Neighborhood Play / Phantom tag

[mstaylor]

The guys that are disagreeing with Dave, Pete and me, what level of ball are you making these calls? The higher levels is what we are talking about. The lower the level it isn't done. There is a addage we work by that we also teach and that's make the expected call for the level you are working. This has been brought up here before but you have to understand what they are looking for.

The thing that seperates umpires from level to level is game management. You have to be able to maintain the flow, make the calls according to your level and be able to handle game participants. The thing I always stress is it is better to get to a new level a year late than a year early. If you make a bad impression it will take three to five years to counteract it. This includes strike zones, base calls and not being an OOO.

[BrianC14]

Like I said earlier, I don't bring a ruler out there.

I've never - I repeat - NEVER - seen a batter who hit a walk-off HR miss the plate by any margin. Never.

Mike: I don't see where anyone is in disagreement with you (unless I've misread someone's post). I've maintained a consistent response here - I don't particularly like the 'neighborhood call' ; but if an umpire uses it, that's his business, not mine.

I work mostly 4A and 5A games in spring; I had a fair number of JV games this past season as well. During the summer, I had a fair bit of Connie Mack and Legion A/B games; though on two weekends I (ugh) signed up for a travel-ball tournament for 14 and under. Pretty good ball, in general, but it was a big step down from what I'm accustomed to.

Oddly enough, I've been told by some evaluators that I'm probably too lenient, so I certainly wouldn't fit the OOO category. I think that most coaches find me approachable and willing to listen, but I do have my limits, as we all should. (My hot buttons are coaches who keep repeating the same question while expecting a new / better answer, and those coaches that employ "you" in their gripes). The approach I bring to each game is "let the game be played without putting myself into it". Of course the level of ball matters; I find it easier to work the upper level games because it's fairly rare that you have many surprises (the worse thing an umpire can be is 'surprised', right?). But I find it a curious concept: if you're enforcing a "must touch regardless" on a play at 2B for a JV game, why not the same thing at a higher level? Or perhaps should that concept be applied the other way around?

Merry Christmas

Edited December 24, 2008 by BrianC14

[mstaylor]

I agree that you have to call what is consistant for your area. When I say lower, I mean beloe JV. I work all levels from 9/10 LL to travel ball to college. I have to adjust my mechanics according to the level I'm working.

Some guys don't understand why I work some of the youth stuff that I do but I think kids need good umpires too, plus I work with newer umps to help them out.

[MCLEOD36]

It is commendable at all levels, to stay sharp, I will work some USSSA games from 12 to JV in the fall and it never ceases to amaze me what comes up, even in the smaller games....

[jim knight]

Level I work and have worked.... NAIA College World Series three times (never had to make the call but would) / Pioneer League fill-in (Rookie class A professional... 250 games over 15 years / 5 playoff assingments) / Class AA Legion... need I go on with resume? It really comes down to how we handle these things... I have had to make several tough calls over the years as have all of you I am sure.

Edited December 27, 2008 by jim knight
error

[Majordave]

Website-the paid side. Edited to add this:(Warren Willson of Australia on Officiating.com) I quote Warren in my signature block regarding our duties as stewards of the game. He apparently does not write much anymore but he has a long, well written article on this subject in a series he did about umpire ethics.

A quote from part of this article is relevant here-I think.

"The Neighborhood Play. When to call it:

The following guidelines might apply to any prospective use of the "neighborhood" play:

1. Under 14 years: Not accepted at that age level. The absence of metal cleats, and the application of other more specific safety provisions for plays at the bases, effectively make the "neighborhood" play unnecessary there.

2. From 14 to 18 years: Generally accepted at the upper levels, with players of advanced ability and for tournament play. If the league has no specific safety provisions for plays at the bases, and the players are wearing metal cleats, it would be reasonable to consider the "neighborhood" play as a safe and sensible alternative.

3. Over 18 years (college and pro [adult men's league]): Generally required at that level. Those are the elite and potentially elite athletes of the sport. They play hard and they play to win; and for that group "winning" can mean much more than victory in a single game. They wear metal cleats and they can, and often do, suffer serious injury in plays at the bases. It is totally unreasonable, and makes no sense at all, to risk an athlete's professional career (or potential for same) for the sake of an inch or two on a base tag. If it looks like an out from the stands, call it that way."

I subscribe to this theory with one caveat-as told to me by much senior umpires who work MLB, AAA MiLB and/or NCAA D-1 in the SEC and ACC and Sun-Belt Conferences--Call it as it actually is when the game is televised. In other words-NO neighborhood plays in televised games. The players and coaches know this at those levels.

We should all be so lucky to call a game at those levels. I hope to one day.

He has also weighed in on the FYC but I will save that for a later date.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Majordave
Name the author I cited and give credit where it is due.

[Majordave]

Jon Bible, NCAA/CWS/Former NCAA Umpire Coordinator, in My Referee-online via TheArbiter.net, article for newer umpires. From 2002.

