Changed to "Catch"

[Daniel]

Working a small diamond game this weekend.  I'm PU, and we have R1 & R3 with One out.

 

Blooper is hit it to short RF.   F9 comes hustling in and slides awkwardly trying to make the catch, webbing almost buried into the natural turf.   From my view, which was straight lined, it appeared the ball bounced up from the ground and into the pocket of the glove, so I came up with "No Catch!".  R3 continued home without re-tagging.   F9 threw to F5 wanting an appeal on R3 for leaving too early.   I repeated my call and then the DHC came out and asked if I could check with my BU on the catch because of how it happened.  Since my partner was in C, I figured he might have had some angle on it, so I went to him asking if he had a catch.  He said he did, and was 1000% on it.

 

I changed my call to a catch, and the DHC wanted to know if the out on the appeal stood.   I, feeling that my "no-catch" call played a role in the runner not re-tagging, decided not to allow it.  My partner agreed, and the DHC didn't have a problem with it either; since it seemed like the best thing to do.

 

Would you have handled anything differently in this situation?

[Dragon29]

So far, I'm with you - what did you do w/the runners?

[Daniel]

Allowed R3 to score and R1 went to 2B on the throw to F5.

[umpire_scott]

So did you allow the run to score, or put the runner back on third?

[umpire_scott]

Allowed R3 to score and R1 went to 2B on the throw to 

 

I think since you said short RF I would be inclined to return the runners to their respective bases.

 

On another note it's hard for me to imagine a play where you felt you saw the ball bounce of the turf and BU was 1000% certain it was a clean catch.  He might have to be 1001% certain for me to change the call.

[Dragon29]

Well, for a catch in short RF I might have been inclined to leave both runners where they were TOP unless I was fairly certain that F9's recovery from his motion to catch the ball would not have been fast enough to try & make a play on R3.  (ie. diving, rolling, etc...)  I would definitely not have moved R1 to 2B.

 

I know if I were the OM, I would have come out to ask about either/both awards

[maven]

First question: with F9 coming in, why is PU taking this call instead of lining up a possible tag at 3B? Or maybe it was closer to the line than your post suggests?

 

Your change of a judgment call put the offense at a disadvantage, because R3 became liable to be put out on appeal. By 9.02(c ) you should fix this.

 

I would have treated the situation as if you had ruled correctly on the catch/no-catch in the first place. With F9 on the ground (sliding for the catch), R3 would have the opportunity to score. If R3 was near the base at the time of the "catch" as if to retouch, then I'd give him credit for that and allow the score. If he assumed the ball would not be caught and a catch would have driven him back to the base, then I'd put him back at 3B. If F9 popped up ready to throw home from short RF, I would also put R3 back at 3B.

 

R1 would not normally advance on this play, so I'd put him back at 1B.

[Daniel]

How would you justify placing R1 back on 1st?   This was a totally legal advancement, and R1 did not leave the bag until F9 threw the ball to boot.  (So it's not a matter of leaving early & the defense appealing, as with the case with R3)

 

Mechanically speaking, the catch and tag up were my responsibility.  I moved back into a holding zone up the 3B line.

[umpire_scott]

How would you justify placing R1 back on 1st?   This was a totally legal advancement, and R1 did not leave the bag until F9 threw the ball to boot.  (So it's not a matter of leaving early & the defense appealing, as with the case with R3)

 

Mechanically speaking, the catch and tag up were my responsibility.  I moved back into a holding zone up the 3B line.

 

Because if you had called "catch" instead of no catch F9 would not have thrown to F5 asking for an appeal, and thus R1 would have remained on 1b.

[maven]

How would you justify placing R1 back on 1st?   This was a totally legal advancement, and R1 did not leave the bag until F9 threw the ball to boot.  (So it's not a matter of leaving early & the defense appealing, as with the case with R3)

 

R3's advance was legal too. Only his failure to retouch was illegal.

 

Proper baserunning has R1 going "halfway" (less on a fly ball to short RF), and returning to 1B after a catch. That's how I'd fix it.

 

Your mistaken judgment caused a game management situation. You need to fix it in the most equitable way possible, and that probably will not reference what actually happened, since that was all based on your mistake. I'm reporting how I would do it, and you're welcome to use that information as you see fit.

[UMP45]

How would you justify placing R1 back on 1st?   This was a totally legal advancement, and R1 did not leave the bag until F9 threw the ball to boot.  (So it's not a matter of leaving early & the defense appealing, as with the case with R3)

 

Mechanically speaking, the catch and tag up were my responsibility.  I moved back into a holding zone up the 3B line.

Still trying to figure out how this is call when the base umpire has the "V" or "U".

[Daniel]

Atleast here, the BU ONLY has catch/no catch responsibility from RF over to foul ground when in A.  Everywhere else, it's plate's.   Keep in mind we're on a 60' diamond.

[umpire_scott]

I don't why people keep bringing up that it should have been BU's call.  If F9 moved at all towards the foul line then PU has the call.  The "V" is everything to the right of F7 and to the left of F9.

[mstaylor]

60 ft,PU has that call in most places. 90 ft most likely BU.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[maven]

Atleast here, the BU ONLY has catch/no catch responsibility from RF over to foul ground when in A. Everywhere else, it's plate's. Keep in mind we're on a 60' diamond.

That's standard, but this post is the first time you mentioned F9 moving to the line. Your first post reported him coming in.

