rule book does not say that the BU must ask for help on a pulled foot if asked. Again, why do you care if the players and fans don't know that these situations are different? It is not our job to coddle them and make them feel better.

No one is being an arrogant ass in this thread. You made several definitive statements that JM has outlined for you, and when people tried to help you, you refused to believe that you could be wrong. You have made several incorrect statements and have backtracked many of them already.

Who else would the umpire "look bad" too? Obviously not himself or his partner. The only ones left are the coaches, fans, and players. And it is relevant when they do not trust or respect his calls as a result.

[Replacematt]

Only referring to point #8:

What am I wrong about? ...

Scott,

Each of these statements you made in this thread are "wrong" (this is meant to be a representative sample, rather than "exhaustive").

#11

...But if I thought I saw it clear enough to call it, and I did call it as you did, then I would bring him back immediately. If that got appealed and my BU overruled me on the appeal, we'd be having a talk about that.

#14

If a PU says "No he didn't", I'm not going to overrule that as the BU, EVER! In a case where the PU needs help he should ask before he makes an emphatic call. ...

#18

As a PU I only verbalize "yes he did" or "no he didn't" if I'm reasonably certain I saw it. Now if the catcher ask me to appeal I have the choice of saying "no I saw it and made the call" or I can go to my BU for his call. ...So I will appeal to my BU, but my expectation is that he's going agree with me as I will ALWAYS agree with him in those cases.

#23

PU makes verbal call of "Yes he did" and the strike signal. Or "no he didn't". If the catcher asks him to get help from the BU and I'm the BU I'm going to agree with my PU 99% of the time. For me to take an emphatic "yes he did" and change it to a ball makes my PU look like a moron. Now if I think it's a really bad call I might call time and discuss it with him to see what he saw, and how he would feel about changing the call. But I'm not throwing my partner under the bus like that.

#33

My point is that for a simple ball/strike call where it's close, I'm taking into consideration whether it's worth making my partner look bad to get that one call right (right as I saw it).

#35

I think it's clear that there is a difference when a PU goes immediately to his partner with a "did he go?", versus saying "no he didn't", then appealing after the catcher asks him too. I look at those two situations differently. I can assure that most PU's look at those two situations differently as well.

Let me ask this: What if you were in "C" position and it was a RH batter? Do you still give your honest answer? You clearly are in no better position to make that call than the plate umpire is.

#38

I will also give him what I honestly saw in a case where he asks immediately. If he makes an emphatic "no he didn't". Then the catcher asks him to come to me for help, I'm not overturning him from a bad position to do it in the first place. I can't believe that you can't see how that would make him look really bad.

#51

So when I'm on the bases if the PU comes to me, and it's for help on a call that he had confidently and emphatically made I'm going to think long and hard about overturning the call because it will make him look bad.

#94

However if I emphatically stated "no he didn't" it's because I saw it clearly. If I did not see it or had any doubt then I would make no call and go right to my partner with a "did he go". This way I avoid most situations. But if my partner is making a habit of turning many of my "no he didn'ts" into strikes then we have a problem. He is probably just wanting strikes to get the game over with, which is an integrity issue. And it's especially a problem if he is doing it from "B" or "C" where his angle is not as good anyway. ...

#95

I'm just flabbergasted that people are having trouble accepting what I'm saying. I know that umpires need to put their egos away a little. But when a PU emphatically says "no he didn't", I assume he's saying "I saw it clear and he didn't go". So if for instance 3 times in the same game he yells "no he didn't", the catcher asks if he can get help, he goes to his partner and his partner signals strike each time. I find it hard to believe that no PU's would be somewhat miffed by this. ...

Specifically, what is wrong is....

1. You suggest that it is optional to go when requested when, by rule, it is mandatory.

2. You suggest that the degree of emphasis with which the PU makes his call - or the PU's "degree of certainty" about his call - should color the BU's judgment of his own call when the PU comes to him. It should not. They are two independent call and each umpire should use his own best judgment in making it. If the BUs judgment differs from the PUs, the BUs call supercedes - by rule.

3. You suggest that under certain circumstance - specifically, when the PU gives an emphatic "NO he didn't!" on his initial call - the PU is justified in being a bit miffed that his partner has shown him up or thrown him under the bus if he reverses the initial call. The PU has no justification for getting bent out shape if his partner makes a different call.