"The same approach applies to the "neighborhood play," on which the infielder turns a double play by cutting across the bag a second before getting the throw, or straddling it without tagging it. If the throw is accurate and the fielder could have made the play properly, he will get an out call from me, because the offense has not been harmed and enforcing the rule literally increases the chances of the fielder being injured by a sliding runner. By contrast, if the throw is off-target and the fielder has to stretch for it, I will make him touch the bag, for giving him the call in that case would put the offense at a clear disadvantage.

What about the first baseman who pulls his foot off the bag a split-second before catching the throw? Same philosophy. If the throw is accurate and it is not a bang-bang play, I don't care if he cheats a bit because no one is hurt. But if the toss is off-line or the play is a whacker, he must do things correctly. That also applies to fielders tagging runners. If the ball beats a runner who slides straight into the bag and the fielder makes a decent tag attempt, I don't worry whether the glove touched the runner. If, however, the runner makes a great slide away from the bag and the fielder has to chase him with the glove, he must make contact; otherwise, the runner will be unfairly deprived of the results of his good effort."

Just trying to make a complete, research based, common-sense approach portfolio of information about umpiring this difficult play/situation.

[POLOGREEN]

Excellent reference...I just might have to rethink my philosophy. Thanks!

[blindumpire99]

I don't use the FYC, per se..I don't play neighborhood or phantom ball. Around in my parts, coaches on both sides of the field expect a base or a runner to be physically tagged and will give you hell if it/they aren't...

BUT, I have used a call with a catcher framing a pitch like, "Do you want me to call that a strike on YOU?".

Personally, it works every time..

[Old Nr 24]

Very interesting reading, guys, and I have to chime in with my two cents worth if I may. I fully agee the umpire should call what he sees. That goes without saying I think. That said, I think two traditional comments about umpiring have to be considered here.

The first one is "Don't look for trouble." So, if you are going to make a safe call on what appears to everyone on the field and in the stands to be an out, be prepared for the fallout. I'm not saying don't do it, just know ahead of time you are creating a situation rife with potential problems. Also consider that on most plays where the defense executes the play in an apparently proficient manner, everyone in the park expects an out call. It has been my experience that an umpire catches much less static on an out call than on a safe call, especially if that runner appeared to everyone to be out.

The second saying is "Perception IS reality." We teach this to new umpires as it relates to their appearance, their demeanor on the field, and their conduct of the game. What did one umpire say? "You not only have to know what you're doing, but you have to look like you know what your're doing." So if you are the only person in the park who saw that shortstop's foot an inch or two off the bag, or saw that phantom tag, are you ready to go against everyone else's perception of the play?

Bottom line in my book is, of course, call your own game. No one can (or should) force their game on you and your style. However, just know ahead of time that you may be going against not only baseball tradition (and yes, some good and some bad), but you may be going against those two umpiring axioms, so be prepared to handle the fallout. Are you prepared to toss an irate manager or player based on your decision? Are you prepared to let a relatively well played game get out of hand because of an inch or two? I'm not saying it will happen, but it certainly could happen.

[TLH]

I have to second LMSANS post, of coming off as a harda$$, but whether I was playing or coaching, the "in the vicinity play" was one thing that really got me going. I guess I have carried that philosophy over into my umpiring. It's not that I want to interject myself into the game, but rather I want a strike over the plate and in the zone as well as the defense to step on on the bag and stay on the bag.

Having said that, in Pete's sit #1, I have R1 safe at 2nd and an out at 1st because I actually saw F6 missed the bag (one of the base coaches could/should have seen this too). I'm also making no bones about the call at 2nd, so everyone's going to know the call, and R1 had better not be giving up (something else I didn't much care for as a player or a coach). I feel sit#2, is a little different scenario because the umpire/s were blocked from actually seeing what occurred. But in this situation I'm reading what both the offense and defense is doing. This will usually tell what transpired, usually.

[Old Nr 24]

I can't resist just one more comment on this subject. For those guys who are adamant about the fielder touching the bag and/or the tag absolutely making contact, just remember that you must ultimately lie in the bed you make. Consistency is the name of the game, so you have to be ready to apply the same requirements for an entire game, game in and game out, through the entire season. Remember, consistency is the name of the umpiring game!

I liken this approach to the guy who is making the pitcher toss it into a teacup in the first inning. I hate to see that when I'm working the bases with that guy because I know if he is true to the code of consistency it's going to be a very long game, especially if the pitching is not that good to begin with, which is the case in many of the lower age brackets. If you are consistent, that zone you establish in the first inning MUST be the zone for both teams for the entire game, and if it's 6 inches wide and 6 inches high, better call the wife between innings and have her hold dinner! Personally I would much rather stretch the zone in the beginning just to let people know we ain't gonna have a walk fest, nor are we gonna stand around watching the grass grow for 4 hours.

