Getting it right versus conflict with partner

[umpire_scott]

Had a situation today where I knew we were making the wrong ruling, but my partner would not let it go and did so in front of the coach. So I felt my hands were sort of tied.

 

We were doing 3-man and I was in "B" with a runner on 2nd.  3-2 count on the batter. OBR is the rule set. F1 fails to pause and R2 is stealing on the pitch.  I yell "balk" as the pitch is being delivered.  Batter takes for ball 4 and takes off for first.  F2 throws down to third. My partner does not even make a call on the steal as he heard me call the balk.  He then looks at me and I come to the conclusion he is thinking the balk was a dead ball.  FWIW I believe the runner was safe.

 

I call time and motion for the three of us to talk it over.  I remind that in OBR a balk is not a dead ball so since batter and runner both advanced the balk is ignored.  PU was U3's son and basically looked like a deer in the headlights and didn't really know what we were talking about.  U3 then says that the coach gets his choice.  I disagree and say "I'm pretty sure that he does not get his choice".  My partner is adamant about his belief and calls the coach over.  At this point  I didn't want to push it any further and deal with working the rest of the day in an uncomfortable situation with my partner.  So I allowed him to basically screw the pooch. He told the coach that he had the choice of taking the balk, which would put a runner on third and the batter would continue with with a 3-2 count or take the BB and he would have runners on 1st and 2nd (I didn't want to bring up the fact that he never ruled on the play at third at this point).  The coach seemed fine with this and took the BB option.

 

In retrospect I needed to just be stronger and own the call as I made the balk call so I needed to make the ruling.  But how do you guys handle situations where you are in a disagreement on a ruling with a partner?  This was the second game of 6 that we had together. 

[ricka56]

I have had partners incorrectly say that the offense gets a choice on a balk. But when I remind them that the only time (other than a split ball play...don't say that part) that the OHC gets a choice of penalty or play is on CI, they "usually" realize that they made a mistake and defer to the guy that DOES know the rule ..."hopefully".

 

 

I know of umpires that are terrible with the rules who are very convincing when they unknowingly bambozzle a know-nothing coach. You being here will lessen the likelyhood of being "that guy".

And we wonder why so many coaches regurgitate rules myths.

 

But if you are the junior partner and senior is a redass, it can become a diplomatic/political nightmare and its hard to advice. By the book, you should "persuade" your partner to the correct ruling...but sometimes, that's easier said than done (you don't want to look like you're arguing with a partner).   

[MidAmUmp]

Just because they have a uniform doesn't mean they're an umpire.

[DVA7130]

Coaches never get the choice on a balk, BUT

In this sitch, you would call time as soon as the catcher caught the ball.

R2 is not forced to advance on the play, so it would be killed if it was a BB or an uncaught 3K.

Enforce the balk. Runner advances to third, no pitch.

[ricka56]

In this sitch, you would call time as soon as the catcher caught the ball.

R2 is not forced to advance on the play, so it would be killed if it was a BB or an uncaught 3K.

Enforce the balk. Runner advances to third, no pitch.

If a base on balls is one of the conditions to ignore a balk, (and you can only have  a balk if there are runners on base) how can the second condition (all other runners advance on the play) ever be accomplished if the ball is dead after ball 4 ?

[DVA7130]

@ricka56

If all runners Are Forced, the ball remains live and the balk is ignored.

IE: A walk with a runner on first.

Or, an uncaught third strike with two outs.

[grayhawk]

 

In this sitch, you would call time as soon as the catcher caught the ball.

R2 is not forced to advance on the play, so it would be killed if it was a BB or an uncaught 3K.

Enforce the balk. Runner advances to third, no pitch.

If a base on balls is one of the conditions to ignore a balk, (and you can only have  a balk if there are runners on base) how can the second condition (all other runners advance on the play) ever be accomplished if the ball is dead after the pitch ?

 

 

It's a DDB, retroactive to the time the pitcher balked.  It's live to allow the offense to play on the ball, but it's dead once F2 catches it.  Since R2 did not advance (the steal attempt is not an advance), then kill it when F2 catches it, award R2 third base and bring the batter back.  On a BB or HPB, we only disregard the balk if all runners are forced by the batter being awarded first.  Both Scott and his partner (who thought there was a coach option) kicked this one.

