Neighborhood Play / Phantom tag

[jjb]

Thanks, Pete: Personally, I used the FYC on the plate Once, One Time, Uno, in 131 games this season. (I can't remember if I used it at all last season). And you're right: I'd never even consider using it on the bases: it just doesn't serve any purpose. I don't consider myself a cheater, a person of no integrity, or someone trying to insert myself into a game. I'm not even trying to "teach someone a lesson". I'm just trying to stop an unacceptable behavior quietly, quickly, without fanfare, and moving on with the game, after talking with the individual doesn't seem to work.

Look, if people don't want to use it, great, no problem. If people want to call R2 Safe, as he's trotting off the field, because HE thinks he's out on a NH Play, you're not gonna hurt my feelings. If people want to call a borderline pitch a Ball 4 in a 16-2 blowout in the top of the 7th, when it's 104 out there, well, I'll be the guy in position B with his hands on his knees, staring at my feet and spitting on the ground as he takes his base.....

[jim knight]

Okay... I will give you that... it is my view from my training and experience /

Some things that have worked for me in place of the FYC is just talking to player or manager in a matter of fact way. Use the line-up card as a tool so you are not bringing attention to the conversation... or any other tools you might have like the ball or bat or cleaning off a bag or plate... Telling them is much better that showing them IMO.

There is no time to think about replay at the professional level, I know. Like I said they are better at getting into position and reading plays because of the experience and number of games and situations they have seen. The speed at that level is hard to explain... but no, I do not believe todays MLB guys think about replay...

[BrianC14]

Pete,

Could you please point me to where in the J/R is the commentary about "in the vicinity" ?

Thanks,

[PeteBooth]

Pete,

Could you please point me to where in the J/R is the commentary about "in the vicinity" ?

Thanks,

Brian I will get back to you

When I go home tonight I will look at my manual

Pete Booth

[Jeff C.]

Back in the day, I was BU doing a men's league softball game. I know, first mistake. I was a kid that didn't know squat except I knew what a neighborhood play was. Force play at second, ss comes across to accept the ball, missed the bag and I safe the runner. Even the runner thought he was going to be out. Talk about a sh**storm! I was correct and my partner backed me up.

I vowed after that to never do men's league softball again! I'm in the fold of I want to see the touch of the base and the tag. This is a great discussion.

[PeteBooth]

Back in the day, I was BU doing a men's league softball game. I know, first mistake. I was a kid that didn't know squat except I knew what a neighborhood play was. Force play at second, ss comes across to accept the ball, missed the bag and I safe the runner. Even the runner thought he was going to be out. Talk about a sh**storm! I was correct and my partner backed me up.

I vowed after that to never do men's league softball again! I'm in the fold of I want to see the touch of the base and the tag. This is a great discussion.

Stockbridge

First and foremost the game is for the Players. The main reason there was a sh**storm is becasue the neighborhood play is accepted at this level as evidenced by

Even the runner thought he was going to be out.

Each level of ball is different and IMO as umpires we adjust unless you ONLY want to call ball at a certain level.

Pete Booth

[Jeff C.]

Stockbridge

First and foremost the game is for the Players. The main reason there was a sh**storm is becasue the neighborhood play is accepted at this level as evidenced by

Each level of ball is different and IMO as umpires we adjust unless you ONLY want to call ball at a certain level.

Pete Booth

I totally agree that it's for the players. Is it possible that players having seen the neighborhood play for years in the MLB expect that call? I don't know, I'm just speculating.

[BrianC14]

And the reference in Roder is on Page.... ?

How about a reference to the Evans Annotated Rule book?

Thanks,

[mstaylor]

How about what's taught at the clinics. There is two parts to interps and common usage.

[PeteBooth]

And the reference in Roder is on Page.... ?

How about a reference to the Evans Annotated Rule book?

Thanks,

Brian you know darn well that you will not find anything about the FYC call, Neighborhood play, phantom tag etc. PUBLISHED in any authoritative manual.

As Michael points out it comes under the caption customary usage

In Summary: As I mentioned to you and others

If you do not like or feel comfortable with the FYC, neighborhood play, phantom tag play etc. that's your philosophy

My MAIN point was that the aforementioned exist and to say that if an umpire calls the neighborhood etc. then that umpire is labeled as unethical and a cheater which IMO is NOT the case.