[Daniel]

 

Atleast here, the BU ONLY has catch/no catch responsibility from RF over to foul ground when in A. Everywhere else, it's plate's. Keep in mind we're on a 60' diamond.

That's standard, but this post is the first time you mentioned F9 moving to the line. Your first post reported him coming in.

 

 

What on earth are you talking about maven??

 

*sigh*

 

I said F9 was coming in, meaning toward the infield.  Its still PU's call no matter what direction the fielder goes, because my BU is not in A and we're on the small diamond.

[stl_ump]

Explaination please...

I'm a bit dense in trying to understand who has what call on some fly balls. (and why)

 

In this case why does the PU have the catch/no catch?  The BU is so much closer to it. And for all intents and purposes, has a much better view. (as we have seen in this scenerio)

 

Thanks

[maven]

What on earth are you talking about maven??

 

*sigh*

 

I said F9 was coming in, meaning toward the infield.  Its still PU's call no matter what direction the fielder goes, because my BU is not in A and we're on the small diamond.

Well, I thought I was talking about 2-umpire mechanics, where BU in B or C has catch/no-catch in the "V," including F9 coming straight in.

 

I don't work the small diamond much, and I don't know your local mechanics, either of which could be different from standard 2-umpire. As you move up, I encourage you to become aware of such differences so you don't create a coverage gap.

 

I don't think this is the main issue of the thread, and as usual if both of you were on the same page regarding coverage it's no big deal.

[basejester]

 

Explaination please...

I'm a bit dense in trying to understand who has what call on some fly balls. (and why)

 

In this case why does the PU have the catch/no catch?  The BU is so much closer to it. And for all intents and purposes, has a much better view. (as we have seen in this scenerio)

 

Thanks

The standard for 60' Little League is the plate umpire takes all of the catches. The base umpire is working his way inside on a ball hit to the outfield, which means he's splitting his attention between tracking the ball and navigating around the players.

[umpire_scott]

Explaination please...

I'm a bit dense in trying to understand who has what call on some fly balls. (and why)

 

In this case why does the PU have the catch/no catch?  The BU is so much closer to it. And for all intents and purposes, has a much better view. (as we have seen in this scenerio)

 

Thanks

 

I don't know the exact reason but I would presume it's because PU has the lines for fair/foul, so it's just easier to have him take the catch on anything moving towards the line, rather than having one umpire ruling on the catch and another umpire ruling on fair/foul.

[Kevin_K]

The play was on a small diamond!

 

The routine is for PU to get all fly balls when BU is anywhere other than A. On the small diamond, BU is behind the players and, generally speaking, their resposibility is to move inside when the ball is put into play in the outfield.

 

Hence, if the ball was hit to F9, BU's first move should have been to cross the base path (yuck!) to get an inside position on any potential plays @ 2B or 3B. That raises the question about why BU was watching the ball rather than busting his butt to get inside.

[noumpere]

Working a small diamond game this weekend.  I'm PU, and we have R1 & R3 with One out.

 

Blooper is hit it to short RF.   F9 comes hustling in and slides awkwardly trying to make the catch, webbing almost buried into the natural turf.   From my view, which was straight lined, it appeared the ball bounced up from the ground and into the pocket of the glove, so I came up with "No Catch!".  R3 continued home without re-tagging.   F9 threw to F5 wanting an appeal on R3 for leaving too early.   I repeated my call and then the DHC came out and asked if I could check with my BU on the catch because of how it happened.  Since my partner was in C, I figured he might have had some angle on it, so I went to him asking if he had a catch.  He said he did, and was 1000% on it.

 

I changed my call to a catch, and the DHC wanted to know if the out on the appeal stood.   I, feeling that my "no-catch" call played a role in the runner not re-tagging, decided not to allow it.  My partner agreed, and the DHC didn't have a problem with it either; since it seemed like the best thing to do.

 

Would you have handled anything differently in this situation?

A catch-no catch with multiple runners and with less than two outs is not something that should be changed.

[umpire_scott]

The play was on a small diamond!

 

The routine is for PU to get all fly balls when BU is anywhere other than A. On the small diamond, BU is behind the players and, generally speaking, their resposibility is to move inside when the ball is put into play in the outfield.

 

Hence, if the ball was hit to F9, BU's first move should have been to cross the base path (yuck!) to get an inside position on any potential plays @ 2B or 3B. That raises the question about why BU was watching the ball rather than busting his butt to get inside.

 

Not all games played on small diamonds call for the BU to play outside and then come in.  Here in Missouri you are always inside no matter what size the diamond is.

[grayhawk]

 

The play was on a small diamond!

 

The routine is for PU to get all fly balls when BU is anywhere other than A. On the small diamond, BU is behind the players and, generally speaking, their resposibility is to move inside when the ball is put into play in the outfield.

 

Hence, if the ball was hit to F9, BU's first move should have been to cross the base path (yuck!) to get an inside position on any potential plays @ 2B or 3B. That raises the question about why BU was watching the ball rather than busting his butt to get inside.

 

Not all games played on small diamonds call for the BU to play outside and then come in.  Here in Missouri you are always inside no matter what size the diamond is.

 

 

"Anything from Missouri has a taint about it."

 

[NCAAump2]

I agree with noumpere. You can't change a call on a catch/no-catch with runners on and less than 2 outs. You can't fairly place runners because you have no idea where they would have ended up. IMO, you have to eat this one. Can't change it to benefit the defense and hurt the offense.