[umpire_scott]

 

In this sitch, you would call time as soon as the catcher caught the ball.

R2 is not forced to advance on the play, so it would be killed if it was a BB or an uncaught 3K.

Enforce the balk. Runner advances to third, no pitch.

If a base on balls is one of the conditions to ignore a balk, (and you can only have  a balk if there are runners on base) how can the second condition (all other runners advance on the play) ever be accomplished if the ball is dead after ball 4 ?

 

 

I would assume if all runners were forced to advance (i.e R1; R1 & R2, or based loaded).  But I was under the impression it was a delayed dead ball  and since the ball is still live after a BB that everything that occurs on that play is applicable?

[umpire_scott]

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base".  Here is the verbatim wording:

 

"the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk".

 

Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

[ALStripes17]

I second the request for interp or something that says it's dead when the pitch ends. I have also been under impression that it was when the play ended. A runner stealing is definitely part of a play.

[DVA7130]

PUBC.

I do not have the book on me this instant.

[maven]

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base".  Here is the verbatim wording:

 

"the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk".

 

Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

 

The idea is that the batter's action must advance the runners in order to nullify the balk. R2 only stealing 3B would not qualify. @DVA7130 posted the correct ruling in post #4 above.

 

So, R2 stealing, F1 balks, and the batter singles — for that one we'd ignore the balk, because even though R2 was stealing on the pitch, the single advanced the runner. With a BB and R2 only, the ball will be dead before he gets to 3B, as @grayhawk points out.

 

That's how to understand the ruling. If you're just looking for a way to be right in demanding an "interp" I can't help you at the moment.

[noumpere]

From MLBUM (emphasis added):

 

(5) If the balk is followed by ball four delivered to the batter and is caught by the catcher, call

"Time" and enforce the balk unless all runners advance one base because of ball four. In that

situation, play proceeds without reference to the balk.

(6) If the balk is followed by a pitch that strikes the batter, call "Time" the moment the pitch

strikes the batter. Then enforce the balk unless the hit batter forces all other runners to

advance one base, in which case play proceeds without reference to the balk.

 

On your question -- one of you needs to step up and say "I'm 100% certain and I'll take the heat if I'm wrong."

 

Sometimes, there's nothing you can do during the game.

 

Either way, though, all umpires involved should research this and discuss after the game -- so you all get it right the next time.

 

If appropriate for your group, get word to the coach that you were wrong and what the right answer would be.

[umpire_scott]

 

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base".  Here is the verbatim wording:

 

"the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk".

 

Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

 

The idea is that the batter's action must advance the runners in order to nullify the balk. R2 only stealing 3B would not qualify. @DVA7130 posted the correct ruling in post #4 above.

 

So, R2 stealing, F1 balks, and the batter singles — for that one we'd ignore the balk, because even though R2 was stealing on the pitch, the single advanced the runner. With a BB and R2 only, the ball will be dead before he gets to 3B, as @grayhawk points out.

 

That's how to understand the ruling. If you're just looking for a way to be right in demanding an "interp" I can't help you at the moment.

 

 

I don't care about "being right" I care about getting it right.  Clearly that wording with no interpretation does not support the ruling.  If there is an interpretation that you had handy then I can use that to support  my case in the future.  That usually works better than "this really good umpire on umpire.empire that I've never met or seem umpire told me".  I do believe it is true since both you and Grayhawk have stated it.  But I feel it's always better to have the book to back you up.

 

Not sure why you felt I was "demanding an interp so I would be right"?

[ricka56]

When someone is said to have forgotten more than another knows, I used to think it was a complement to the former.

[grayhawk]

 

 

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base".  Here is the verbatim wording:

 

"the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk".

 

Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

 

The idea is that the batter's action must advance the runners in order to nullify the balk. R2 only stealing 3B would not qualify. @DVA7130 posted the correct ruling in post #4 above.

 

So, R2 stealing, F1 balks, and the batter singles — for that one we'd ignore the balk, because even though R2 was stealing on the pitch, the single advanced the runner. With a BB and R2 only, the ball will be dead before he gets to 3B, as @grayhawk points out.

