conflicting calls

[ricka56]

R1, R2, outs don't matter. B bunts up the 1B line. BU in C, has multiple runners, PU has 3B touch and help on swipe tag. BR goes up the 1BL, F3 fields the bunt and goes for a tag of BR near the 45' line . BU correctly sees no tag, but PU correctly sees BR deviate from his basepath. BU calls BR safe before PU can call BR out, PU doesn't step on partner's call, but calls TIME and calls his partner in to discuss the play. The crew agrees and PU makes a separate BR out call. PU had a brief discussion with OHC, he didn't like it, but he accepted it.

How should the crew have done this correctly ?
Should PU make a call ?
Should PU call BR out moments after BU called him safe ?
Should PU have initiated the partner conference on his own right after the play ?
After their discussion, should BU reverse his call or should PU make a separate call, BR out ?

[blue23ll]

If you are calling the runner out for being out of the basepath to avoid a tag, you are making a loud out verbal call a well as a aggressive hammer and giving the 'out of the basepath" sweeping signal. That is the call that will prevail.  

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

R1, R2, outs don't matter. B bunts up the 1B line. BU in C, has multiple runners, PU has 3B touch and help on swipe tag. BR goes up the 1BL, F3 fields the bunt and goes for a tag of BR near the 45' line . BU correctly sees no tag, but PU correctly sees BR deviate from his basepath. BU calls BR safe before PU can call BR out, PU doesn't step on partner's call, but calls TIME and calls his partner in to discuss the play. The crew agrees and PU makes a separate BR out call. PU had a brief discussion with OHC, he didn't like it, but he accepted it.

How should the crew have done this correctly ?
Should PU make a call ?
Should PU call BR out moments after BU called him safe ?
Should PU have initiated the partner conference on his own right after the play ?
After their discussion, should BU reverse his call or should PU make a separate call, BR out ?

After the safe call what did F3 do? Seems like a throw to F4 at1B was possible.

[ricka56]

Just now, Jimurray said:

After the safe call what did F3 do? Seems like a throw to F4 at1B was possible.

No, F3 committed to dive for BR...BR kept his feet and made it to 1B...no other play happened.

[ricka56]

9 minutes ago, blue23ll said:

If you are calling the runner out for being out of the basepath to avoid a tag, you are making a loud out verbal call a well as a aggressive hammer and giving the 'out of the basepath" sweeping signal. That is the call that will prevail.  

I agree PU's call before the 45'line, but is it PU's call to make once BR gets past the 45' line ? 

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, ricka56 said:

No, F3 committed to dive for BR...BR kept his feet and made it to 1B...no other play happened.

So that's a grey (45') area. That being said, if I'm PU I don't think my call was poached and would wait for my BU to come to me if he was so inclined.

[ALStripes17]

I agree PU's call before the 45'line, but is it PU's call to make once BR gets past the 45' line ? 

I'm under the impression the 45' guideline is based on tags only and when the BU and PU have the BR boxed between them.

With the BU in the middle of the field, PU has full right and needs to make the 'out of baseline' call when he sees it. Been to that circus already... But still not my monkey

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

52 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

I'm under the impression the 45' guideline is based on tags only and when the BU and PU have the BR boxed between them.

Your impression is wrong.

 I think the crew handled this correctly -- PU has "additional information" -- much like a ball on the ground after / during a tag attempt.  I can also support PU waiting for BU to come to him -- with PU doing all he can non-verbally to get BU to ask.

[maven]

The 45' line demarcates areas of "primary" responsibility. PU is primary on tags up to 45', BU is primary thereafter.

That said, it's not a "strong" primary, since even a tag 8 feet from PU will be hard/impossible to see if it's on the other side of the runner. So we often defer to the umpire who actually has eyes on the tag. Angle over distance.

As I read the OP, I see some mechanical oddity: the tag attempt happened 45' from 1B, as did the baserunning infraction (running more than 3 feet to avoid a tag). It's fine if the BU saw no tag, and it sounds as if he signaled safe (and verbalized "no tag"?) to communicate that; but I wouldn't recommend it. First, just because I see no tag, it doesn't follow that my partner saw no tag; if we both have eyes on it, the "no tag" call can be quite slow, giving partner an opportunity to rule otherwise. Because the runner is safe until put out, we don't need to rush the safe signal; let play develop, and confirm that at the end if needed.

Second, when PU rules that the runner is "out of his base path," he can go ahead and get that call, which he has an angle on all the way to the base. The two umpires were NOT issuing conflicting rulings on the same play. One ruled no tag (which was correct), and the other ruled out of the base path (also correct). The RESULTS of those calls were opposite, but the calls themselves were not in conflict. And I don't think PU needs to give up the call to BU, because the BU is not changing his call: he still has no tag. A conference after any weirdness to sort out what they've got is advisable, but PU should own his call here.

If the BU simply signaled "safe" (said "safe?"), then I could see how it would yield a mess. That looks like more of a conflicting calls situation. But this need not have been a sticky situation.

[ricka56]

47 minutes ago, maven said:

It's fine if the BU saw no tag, and it sounds as if he signaled safe (and verbalized "no tag"?) to communicate that; but I wouldn't recommend it. First, just because I see no tag, it doesn't follow that my partner saw no tag; if we both have eyes on it, the "no tag" call can be quite slow, giving partner an opportunity to rule otherwise. Because the runner is safe until put out, we don't need to rush the safe signal; let play develop, and confirm that at the end if needed.

