Stepping on your partner's toes

[StrikeDavis]

I ran this scenario past a very experienced umpire in our association.  His thoughts were basically the same as woodie's.  He said call time, go out and meet with BU.  Tell him what you have and why you have it.  If he agrees, tell him to make the call and award third base to the runner.  Tell him that if the defensive team coach comes out for an explanation the BU should explain the call.  Don't leave the BU by himself, but let him handle the coach.  Only step in if absolutely necessary.  This is a JV game.  Use it as a teaching moment.  The BU is going to have to learn how to handle situations more difficult than this as he moves up.      

[ricka56]

I ran this scenario past a very experienced umpire in our association.  His thoughts were basically the same as woodie's.  He said call time, go out and meet with BU.  Tell him what you have and why you have it.  If he agrees, tell him to make the call and award third base to the runner.  Tell him that if the defensive team coach comes out for an explanation the BU should explain the call.  Don't leave the BU by himself, but let him handle the coach.  Only step in if absolutely necessary.  This is a JV game.  Use it as a teaching moment.  The BU is going to have to learn how to handle situations more difficult than this as he moves up.      

This umpire is not throwing his partner under the bus, he's trying to get his partner to throw himself under the bus. Instead of doing that, I (BU) tell my partner that I didn't have anything. If he (PU) had something he should call it now. If he insists that this is my call, we have a problem. And when OHC asks WTF, I'll tell him that I didn't have obstruction, but my partner might have had obstruction, if he saw it he should have called it...maybe you'd like to talk to him...go get yourself some.

BU can use the "That's nothing" mechanic, if he thought it wasn't obstruction, but few do this. If he doesn't use this mechanic, then his partner has to guess whether his partner has no obstruction or didn't see what happened.  I'm not sure whether PU should have called obstruction immediately or after consulting to be sure that BU didn't have nothing (not step on toes), but I do believe that the umpire that has the call needs to make the call. 

[StrikeDavis]

This umpire is not throwing his partner under the bus, he's trying to get his partner to throw himself under the bus. Instead of doing that, I (BU) tell my partner that I didn't have anything. If he (PU) had something he should call it now. If he insists that this is my call, we have a problem. And when OHC asks WTF, I'll tell him that I didn't have obstruction, but my partner might have had obstruction, if he saw it he should have called it...maybe you'd like to talk to him...go get yourself some.

BU can use the "That's nothing" mechanic, if he thought it wasn't obstruction, but few do this. If he doesn't use this mechanic, then his partner has to guess whether his partner has no obstruction or didn't see what happened.  I'm not sure whether PU should have called obstruction immediately or after consulting to be sure that BU didn't have nothing (not step on toes), but I do believe that the umpire that has the call needs to make the call. 

​I didn't get the vibe from the conversation I had with the very experienced umpire that he was trying to get the BU to throw himself under the bus.  After re-reading my post, I totally get how it comes across this way.  I played on the same college summer league team with both the coaches involved in this game.  We all know each other really well.  I believe that is why the very experienced umpire told me to handle it the way he did.  Maybe I should have included that in the post.        

If I had gone out there and the BU said he had nothing and was sure of it then I was going with his call.  We have been taught to use the "that's nothing" mechanic.  One thing the BU told me when we met between innings was "maybe I should have given a that's nothing".  If he gave me a "that's nothing" then we simply move on with the game.  I would have felt more confident with his call.  I wish more people would use that mechanic.  Doing nothing gives an impression that you aren't quite sure as to what just happened.  Saying "that's nothing" with a safe signal lets everyone know you had nothing.         

[cp9]

​Good point kstrunk. However, the case was made that BU saw the contact but was inexperienced to rule on it. Hence why I offered the PU to go talk to him about it. Its still BU's call to make. If BU decides to take the PU's advice, that makes them BOTH look good. If PU just takes the call, it makes everyone wonder why BU didnt make the call himself & that can cause more problems later.

​But at the moment the play is happening, you don't KNOW that the BU even saw the OBS.  He may have been following the ball to CF.  Just like the scenario kstrunk alluded to earlier on a FPSR where BU is tracking a ball to F3 and doesn't see  an illegal slide.  I'm of the opinion that waiting till play is dead, then meeting with BU, and THEN having him rule OBS only makes BU look bad.  And if you wait and BU doesn't make the OBS call, it makes BOTH of you look bad.

[woodiemiller]

​But at the moment the play is happening, you don't KNOW that the BU even saw the OBS.  He may have been following the ball to CF.  Just like the scenario kstrunk alluded to earlier on a FPSR where BU is tracking a ball to F3 and doesn't see  an illegal slide.  I'm of the opinion that waiting till play is dead, then meeting with BU, and THEN having him rule OBS only makes BU look bad.  And if you wait and BU doesn't make the OBS call, it makes BOTH of you look bad.

​With all the experience I have had, I totally disagree. This is from knowing that you (the PU) is working with a very inexperienced partner to start with.