 

That's how to understand the ruling. If you're just looking for a way to be right in demanding an "interp" I can't help you at the moment.

 

 

I don't care about "being right" I care about getting it right.  Clearly that wording with no interpretation does not support the ruling.  If there is an interpretation that you had handy then I can use that to support  my case in the future.  That usually works better than "this really good umpire on umpire.empire that I've never met or seem umpire told me".  I do believe it is true since both you and Grayhawk have stated it.  But I feel it's always better to have the book to back you up.

 

Not sure why you felt I was "demanding an interp so I would be right"?

 

 

Pretty sure he was referring to @ALStripes17, not you.

 

I will add a reference from the WUM (2011, page 128):

 

If the pitch is caught by the catcher, or when the catcher almost immediately gains possession of the ball, and when he does, no runner is attempting to advance beyond their award, the umpires should call "time," and award each runner one base from their original base.  The pitch does not count, and the batter remains at bat with the previous count.

 

In the OP, R2 was running to third, not advancing beyond his award.  Call "time" as soon as F2 catches the pitch, and award R2 third.  Batter stays at bat with his 3-2 count.

[Jimurray]

 

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base".  Here is the verbatim wording:

 

"the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk".

 

Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

 

The idea is that the batter's action must advance the runners in order to nullify the balk. R2 only stealing 3B would not qualify. @DVA7130 posted the correct ruling in post #4 above.

 

So, R2 stealing, F1 balks, and the batter singles — for that one we'd ignore the balk, because even though R2 was stealing on the pitch, the single advanced the runner. With a BB and R2 only, the ball will be dead before he gets to 3B, as @grayhawk points out.

 

That's how to understand the ruling. If you're just looking for a way to be right in demanding an "interp" I can't help you at the moment.

 

The bolded part is not correct if the pitch is not caught. With R2 and ball four wild pitch or DTK you end up with batter on 1B and R3 and the balk is ignored.

[ALStripes17]

FWIW the OBR ruling does not state "forced by the batter being awarded first base". Here is the verbatim wording: "the ball is dead and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise, and all runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk". Unless there is an interp that clarifies this I would say the verbatim ruling sounds as if the steal of third is fine to satisfy the advancing runner criteria?

The idea is that the batter's action must advance the runners in order to nullify the balk. R2 only stealing 3B would not qualify. @DVA7130 posted the correct ruling in post #4 above. So, R2 stealing, F1 balks, and the batter singles — for that one we'd ignore the balk, because even though R2 was stealing on the pitch, the single advanced the runner. With a BB and R2 only, the ball will be dead before he gets to 3B, as @grayhawk points out. That's how to understand the ruling. If you're just looking for a way to be right in demanding an "interp" I can't help you at the moment.

I don't care about "being right" I care about getting it right. Clearly that wording with no interpretation does not support the ruling. If there is an interpretation that you had handy then I can use that to support my case in the future. That usually works better than "this really good umpire on umpire.empire that I've never met or seem umpire told me". I do believe it is true since both you and Grayhawk have stated it. But I feel it's always better to have the book to back you up. Not sure why you felt I was "demanding an interp so I would be right"?

Pretty sure he was referring to @ALStripes17, not you. I will add a reference from the WUM (2011, page 128):

If the pitch is caught by the catcher, or when the catcher almost immediately gains possession of the ball, and when he does, no runner is attempting to advance beyond their award, the umpires should call "time," and award each runner one base from their original base. The pitch does not count, and the batter remains at bat with the previous count.

In the OP, R2 was running to third, not advancing beyond his award. Call "time" as soon as F2 catches the pitch, and award R2 third. Batter stays at bat with his 3-2 count.

I would hope I have been around @maven long enough for him to know it was not a demand, just simply a request for further info (a second vote of that request). I will have to get the OBR interps as that is one serious piece of umpiring literature I lack. Thanks for responding to the call for action gentlemen

[maven]

Not sure why you felt I was "demanding an interp so I would be right"?

We sometimes have guys post here who are wrong and who, when told that they are wrong, attempt to argue for their position by demanding written "proof." Their attitude seems to be: "I'm right until you prove otherwise using sources I acknowledge." 