Pete Booth

[BrianC14]

Brian you know darn well that you will not find anything about the FYC call, Neighborhood play, phantom tag etc. PUBLISHED in any authoritative manual.

Pete Booth

Many of the experts which include Evans/ Roder refer to the term "in the vicinity of"

Brian I will get back to you

When I go home tonight I will look at my manual

Pete Booth

OK, so to be clear, it isn't published anywhere, most definitely Roder's manual, and most definitely Evans' annotated rules.

[UmpJM]

Brian,

I've certainly never seen anything written in the MLBUM, the PBUC Manual, the JEA, J/R, or the BRD referring to these types of calls in certain sitches. But I know they happen, and, that is how the participants WANT them called.

My association had its winter meeting a week or so ago. The head assignor lead a discussion on the topic (I'm paraphrasing here), "Umpiring - Black & White or Shades of Grey?" His emphatic point was that it ain't black & white. And, if you umpire as if it were, you will be deemed a not especially good umpire with limited prospects for advancing.

One of the most instructive things I have read on the subject was from a post made by Bob Pariseau about 2 years ago on another umpire board, in response to a similar/related question:

...The theory is that you, "Don't make the unexpected call on a routine play."

OK, so what makes for a routine play?

And if the play was so dang routine, how could the call possibly NOT go the expected way?

Routine plays are the common plays where both sides execute pretty much according to plan without doing anything clumsy or surprising -- and with no obvious flaws in their play (as regards THIS part of the action; earlier errors notwithstanding) -- and where the call shouldn't really be in doubt because the action just wasn't that close. Everybody ALREADY KNOWS how the call SHOULD HAVE GONE on this play.

The expected call, then, is the call that would normally have happened on this routine action.

Now if the umpire sees an UNexpected flaw in the otherwise routine play, he will be tempted to ignore it and make the expected call ANYWAY, just BECAUSE the play is so routine and the flaw so unexpected. Now normally this would just be sloppy umpiring. If there's a flaw in the play the umpire is supposed to adjust his call accordingly.

But the theory is that it is CORRECT to ignore that flaw and just make the "expected call", IF AND ONLY IF, the flaw is sufficiently minor, AND is explained either by excuseable sloppiness under the circumstances, or by an effort of the player to get a little more margin of personal safety under the circumstances. And again, this is ONLY applicable to "routine" plays. If the play is wierd, or broken, or hard, or close, then both players need to execute correctly to get the call.

This theory falls into the broad category known as PRACTICAL UMPIRING, and can kind of be summarized by the aphorism, "Sometimes the Precision of our Vision Exceeds the Need."

This theory also plays a role in the application of, "Benefit of the Doubt." If events conspire against you, and you CAN'T see what you were supposed to see, you will, nevertheless, still have to make the call. And so who gets the Benefit of the Doubt on this call? Often, but not always, the Benefit of the Doubt properly goes to the team that screwed up the least, and/or against the team that made this play into a problem. In other words, the call goes in the "expected" direction.

Both of these approaches, "Expected Call", and "Benefit of the Doubt", can be abused by umpires looking for an excuse to be lazy -- to not work hard enough, and with good enough mechanics, so as to see everything that is supposed to be seen.

Used right, however, these two approaches help make for a pleasing, fair, and generally quiet game.

But used wrong, these two approaches lead to the type of discussion you guys had after this game, or a generally noisey time during the game.

EXAMPLE: R1, no outs. Ground ball to F6. On line toss to F4 at 2B who pivots to turn the double play. If F4 has actually made the Tag at 2B, R1 will be out by many many feet. This play is not close. And that combined with the on line throw and a smooth, athletic execution by F4 make this pivot a "routine" play.

But what if F4 FAILED TO TAG 2B? Now you've got a flaw in a routine play where everyone already knows the expected outcome. So do you call R1 Out, or Safe?

Well we need more info.

If F4 turned that pivot nowhere close to 2B -- couldn't have reached it with a stretched out foot even if he'd tried -- then you must call R1 Safe. This flaw is not sufficiently minor.

But what if F4 straddled 2B without touching it, or was standing right next to it without touching it as he made the pivot?