So, if you apply those rules to the letter just remember you're stuck with that approach, at least for that game. I know, it may only come up once....but then again it may come up several times, so be ready to be consistent!

[LMSANS]

I can't resist just one more comment on this subject. For those guys who are adamant about the fielder touching the bag and/or the tag absolutely making contact, just remember that you must ultimately lie in the bed you make. Consistency is the name of the game, so you have to be ready to apply the same requirements for an entire game, game in and game out, through the entire season. Remember, consistency is the name of the umpiring game!

I liken this approach to the guy who is making the pitcher toss it into a teacup in the first inning. I hate to see that when I'm working the bases with that guy because I know if he is true to the code of consistency it's going to be a very long game, especially if the pitching is not that good to begin with, which is the case in many of the lower age brackets. If you are consistent, that zone you establish in the first inning MUST be the zone for both teams for the entire game, and if it's 6 inches wide and 6 inches high, better call the wife between innings and have her hold dinner! Personally I would much rather stretch the zone in the beginning just to let people know we ain't gonna have a walk fest, nor are we gonna stand around watching the grass grow for 4 hours.

So, if you apply those rules to the letter just remember you're stuck with that approach, at least for that game. I know, it may only come up once....but then again it may come up several times, so be ready to be consistent!

So you are saying it is better to be inconsistent for the sake of expediency. Start with a big zone and then shrink it down after your message has been received. Now, do the coaches and players tell you that they understand your message? Or does that come with some pre-determined amount of experience?

I have to be consistent because I'm trying to be as accurate as I can, but I don't have to be consistent if I make the game go faster.

I got it! :clap:

[PeteBooth]

I have to second LMSANS post, of coming off as a harda$$, but whether I was playing or coaching, the "in the vicinity play" was one thing that really got me going. I guess I have carried that philosophy over into my umpiring. It's not that I want to interject myself into the game, but rather I want a strike over the plate and in the zone as well as the defense to step on on the bag and stay on the bag.

If that is your philosophy that's fine but the point of my OP was this.

if an umpired (and I know many who do) call the neighborhood that in and by itself does not make them "cheaters" or having no "integrity". Also, it's called the SAME way for BOTH teams.

The MAIN reason we do not see the neighborhood called as much in the PRO game has NOTHING to do with a change in umpiring philosophy but TECHNOLOGY.

All games are now on TV either through one's local cable network or the baseball channel. Therfore, just about EVERY call is scrutinized to the nth degree.

Your comment about the strike zone but rather I want a strike over the plate and in the zone depends upon the level of ball you call.

Regardless of what people think I am not staying there for 4 hours. The strike zone is that which is accepetd in the leagues we service.

Ok what does that mean!

It means this.

The strike zone at the HS modified level (mainly 7th and 8th graders) is DIFFERENT than the HS varsity level (kids at the age of 18/19)

You cannot expect a 7th garder to have the same type of control as a HS senior Varsity player.

Bottom Line: - We all have our OWN philosophies and the point of my OP was that just because someone "gives" the neigborhood call or uses an FYC call does not make it wrong. if it works for you fine.

Pete Booth

[Old Nr 24]

LMSANS: I guess I should have worded that better. I'm not advocating changing the zone. I have always been what is often referred to as a "pitcher's umpire." I much prefer a larger strike zone, calling those close pitches strikes. In my experience it just makes for a better game, a crisper game, a game that is determined more by the quality of play than by chance. Maybe it's because in my younger days I was often the one standing out on that mound trying to figure out how to record strikes and outs, but I just think if an umpire establishes a liberal but fair zone at the beginnnig of the game everyone gets the message. If he maintains that zone for both teams throughout the game everyone plays better baseball and everyone has more fun. But as I say, just my two cents worth.

[LMSANS]

I have no problem with an appropriate zone for the level, but it is going to be the same zone for both teams throughout the game. Even my zone gets wider when I'm working a 13u tournament.

:givebeer:

[jim knight]

Pete... I do not know why you always try to make us believe that TV is the only reason the MLB guys no longer make these calls.

[Majordave]

I have been told by MLB, MiLB and NCAA D-1 umpires that there is no neighborhood play on televised games. It is that simple. No other reason.

[PeteBooth]

Pete... I do not know why you always try to make us believe that TV is the only reason the MLB guys no longer make these calls.

Because it is FACT and has been mentioned in clinics I attended by PRO umpires etc.

Whenever there is a close call, controversial type call, ESPN FOX etc. use the SLO-MO replay and show the play OVER and OVER again.

Also, I am NOT trying to convince you or others to call the neighborhood. My POINT which I thought I made CLEAR was this

if an umpire calls the neigblorhood, that umpire is not cheating the game or unethical etc. It's a different philosophy that is part of the traditions of baseball.

Pete Booth

Edited March 10, 2009 by PeteBooth