4. You suggest that the PU's view of a checked swing is somehow intrinsically superior to that of the BU. It is not.

Over the course of the thread you have come to the realization/recollection that checked swings which were judged strikes by the PU are not appealable, so we can just skip that one.

No one on this thread has suggested that the view from the middle is a great view or better than from the wing; no one has suggested that you reverse your partner's call if you are not confident in your judgment.

What level games does your wife umpire, and what umpire training and experience has she had?

While I suspect she is eminently well-qualified to judge YOUR stubbornness, I suspect she is not in any way qualified to judge who is and is not being an "arrogant ass" in this particular discussion.

JM

Game......blouses.

Now for some pancakes.

[Jocko]

No runners, 2 strikes on the batter. Next pitch is out of the stike zone and in the dirt and gets away from the catcher, batter checks his swing, I say "No he didn't, Ball" For whatever reason the batter is off and running to 1B, either assuming it was strike 3 (didn't hear my call), or the coach was yelling at him to run, whatever, the reason is irrelevant, he's running to 1B.

What do you do in this situation?

Do you bring him back to the plate immediately saying it was a ball (not ball 4)

Do you let him continue running because if he's thrown out at 1B, and you think the defense will probably appeal the check swing, they won't now because the batter/runner is out anyway.

Do you let him continue running because if he's safe at 1B, and the defense appeals the check swing, if upheld (no he didn't go) you bring him back to the plate to continue batting (assuming it was not ball 4)

In other words because of the numerous combinations of things that can happen here, is it better to let him run and see what happens, you can always easliy correct it after

See what you started? :shrug:

[Jocko]

Just kidding, Mud. Whooda thunk it? Lol

[zm1283]

3. This one is my favorite. How can you possibly know if I'm wrong about the PU looking bad? That might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. So you claim to know that I'm wrong about the thoughts that fans, players, and coaches have regarding an umpire. You can't possibly know what they think. Neither can I. But I've been a coach before. And I've coached and umpired many games. In general if one official is changing the calls made by another the players, fans and coaches will lose confidence in the official that is having their calls changed. Only an absolute idiot would argue that. Now I do get that appeal plays are different. But is insane to argue that you know that when a ball gets ruled a strike that no one is thinking about how the PU and BU disagreed. What's even more profoundly stupid is that in another thread I'm being told by some of the same people that you need to "sell your call" to sound confident, and that you will appear weak if you go to your partner for help to often. I realize that this is on the pulled foot not the check swing. But fans, players and coaches are not umpires. They don't get that these two situations are different. All they know is that the call was changed. At least on the pulled foot I'm ruling that I could not see the space when I go for help. On a check swing both umpires are ruling on the same thing.

I don't give a rat's a** what the players and especially the fans think about anything we do on the field. I only very slightly care what the coaches think in certain situations. You are entirely too concerned with how things might look.

So how many check swings being changed does it take for all of these parties to lose confidence in the umpires? Two? Four? Six? What if you just happen to have three or four of them in a game that the BU gets for strikes? That almost never happens, but it can.

The pulled foot/check swing things are totally different situations and are handled differently. The rule book specifically says that the PU MUST ASK for help if the defense asks. The rule book does not say that the BU must ask for help on a pulled foot if asked. Again, why do you care if the players and fans don't know that these situations are different? It is not our job to coddle them and make them feel better.

No one is being an arrogant ass in this thread. You made several definitive statements that JM has outlined for you, and when people tried to help you, you refused to believe that you could be wrong. You have made several incorrect statements and have backtracked many of them already.

Who else would the umpire "look bad" too? Obviously not himself or his partner. The only ones left are the coaches, fans, and players. And it is relevant when they do not trust or respect his calls as a result.

You didn't answer my question, and this response has nothing to do with my question. Players, fans, and most coaches don't know why we do things like we do them and don't know the rules. I've had quite a few fans and players not respect certain calls along the way. Who cares?

[umpire_scott]

3. This one is my favorite. How can you possibly know if I'm wrong about the PU looking bad? That might be the most arrogant thing I've ever read. So you claim to know that I'm wrong about the thoughts that fans, players, and coaches have regarding an umpire. You can't possibly know what they think. Neither can I. But I've been a coach before. And I've coached and umpired many games. In general if one official is changing the calls made by another the players, fans and coaches will lose confidence in the official that is having their calls changed. Only an absolute idiot would argue that. Now I do get that appeal plays are different. But is insane to argue that you know that when a ball gets ruled a strike that no one is thinking about how the PU and BU disagreed. What's even more profoundly stupid is that in another thread I'm being told by some of the same people that you need to "sell your call" to sound confident, and that you will appear weak if you go to your partner for help to often. I realize that this is on the pulled foot not the check swing. But fans, players and coaches are not umpires. They don't get that these two situations are different. All they know is that the call was changed. At least on the pulled foot I'm ruling that I could not see the space when I go for help. On a check swing both umpires are ruling on the same thing.