 

Such umpires are more interested in being right than in improving. The guys on this forum (and you know who's reliable) can tell you off the cuff whether you're right or wrong; sometimes it takes them a few hours (seldom a day) to post a "source" to demonstrate it.

 

If I unfairly lumped you, @umpire_scott, in this group, I apologize; though I did say, "If..." that's what you were up to. Perhaps it was not.

[umpire_scott]

 

Not sure why you felt I was "demanding an interp so I would be right"?

We sometimes have guys post here who are wrong and who, when told that they are wrong, attempt to argue for their position by demanding written "proof." Their attitude seems to be: "I'm right until you prove otherwise using sources I acknowledge." 

 

Such umpires are more interested in being right than in improving. The guys on this forum (and you know who's reliable) can tell you off the cuff whether you're right or wrong; sometimes it takes them a few hours (seldom a day) to post a "source" to demonstrate it.

 

If I unfairly lumped you, @umpire_scott, in this group, I apologize; though I did say, "If..." that's what you were up to. Perhaps it was not.

 

 

Understood and thanks for the reply.  I'm sure I've been guilty of the above mentioned behavior.  This time though I truly was mostly interested in getting it right.  I hope you also understand that on occasion (although not very frequently) the reliable guys on this board have disagreed with each other on interpretations.  So that is why I'm always more comfortable when I see a source, such as noumpere provided.  I also understand that you don't all walk around with manuals in your pocket.

 

Again thanks for the reply and the interpretation.  This is one I won't get wrong again, and any umpire I work with will be clued in on it as well.

[grayhawk]

I have to say @umpire_scott, you seem to find more weird situations in one weekend than I tend to have in an entire year!

[umpire_scott]

I have to say @umpire_scott, you seem to find more weird situations in one weekend than I tend to have in an entire year!

 

Probably from working 12 tournament games in 2 days.  And working them with umpires that are not required to go through any formal training.  As long as they don't eject a bunch of coaches and they'll do 12 games in a weekend they are good to go.

[Jocko]

As for allowing a partner to kick a rule so as not to appear arguing amongst each other.....discuss, don't argue. And, in the end, get it right. If you ar 100% positive thats hes wrong, you CANNOT allow the game to proceed against the rules. By rule. You MUST get it right. And, if you're being evaluated and allow a misapplication, you're BOTH getting dinged.

[scrounge]

I have to say @umpire_scott, you seem to find more weird situations in one weekend than I tend to have in an entire year!

 

Probably from working 12 tournament games in 2 days.  And working them with umpires that are not required to go through any formal training.  As long as they don't eject a bunch of coaches and they'll do 12 games in a weekend they are good to go.

Well, all I can say is that if you're going to work at the circus, don't be surprised if you're working with a bunch of clowns. But if the circus is the only show in town and you need to work, it's what ya gotta do. St Louis sounds like a mess.

[BillKen]

We've all been there...a pup working with one of the association big dogs.  I think you would be best served to use the following guidelines.  If it is your call and you are 100% sure of your ruling...you stick to your guns no matter what.  If you are 99% sure or less and there is a little tingle of doubt in your mind, ask-discuss-and make a team ruling that you agree on together.  If the Big Dog is the calling umpire and you think he is wrong, you advise and be respectful.  A little diplomacy goes a long way...and if you can keep him out of trouble, you'll make a friend for life.  As the pup, they expect you to mess up and they like being there to help you.  But they reeeally like it when you make them look good!  If they are stubborn, let them go it alone and don't run for the rulebook when you head to the truck.  Most self respecting umps will look things up on their own if there is doubt.  If they ask in a post game setting, then its ok to slap em upside the head with the book (especially if you are right)!  Officials have big egos...it takes a lot of confidence to do what we do.  Ultimately, there is a pecking order and the UIC, HP, or Crew Chief has to make a decision when the crew has to discuss things and there is a conflict.  You have to accept that there will sometimes be conflicts in this arena.  One day, you'll be the Big Dog and some snot-nosed 19 year old kid will come along and be the 2nd coming of Joe West.  You'll love it when he messes up and comes to you for advice!  But you'll really love it when your arse is in a bind and he knows the right answer!