Ball beats BR to 1B, by way of unusual touch

[MadMax]

12U, top of 7th (doesn't matter); R3, 1 out

Batter hits a screamer at F3 that he fields like an F2, going down to his knees and smothering. He's now about six feet from the bag, on his hands and knees, with the BR hustling down the line, and the F1 nowhere to be seen. So, unable to get to his feet in time, F3 grabs the ball in his free hand and crawls on his knees, and then flops over to smack 1B with his glove like he just thwacked a base-sized mosquito (there is no doubt he contacted the bag). The ball is still in his free hand. BR arrives... BU calls him "SAFE".

As PU, I have R3 coming to cross the plate, so I can't step any closer to the play, but at 70', I see this happen just as I described it. The only "missing piece", or uncertainty, I have is whether or not F3 had control of the ball in his free hand.

HT coaches go bonkers. I'm striding up the 1BL after acknowledging R3's score, and everyone who is not an umpire is looking at the two of us. My BU gives the short declarative, "He had the ball in his free hand, and hit the bag with his glove!". We're now standing about five feet apart, but the entirety of the HT dugout (which, conveniently, is just off 1B) and the HTHC is channeling their questioning outcries at me. I tell the HTHC we are going to discuss it, and I direct my partner more into the infield. I ask, "What did you see?" "Ball in hand, glove tagged the bag before BR arrived." "Did he have possession of the ball at the time?" "Yes." "Then that's an out." I then cued my BU to step from our discussion and rule the BR "OUT".

Did we get this right?

Of course as I'm jogging back to the HP, the VTHC wants an explanation (approached respectfully, and I appreciate the 1BC, who was an AC, not uttering a single word the entire time), and I explain that the tag of the bag by the glove with the ball in hand constitutes the ball beating the runner to the bag, thus he's out. If it had been a tag of the BR instead (in that same manner), it would have been safe. Run scored, 2 outs, next batter, Play!

[Jimurray]

No, he had to take his glove off to touch 1B. Just like he has to take his shoe off:)

Edited June 3, 2015 by Jimurray

[Larry in TN]

fter acknowledging R3's score

​How/why do you acknowledge R3's score?

[maven]

No, he had to take his glove off to touch 1B. Just like he has to take his shoe off:)

​Use an emoji, man!

If you're not sure whether you got it right, please read the definition of TAG.

[noumpere]

​Use an emoji, man!

If you're not sure whether you got it right, please read the definition of TAG.

​And n.b. the difference between "tagging a base" and "tagging a player", especially in light of the discussion here.

[maven]

​And n.b. the difference between "tagging a base" and "tagging a player", especially in light of the discussion here.

​That's "nota bene," in case you were wondering. Used in all the best umpiring manuals.

[MadMax]

​How/why do you acknowledge R3's score?

It's nothing more elaborate than keeping your eyes upon the (potential) touch of the plate by R3. Once you visibly confirm that happened (or didn't happen), then your attention can go elsewhere, in this case, towards the activities at 1B. I positioned myself to see both events happen, but I can't exactly go bounding off towards 1B when there's an R3 incoming, can I?

That's all that I meant by that.

[Jimurray]

​Use an emoji, man!

If you're not sure whether you got it right, please read the definition of TAG.

Can't get them with java script needing to be turned off on this antique. Can't even make this a sidebar.

[maven]

Can't get them with java script needing to be turned off on this antique. Can't even make this a sidebar.

​

[grayhawk]

Can you elaborate on this part?

I then cued my BU to step from our discussion and rule the BR "OUT".

 

[scrounge]

​That's "nota bene," in case you were wondering. Used in all the best umpiring manuals.

​huh, i thought it meant "no bulls%%t"...same end result!

[Thunderheads]

No, he had to take his glove off to touch 1B. Just like he has to take his shoe off:)

​

[Thunderheads]

he's out, he's out, he's still out .........

[MadMax]

Can you elaborate on this part?

 

"...step from our discussion and rule BR "OUT"."

When I started, I had a lot to learn, and a great deal of it was whose call is whose, and when-and-if-and-how a call is overturned or overruled. I've watched (or participated in) crews who have done it right, and I've watched mavericks do it in that powermongering, heavy-handed way of overruling their partner(s), whether or not their call or judgement is right.

Since the call of out at 1B is the BU's, then the outcome of our discussion is still his call, because he wasn't appealing to me for any other information that I could rule on, like a pulled foot or a swipe tag. I only reminded him of the qualifications of tagging a base, and since it's his original call, he should be the one to give the (updated) ruling...

... right?

[grayhawk]

When I started, I had a lot to learn, and a great deal of it was whose call is whose, and when-and-if-and-how a call is overturned or overruled. I've watched (or participated in) crews who have done it right, and I've watched mavericks do it in that powermongering, heavy-handed way of overruling their partner(s), whether or not their call or judgement is right.

Since the call of out at 1B is the BU's, then the outcome of our discussion is still his call, because he wasn't appealing to me for any other information that I could rule on, like a pulled foot or a swipe tag. I only reminded him of the qualifications of tagging a base, and since it's his original call, he should be the one to give the (updated) ruling...

... right?

​Essentially yes.  Did he agree with your (correct) interpretation and change his call willingly?  Or did he just do it because you told him to?

[MadMax]

​Essentially yes.  Did he agree with your (correct) interpretation and change his call willingly?  Or did he just do it because you told him to?