I don't give a rat's a** what the players and especially the fans think about anything we do on the field. I only very slightly care what the coaches think in certain situations. You are entirely too concerned with how things might look.

So how many check swings being changed does it take for all of these parties to lose confidence in the umpires? Two? Four? Six? What if you just happen to have three or four of them in a game that the BU gets for strikes? That almost never happens, but it can.

The pulled foot/check swing things are totally different situations and are handled differently. The rule book specifically says that the PU MUST ASK for help if the defense asks. The rule book does not say that the BU must ask for help on a pulled foot if asked. Again, why do you care if the players and fans don't know that these situations are different? It is not our job to coddle them and make them feel better.

No one is being an arrogant ass in this thread. You made several definitive statements that JM has outlined for you, and when people tried to help you, you refused to believe that you could be wrong. You have made several incorrect statements and have backtracked many of them already.

Who else would the umpire "look bad" too? Obviously not himself or his partner. The only ones left are the coaches, fans, and players. And it is relevant when they do not trust or respect his calls as a result.

You didn't answer my question, and this response has nothing to do with my question. Players, fans, and most coaches don't know why we do things like we do them and don't know the rules. I've had quite a few fans and players not respect certain calls along the way. Who cares?

If it's the question asking how many times then I would say it depends. Each one would work to erode confidence. In my opinion even the first time that an umpire makes an emphatic"no he didn't" and the BU rules strike, the PU has a small amount of egg on his face in the eyes of those watching. So each time after that when it happens it would be more so. If the PU simply says ball, then there would be no egg on the face at all, and I would have no problem giving him my opinion, even if it's somewhat of a guess. To me "ball" means I did not see him go. "No he didn't" means I got a good look and I saw him hold up. Those are two very different situations.

As for relevance I do think it is important that you keep the coaches, fans and players confident in the ability of both umpires to make proper calls. I do not think it's appropriate to "not give a rat's ass" what the coaches, players, and fans think of your partner's ability.

[Jocko]

You gain their confidence and respect by how you look, how you carry yourself, your game mgmt, your hustle, and your professionalism. It's not a popularity contest. I give respect from the moment I step on the diamond, and demand the same in return. I have almost zero problems with coaches. Make a right call, and that's how it is. Hustle, be respectful, confident, and courteous. Consider it the role of a police officer.. when he walks up, there's no doubt who's in charge. You can offer your opinion the right way and he will weigh it with his own, but in the end it's going the way he says it is. Same with us. Do your job. Do it the right way.

[carolinablue]

Good God, 8 pages? What is the UE record, this thread has got to be close.

[RichMSN]

As for relevance I do think it is important that you keep the coaches, fans and players confident in the ability of both umpires to make proper calls. I do not think it's appropriate to "not give a rat's ass" what the coaches, players, and fans think of your partner's ability.

I guess I have egg on my face *every* time because I *always* say, "No, he didn't go" on a checked swing that I send down to my partner on the bases.

You couldn't be more off base. The checked swing appeal is one place where the base umpire should feel fine reversing a partner's call. It's expected by coaches and teams that have a clue.

[umpire_scott]

As for relevance I do think it is important that you keep the coaches, fans and players confident in the ability of both umpires to make proper calls. I do not think it's appropriate to "not give a rat's ass" what the coaches, players, and fans think of your partner's ability.

I guess I have egg on my face *every* time because I *always* say, "No, he didn't go" on a checked swing that I send down to my partner on the bases.

You couldn't be more off base. The checked swing appeal is one place where the base umpire should feel fine reversing a partner's call. It's expected by coaches and teams that have a clue.

Maybe I'm way off base. I don't know because I have not surveyed coaches or fans, other than asking my wife. In some ways everyone using the same "no he didn't go" mechanic would be best. That way there is no confusion between an emphatic call or a guess. I'm really not sensitive about my feelings getting hurt when someone changes my call. I'm much more worried about my partner getting butthurt about it. And I always try and support my partner. I'm just a nice guy like that. I am very cognizant of not making my partner look bad.