Thirty years ago, that would have ALWAYS gotten an Out from an experienced umpire working upper level games. This is the infamous "neighborhood play" where F4 gets the Out because he was in the neighborhood of 2B when he turned the pivot, his pivot was clean and athletic looking, and the play at 2B wasn't close. The theory is that F4 sufficiently demonstrated he *COULD HAVE* made that Out, and gained no real advantage by playing it the way he did EXCEPT that F4 got some added safety against being crashed by R1.

The neighborhood play Out call was in vogue during a period where umpires were particularly loathe to call interference against an R1 crashing the pivot man -- even if R1's actions were particularly blatant, flagrant, and violent. And since they weren't going to call the Interference, F4 needed to be able to get out of R1's way -- even at the expense of not actually Tagging 2B on this "routine" play.

Nowadays this is NOT the way it works in games worked by modern, trained, experienced umpires. And the reason it is now done differently is largely because it has now come back into vogue to call Interference more often against an R1 who crashes the pivot man. Higher quality TV replays supporting both the Interference calls and the "OFF THE BASE!" calls should get a large measure of credit here.

Does that mean that modern umpires now require F4 to make a flawless Tag? Nope.

Instead the bar has been moved as regards what constitutes "excuseable sloppiness" and/or flaws related to safety.

The modern approach is that F4 *HAS TO ACTUALLY TOUCH 2B* as part of the pivot. Simply waiving a foot in the air over top of 2B, or straddling 2B, or standing beside 2B is no longer enough. An F4 who fails to actually touch 2B won't get the Out call!

But F4 can still get the Out call with other flaws. Again, given that this is "routine" action with an on line throw way ahead of R1, and that F4 makes a smooth, athletic pivot which INCLUDES touching 2B, then F4 will get the Out call EVEN IF he:

1) Loses contact with 2B just BEFORE catching the toss from F6, or

2) Only touches 2B just AFTER releasing the throw to 1B, or

3) Never actually controls the ball while touching 2B because he "pops" the toss from F6 into the air using the back of his glove, steps off 2B towards 1B, grabs the ball out of the air with his throwing hand, and launches the throw to 1B as one coordinated motion.

These are all flaws. Technically there has been no Tag and R1 should be Safe. But experienced umpires will still call the Out here because this DOES fall into the modern assessment of an "expected call" situation on the pivot play.

--Bob

An umpire who employs this philosophy, and has the experience and competence to do it properly, is not "being unethical" or "cheating"; he is recognizing that, in addition to enforcing the rules of the game, the umpire is equally responsible for "maintaining order and discipline" on the field. Sometimes these two different responibilities are at odds with one another, and one does not necessarily always take precedence over the other.

The very best umpires I know subscribe to this philosophy. If you choose not to, that's certainly your prerogative. I'd encourage you to engage Jim E. in conversation on the subject if you can catch him "after hours" when he does your pending clinic.

JM

[BrianC14]

One of the most instructive things I have read on the subject was from a post made by Bob Pariseau about 2 years ago on another umpire board, in response to a similar/related question:

etc....

JM

I can live with that. In thinking about how I do umpire, that's also what I've been taught.

Thanks, JM

[mstaylor]

OK, so to be clear, it isn't published anywhere, most definitely Roder's manual, and most definitely Evans' annotated rules.

That would be correct but it sure as heck is taught at clinics.

[BrianC14]

That would be correct but it sure as heck is taught at clinics.

WARNING: Nit pick:

I think it would be appropriate to say "it is taught at some clinics".

The problem I have with having it taught is that "in the vicinity" becomes that 3, 4 and even 6 inches (and I've seen more) with some guys. I've seen some guys call it where you'd think they were using the local area code as their definition of "vicinity". :tantrum:

[Majordave]

"discussion". Which is a good one I might add.

I am a member of ESO. Admittedly, I don't go there to read as often as they have no forum and updates are rare to that site. But this morning I was perusing that site and found an article I had missed.

Steve Rippley, former MLB, writes and lectures on video articles there and He has one about calling the "Neighborhood Play".

This is an excerpt/paraphrase of the article (hopefully I am not too far afoul of any copyright matters).