But doesn't F3 need to know immediately if the calling umpire has a tag or not. If a "no tag" call is verbalized, F3 may (though not in this case) still have time to make another play on the runner (throw to F4 covering). If F3 thinks he has a tag, but the umpire doesn't, then no verbalization puts F3 at a disadvantage.  

47 minutes ago, maven said:

Second, when PU rules that the runner is "out of his base path," he can go ahead and get that call, which he has an angle on all the way to the base. The two umpires were NOT issuing conflicting rulings on the same play. One ruled no tag (which was correct), and the other ruled out of the base path (also correct). The RESULTS of those calls were opposite, but the calls themselves were not in conflict. And I don't think PU needs to give up the call to BU, because the BU is not changing his call: he still has no tag. A conference after any weirdness to sort out what they've got is advisable, but PU should own his call here.

This is why I thought that BU (though late) making the call, as opposed to BU reversing his call was the correct thing to do.

47 minutes ago, maven said:

The 45' line demarcates areas of "primary" responsibility. PU is primary on tags up to 45', BU is primary thereafter.

That said, it's not a "strong" primary, since even a tag 8 feet from PU will be hard/impossible to see if it's on the other side of the runner. So we often defer to the umpire who actually has eyes on the tag. Angle over distance.

While I agree in principle, this would be a sticky wicket. We are taught to not poach our partner's call, even when we have a better angle. And this all happening around the 45' demarcation made it even stickier.

[MidAmUmp]

This comes down to responsibilities...

BU is primarily responsible for tags on B/R past the 45'.

PU is solely responsible for runner's lane violations in this situation.

BU ruled on the tag attempt. PU ruled on the runner's lane violation. Personally I don't see anything wrong with what happened unless there's more to the story.

[Jimurray]

37 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

This comes down to responsibilities...

BU is primarily responsible for tags on B/R past the 45'.

PU is solely responsible for runner's lane violations in this situation.

BU ruled on the tag attempt. PU ruled on the runner's lane violation. Personally I don't see anything wrong with what happened unless there's more to the story.

I don't see the relevance of the runner's lane here.

[UmpJeff]

34 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't see the relevance of the runner's lane here.

I think MIdAmUmp was just indicating responsibilities...and RL is PU's responsibility.  He knows it has nothing to do with the call(s) in the OP.  However, he did say he say he saw nothing wrong with the call(s) in the OP...and I agree.

[MidAmUmp]

38 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't see the relevance of the runner's lane here.

The runner's lane isn't relevant here, per se. I'm using it as a point of reference because of where the tag attempt occurred.

The tag attempt responsibility is the BU's.

Being that the PU is responsible for runner's lane violations, he would have a good vantage point to rule if the B/R went more than 3 feet to avoid the tag. So in this situation I wouldn't have a problem with the PU ruling on B/R being out of the baseline and wouldn't see it as stepping on his partner's toes.

I like how the PU let it play out, then discussed it with his partner. Had he just made the call I would consider that "poaching his partner's call".

[ricka56]

Nothing more to the story. I was BU on this play and we escaped unscathed. I just didn't know if did it correctly or how we could have done it better.

[ALStripes17]

My worry as a PU: if I see that, don't call it immediately, and the defense continues to play on BR and throws the ball into RF, we have a circus that would have most likely been avoided had the PU let everyone know he saw an obvious out for runner out of the baseline.

Is this an instance where we rectify the situation and send runners back that may have advanced on the throw to RF?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[udbrky]

9 hours ago, ricka56 said:

But doesn't F3 need to know immediately if the calling umpire has a tag or not. If a "no tag" call is verbalized, F3 may (though not in this case) still have time to make another play on the runner (throw to F4 covering). If F3 thinks he has a tag, but the umpire doesn't, then no verbalization puts F3 at a disadvantage.  

This is why I thought that BU (though late) making the call, as opposed to BU reversing his call was the correct thing to do.

While I agree in principle, this would be a sticky wicket. We are taught to not poach our partner's call, even when we have a better angle. And this all happening around the 45' demarcation made it even stickier.

Wouldn't the lack of "On the tag, he's out!" call imply that there was no tag and he is not out?

[ricka56]

11 hours ago, udbrky said:

Wouldn't the lack of "On the tag, he's out!" call imply that there was no tag and he is not out?

If F3 thinks he has a tag, but the umpire doesn't, how long should F3 wait to not hear that before he figures out that the umpire missed the tag and tries to make another play ? Probably too long to make another play. Use good timing, but let the players know the status of the play when you have it. 

[johnnyg08]

20 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

My worry as a PU: if I see that, don't call it immediately, and the defense continues to play on BR and throws the ball into RF, we have a circus that would have most likely been avoided had the PU let everyone know he saw an obvious out for runner out of the baseline.

Is this an instance where we rectify the situation and send runners back that may have advanced on the throw to RF?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

This is a live ball violation.  I understand and agree w/ what you're saying...but the defense creating a snowball fight isn't a burden that falls on an umpire who officiates this play properly.  

[udbrky]

7 hours ago, ricka56 said:

If F3 thinks he has a tag, but the umpire doesn't, how long should F3 wait to not hear that before he figures out that the umpire missed the tag and tries to make another play ? Probably too long to make another play. Use good timing, but let the players know the status of the play when you have it. 

Thanks, good point. I was thinking in lines of play until you're told to stop.