FWIW, he "did the math" (he's Out) but I cued him to step from the discussion and make his ruling (whether it was Safe or Out). The young man was unsure how to proceed, because umpires (at least around here) either handle it so casually and without protocol, or, worse, in that maverick style where they assume the alpha-umpire role, act magnanimous, and make you (the junior umpire) feel like crap for getting the call wrong.

[Mike Walsh]

When I started, I had a lot to learn, and a great deal of it was whose call is whose, and when-and-if-and-how a call is overturned or overruled. I've watched (or participated in) crews who have done it right, and I've watched mavericks do it in that powermongering, heavy-handed way of overruling their partner(s), whether or not their call or judgement is right.

Since the call of out at 1B is the BU's, then the outcome of our discussion is still his call, because he wasn't appealing to me for any other information that I could rule on, like a pulled foot or a swipe tag. I only reminded him of the qualifications of tagging a base, and since it's his original call, he should be the one to give the (updated) ruling...

... right?

​No, not right. It was your partner's call, he made it, and he didn't ask you for help. But, even though you couldn't have made the call if you wanted to (You said, "The only "missing piece", or uncertainty, I have is whether or not F3 had control of the ball in his free hand."), you strolled up to his position, told the coaches you were going to discuss it, and initiated a conference with him. None of which was appropriate or necessary. You belonged back at the plate, getting ready for the next pitch. Only if your partner decided to discuss it with you should you have gotten involved.

Mike

[grayhawk]

​No, not right. It was your partner's call, he made it, and he didn't ask you for help. But, even though you couldn't have made the call if you wanted to (You said, "The only "missing piece", or uncertainty, I have is whether or not F3 had control of the ball in his free hand."), you strolled up to his position, told the coaches you were going to discuss it, and initiated a conference with him. None of which was appropriate or necessary. You belonged back at the plate, getting ready for the next pitch. Only if your partner decided to discuss it with you should you have gotten involved.

Mike

​I don't agree.  This was a misapplication of the rules.  Granted, he wasn't certain that F3 had secure possession at the time, but he suspected that his partner made a call in opposition to a rule which ended up being the case.

If you were PU and your partner called obstruction on a pickoff at first and "awarded" the runner first base, would you bite your tongue and allow him to misapply the rule?  I would hope not and this case is no different.

[Mike Walsh]

​I don't agree.  This was a misapplication of the rules.  Granted, he wasn't certain that F3 had secure possession at the time, but he suspected that his partner made a call in opposition to a rule which ended up being the case.

If you were PU and your partner called obstruction on a pickoff at first and "awarded" the runner first base, would you bite your tongue and allow him to misapply the rule?  I would hope not and this case is no different.

​In the OP, the PU did not know it was a misapplication of the rule. It might have been a bad judgment call. The correct way to handle it is to let the defensive coach ask him why he called safe, and the DC could then remind him of the definition of a tag, or convince him to ask his partner for help. This was not an award of a base that by its nature is a rule application. This is closer to having a PU call a strike on a ball that was in the dirt, only to have the BU call time, assure the coach that we were going to talk, and then asking the PU where he thought the pitch was.

[Replacematt]

​In the OP, the PU did not know it was a misapplication of the rule. It might have been a bad judgment call. The correct way to handle it is to let the defensive coach ask him why he called safe, and the DC could then remind him of the definition of a tag, or convince him to ask his partner for help. This was not an award of a base that by its nature is a rule application. This is closer to having a PU call a strike on a ball that was in the dirt, only to have the BU call time, assure the coach that we were going to talk, and then asking the PU where he thought the pitch was.

​Yes, he did know it was a misapplication because BU gave his reasoning on the call.

[maven]

This was a weird play. In amateur ball, I have no problem with either umpire initiating a conference, away from everyone, in order to get it right.

[Mike Walsh]

​Yes, he did know it was a misapplication because BU gave his reasoning on the call.

​Upon further review... yes he did know. Nevertheless, I still want the HC to initiate the discussion with the calling umpire, and the calling umpire should be the one who goes to his partner. I understand that the goal is to get it right, but get it right the right way.

Mike

[Replacematt]

On a rules application, this is a right way.

[Majordave]

Sorry @Mike Walsh but you sound kind of old school on this one with your method.  This is how we did it when I first started.  Not now. I would most definitely ask my partner what he had and why he had it that way then explain the rule.  In the end it would still be his decision to change or stay with the call but when it was/is blatantly obvious to me that a rule was misapplied, not judgment but a rule, then I WILL be stepping in to discuss with my partner(s), no coach request required.  This affects the whole crew.  It might be on video.  We may end up on YouTube or have to explain it to an assigner or a conference commissioner or a state umpiring official.  Not me.  I won't throw him under the bus but I most definitely will be discussing the rule and the call to make sure we get it right on the rule part.

 

 

[maven]

This affects the whole crew.  It might be on video.  We may end up on YouTube or have to explain it to an assigner or a conference commissioner or a state umpiring official.  Not me.  I won't throw him under the bus but I most definitely will be discussing the rule and the call to make sure we get it right on the rule part.

​That's a good point: when our supervisor asks, "why didn't you fix that?" what will we say?

Get it right, get it right, get it right. (And try not to make your partner look like the dumbass he might well be — as Dave says, he's part of the crew and letting him go down will drag you down too.)