"If you are on the lower levels and don’t often work with TV cameras all over the place, you should recognize the neighborhood play as a learning opportunity for yourself and the players. Just remember that on a routine double play, everybody in the ballpark is watching the ball – the throw to second and the middle infielder’s exchange of the ball from glove to throwing hand. No one but you is watching for the foot touching the base. Thus, if you have a player pushing it, you are in a good position to give him the out and mention to him at an opportune time that he needs to make a better effort to touch the base. Again, remember that I am talking about a routine double play. Also remember that you are never wrong if you call the runner safe because the base was not touched. However, baseball is a fluid game and can be well served in some cases by umpires who take a common sense approach.

Steve Rippley was a Major League umpire for 21 years, worked three World Series, and was a crew chief at the time of his retirement in 2002. He was chief field instructor at the Joe Brinkman Umpire School and is now a member of the ESO Baseball Education Panel."

Not a bad approach and I think several of us here see that point of view. The worst type of umpire I can think of is the OOO (overly officious official). I know some of them and they can ruin a ball game. Common sense is the key to success and moving up to higher levels not overly technical determinations of rules.

My two cents (again). Your mileage may vary.

[Umpire in Chief]

... If used the timing still has to be there. He can't go by the bag then catch the ball.

" ...

"If you are on the lower levels and don’t often work with TV cameras all over the place, you should recognize the neighborhood play as a learning opportunity for yourself and the players. Just remember that on a routine double play, everybody in the ballpark is watching the ball – the throw to second and the middle infielder’s exchange of the ball from glove to throwing hand. No one but you is watching for the foot touching the base. Thus, if you have a player pushing it, you are in a good position to give him the out and mention to him at an opportune time that he needs to make a better effort to touch the base. Again, remember that I am talking about a routine double play. Also remember that you are never wrong if you call the runner safe because the base was not touched. However, baseball is a fluid game and can be well served in some cases by umpires who take a common sense approach.

Steve Rippley was a Major League umpire for 21 years, worked three World Series, and was a crew chief at the time of his retirement in 2002. He was chief field instructor at the Joe Brinkman Umpire School and is now a member of the ESO Baseball Education Panel."

This is why I have no real problem with the neighbrohood play on the routine plays. It's the expected call as long as the timing is there and the fielder makes it look good. When I have called an out on a neighbrohood play, I've never heard a chirp. Often R1 gives up on his own if he thinks he's been beat by a mile and can't make a play of it. But like the article says, I'm the olny one who noticed the foot not touching the base. To call otherwise would be reaching for the dirty end of the stick.

But it goes to timing, what is the timing for the fielder? It's just like good timing for an umpire, you know it when you see it. If the fielder has to make it look good, if it's really noticable to you and makes you even give a second thought then it was off. And absolutely forget it if it's other than a routine play.

[PeteBooth]

"discussion".

"If you are on the lower levels and don’t often work with TV cameras all over the place,

Dave thanks for the article and IMO you said the all important phrase work with TV cameras all over the place, which is why umpiring philosophy at the PRO level has changed.

More huddling then ever before and less "neighborhoods" given because of SLO-MO replay.

After watching some of the fiasco's concering replay in both College and PRO football I am starting to hate IR. Now some 3-5 minutes are used up in trying to determine what happened and forget the term "indistbutable"

I am getting a bit off topic, but SLO-MO replay has impacted the way umpires call the game even though IR can only be used on SPECIFIC occasions.

Pete Booth

[jim knight]

I agree that the game is and always will be fluid and yes, common sense is needed in umpiring as it is in any other profession. That is not licence to knowingly miss an obvious call in the name of tradition. Rip makes a good point on the ROUTINE DOUBLE play to mention to the offender that he needs to touch the base... my take on that is that if a simular play should happen again the fielder will not get the call... notice he is only addresses double plays that are well executed.

Pete you like to go to the old "slo-mo has changed the way the pros umpire" comment... you and I will never agree on that. IMO the pro guys have learned from watching but do not call the game based on slo-mo replay. I have said this before... they work hard at getting the best position and call what they see. The speed and the skill set of the players in MLB make for some tough calls /

Ask Rip about your FYC...

Merry Christmas.

[PeteBooth]

Pete you like to go to the old "slo-mo has changed the way the pros umpire" comment... you and I will never agree on that.

Jim that Comment has been shared by PRO Umpires

From Dave's post and Steve Rippley's words

If you are on the lower levels and don’t often work with TV cameras all over the place, you should recognize the neighborhood play as a learning opportunity for yourself and the players.

Steve who is a PRO umpire is admitting that TV has impacted the way the game is called today vs. the old days. If there were no TV angles / SLO-MO replays there would be more neighborhoods called at the PRO level, but these guys KNOW that just about every play will be shown over again on TV at just about every angle possible.

You do not have to agree with me and I am not trying to change your mind but IMO you should recognize those types of comments from someone "who has been there"

All I can tell you is this

The game is for the players NOT us and at certain levels they EXPECT the game to be called a certain way.

If you umpire in a league that EXPECTS the umpire to call the "neighborhood" for BOTH teams and you do not, for the most part you will not be asked back again.

It's not just the neighborhood play

Example: which I gave in another section of this Forum

When I first joined my local HS association I got only Modified (7th/8th graders) and JV games for the frist 2 years.

In the summer of my second year as a HS Official I had my first CBL (Collegiate Wood bat League) Game behind the dish.

I was simply awful and in one instance a player in a nice way said

"Blue this is not JV" meaning the game called at this level was VASTLY different then calling a game at the modified or JV level which at that point in my career is all I was exposed to.

I watched other umpires doing this type ball and learned. By my 3rd / 4th game behind the dish I felt comfortable and called the game the way the players at the collegiate level expected it to be called. That doesn't mean I didn't hear moans / groans when I punched someone out on a strike 3 call but means I called the game the way it was EXPECTED.

You still have to make those "tough" calls but in this league when a player was OUT they were OUT if you "catch my drift"

If I wanted to continue umpiring at this level then I had to change my approach or the league would simply call the assignor and tell him to send someone else.

Pete Booth

[BrianC14]

The thing is, with digital video cameras, telephone cameras and the like, an umpire an ANY level may never know if he's been caught on camera.

I don't like the concept of calling a game in such a way that you'd change your call to avoid being caught by video. To me, there's something inherently dishonest about that.

Interestingly, the article that Major Dave (thanks for that, Dave) cited specifically points out that an umpire should also let the infielder know about touching the base. Hmmmm...

Maybe I've been lucky, but every time a DP has been called by me, that guy touched the base. Maybe slo-mo video replays would show otherwise, but in my judgement on those calls, on every single one, that infielder made contact. I'm sure of it. :)

[PeteBooth]

Maybe I've been lucky, but every time a DP has been called by me, that guy touched the base. Maybe slo-mo video replays would show otherwise, but in my judgement on those calls, on every single one, that infielder made contact. I'm sure of it.

Brian here is a question for you?

B1 hits a walk off HR but misses the plate by AN INCH I do not mean 3 inches / 4 inches a foot or a mile I mean an INCH

are you going to uphold an appeal or simply head for your car?

From your responses thus far it's my gut you would uphold the appeal.

Me I am already thinking about having a cold one.

Pete Booth

[Majordave]

I am out of there as soon as he crosses the plate area. I am not calling a kid out on a game winner for an inch or so. Now, one of the preceding runners I might but they (the defense) better be appealing simultaneously with the batter-runner coming across the plate or I am doing the fast, fast (range) walk out the gate most ricky-tic.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Majordave
grammar

[jim knight]

Really.... if a player misses home and it is appealed / the runner will be called out in my game... if I had one of my guys not make that call (and know the plate was missed) they would not ever work again.

Sorry Pete, again we are going to disagree.

At the levels I work, common sense is used... players are not fu@#ed with and we do not let them mess with us. If they dont touch but make a clean play and get the call, we let them know what we expect and they will touch the rest of the season or they wont get the call...

[LMSANS]

Brian here is a question for you?

B1 hits a walk off HR but misses the plate by AN INCH I do not mean 3 inches / 4 inches a foot or a mile I mean an INCH

are you going to uphold an appeal or simply head for your car?

From your responses thus far it's my gut you would uphold the appeal.

Me I am already thinking about having a cold one.

Pete Booth

What about 1.5 inches? Or 1.25 inches? Is the traditional line at 1 inch?

That's my problem with a call like that, where is the cutoff? Is it one inch at the plate on a walk-off, 2 inches at 2B on a routine double play?

What if at my angle the miss of home is actually 3/4 inch, but it looks to me like 1.5?

:TD: