overruled strike

[956UMP]

While talking with my partner during our pre-game meeting, he was furious with the fact that in his previous game with another umpire, his non-strike call was overturned by the base umpire. Here is how he explained it. Batter squared to bunt, stood still and did not make an attempt at the ball in his opinion. Defensive coach come out and asks him if he can ask his partner for help to see if there was an actual attempt. He then told the coach that it was his judgement call and no one else. Well the base umpire then comes over and tells the coach that he did make an attempt and it should be a strike. Note that the plate umpire never asked for help. He was furious with the fact that his partner had come over without being signaled by him for help to give his opinion with the call. So in the end the pitch was overturned to a strike.He told his partner after the game that he should not ever do that again unless he asks for help. Who is in the wrong here? I told him that his partner should have never done that. Thoughts???

[basejester]

BU is in the wrong.

 

[Tborze]

Does the BU know that just holding the bat there does not make it an attempt?  And that he was wrong?

[scrounge]

When I saw the thread title, my first thought was "What did the GHSA do this time?"

[ElkOil]

He was wrong on top of wrong. Squaring to bunt is not and attempt, and he better not volunteer that kind of info again.

[KenBAZ]

Upon request by catcher or DHC, the HPU is required or advised, (depends on rule set), to check with BU on check seeing attempt​. Everyone has to live with the BU's judgement. I'm not sure how the umpire's interaction went but this may have been the correct call. HPU says he didn't go. DHC asks for an appeal that results in a strike call by BU. Happens all the time, it should not be a cause for conflict between the partners.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[BrianC14]

26 minutes ago, 956UMP said:

While talking with my partner during our pre-game meeting, he was furious with the fact that in his previous game with another umpire, his non-strike call was overturned by the base umpire. Here is how he explained it. Batter squared to bunt, stood still and did not make an attempt at the ball in his opinion. Defensive coach come out and asks him if he can ask his partner for help to see if there was an actual attempt. He then told the coach that it was his judgement call and no one else. Well the base umpire then comes over and tells the coach that he did make an attempt and it should be a strike. Note that the plate umpire never asked for help. He was furious with the fact that his partner had come over without being signaled by him for help to give his opinion with the call. So in the end the pitch was overturned to a strike.He told his partner after the game that he should not ever do that again unless he asks for help. Who is in the wrong here? I told him that his partner should have never done that. Thoughts???

He wouldn't get a second chance if I were that plate umpire.   And I would make sure that this lack of knowledge and unwanted opinions (both of which are on the field problems) were brought to light at the next meeting of the umpires' association.    

Holy moly.   I know that getting ANY number of umpires has been difficult in the recent years, but has the situation really gotten this bad?   Apparently it has in some areas.   Shameful.

[BrianC14]

2 minutes ago, KenBAZ said:

Upon request by catcher or DHC, the HPU is required or advised, (depends on rule set), to check with BU on check seeing attempt. Everyone has to live with the BU's judgement. I'm not sure how the umpire's interaction went but this may have been the correct call. HPU says he didn't go. DHC asks for an appeal that results in a strike call by BU. Happens all the time, it should not be a cause for conflict between the partners.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

Agree that it "shouldn't be" but it was made that way by the actions of the base umpire.   

[KenBAZ]

In most rule sets the HPU must go to his partner upon appeal. If the HPU refused to do so he would have misapplied​ a rule. As BU I would tell him he was required to come to me by rule and what I had. That would allow the HPU to correct his mistake and keep us unified
In our response to the teams.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Tborze]

The next time F3 pulls his foot and he calls the runner out, I'm just going to say he got it wrong coach and change (overrule) the call. 

[BrianC14]

17 minutes ago, KenBAZ said:

In most rule sets the HPU must go to his partner upon appeal. If the HPU refused to do so he would have misapplied a rule. As BU I would tell him he was required to come to me by rule and what I had. That would allow the HPU to correct his mistake and keep us unified
In our response to the teams.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

That's understood, Ken, but the base umpire forcing himself into it was wrong,  and I MO makes them both look bad.

[KenBAZ]

I'm not defending how this was handled. I don't know what happened between the crew. I am saying that by rule on strike/no strike PU is required to go to his partner. Unlike a pulled foot where BU has the option to get help on something that PU should be looking for. PU should know this so when a coach comes to him he goes to his partner right away and there is no problem. Even if it was mishandled at the time a quick post game discussion should clear things up between them.

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[Richvee]

I'm with Ken here. Unless this was a FED game, if the defense asked for the appeal to the BU, PU must oblige. (in this case there's blame on both PU for not asking and BU for volunteering unsolicited info. If FED rules,it's all on BU.PU need not ask BU for help on swings. In either case, BU should STFU until asked.

[BrianC14]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I'm with Ken here. Unless this was a FED game, if the defense asked for the appeal to the BU, PU must oblige. (in this case there's blame on both PU for not asking and BU for volunteering unsolicited info. If FED rules,it's all on BU.PU need not ask BU for help on swings. In either case, BU should STFU until asked.

Agreed with this and @KenBAZ; however, in FED rules, the wording is that the umpire "may ask" for help.   Personally, if I'm on the dish and I'm asked to check it, I will ask.  And this is something that I cover in detail with umpires that are either new or new to working with me:  I specifically say, "If I come to you on a check swing, just give me what you've got.  There are still some guys that don't want to be "overruled" by their partner in the field.  I'm not one of those guys, but if you think he went, say so.  Heck what umpire doesn't like strikes?"   

[HokieUmp]

On 5/22/2017 at 5:24 PM, KenBAZ said:

I'm not defending how this was handled. I don't know what happened between the crew. I am saying that by rule on strike/no strike PU is required to go to his partner. Unlike a pulled foot where BU has the option to get help on something that PU should be looking for. PU should know this so when a coach comes to him he goes to his partner right away and there is no problem. Even if it was mishandled at the time a quick post game discussion should clear things up between them.

Sorry, but the way I read this, the coach had come out - so we're already in the dangerous waters of arguing balls and strikes.  (In fact, it seems to me - again, if I'm reading the OP right - that what the PU should be saying immediately is "You can't argue balls and strikes, especially coming out, and if you continue out, you WILL be ejected."  And the "appeal" comes while he's already doing something he should so very much not be doing.  So, are you saying that you're okay with still allowing this appeal?

I will have to disagree here, fellas.  There's no appeal to make, by rule or otherwise, since we'd never GET to his appeal.  Fruit of the tainted tree, or something.

And then I'd let my partner have it after the game.

[NOTE:  I don't disagree with Ken, et al, in the sense that certain rulesets DO make it required if asked.]

[BrianC14]

44 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

Sorry, but the way I read this, the coach had come out - so we're already in the dangerous waters of arguing balls and strikes.  (In fact, it seems to me - again, if I'm reading the OP right - that what the PU should be saying immediately is "You can't argue balls and strikes, especially coming out, and if you continue out, you WILL be ejected."  And the "appeal" comes while he's already doing something he should so very much not be doing.  So, are you saying that you're okay with still allowing this appeal?

I will have to disagree here, fellas.  There's no appeal to make, by rule or otherwise, since we'd never GET to his appeal.  Fruit of the tainted tree, or something.

And then I'd let my partner have it after the game.

[NOTE:  I don't disagree with Ken, et al, in the sense that certain rulesets DO make it required if asked.]

Boom.   The overlooked elephant in the room, arguing balls & strikes.    Well said.  

[KenBAZ]

From the OP:
"Defensive coach come out and asks him if he can ask his partner for help to see if there was an actual attempt. He then told the coach that it was his judgement call and no one else."

This reads to me like a justifiable appeal that was not granted. Based on this description are we really going to shut down the DHC for arguing balls and strikes?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[BrianC14]

Plate guy rules it a ball.  DC wants a strike based on a literal no-action by the batter.  There's nothing to appeal here, if the batter did nothing.   This isn'ta check swing issue. 

Yes, I have that as arguing balls and strikes.

[KenBAZ]

Plate guy rules it a ball.  DC wants a strike based on a literal no-action by the batter.  There's nothing to appeal here, if the batter did nothing.   This isn'ta check swing issue. 
Yes, I have that as arguing balls and strikes.

Assumes facts not in evidence your Honor.

"If you argue and rankle and contradict, you may achieve a victory sometimes. But it will be an empty victory, because you will never get your opponent's good will.

Ben Franklin

I'm done

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, KenBAZ said:

From the OP:
"Defensive coach come out and asks him if he can ask his partner for help to see if there was an actual attempt. He then told the coach that it was his judgement call and no one else."

This reads to me like a justifiable appeal that was not granted. Based on this description are we really going to shut down the DHC for arguing balls and strikes?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 

If all the coach said was along the lines of, "Can you check?" and PU responded, "No." then I agree that the coach coming out is NOT arguing balls and strikes.

8 hours ago, BrianC14 said:

Plate guy rules it a ball.  DC wants a strike based on a literal no-action by the batter.  There's nothing to appeal here, if the batter did nothing.   This isn'ta check swing issue. 

Yes, I have that as arguing balls and strikes.

That's true IF the coach had agreed that the batter made no effort and just held the bat in the zone.  That's not what I read.

[BrianC14]

11 minutes ago, noumpere said:

 

That's true IF the coach had agreed that the batter made no effort and just held the bat in the zone.  That's not what I read.

I couldn't care less what the coach agrees with. ... what the OP and @HokieUmppoints out is the issue that the coach has come out to press a point.  There's no reason to come onto the field for the simple matter of asking for help on a possible attempt to hit.  Like HokieUmp, I am not disagreeing with  @KenBAZ, my main point has been the uninvited OOA that I am stuck with. 

[noumpere]

5 minutes ago, BrianC14 said:

I couldn't care less what the coach agrees with. ... what the OP and @HokieUmppoints out is the issue that the coach has come out to press a point.  There's no reason to come onto the field for the simple matter of asking for help on a possible attempt to hit.  Like HokieUmp, I am not disagreeing with  @KenBAZ, my main point has been the uninvited OOA that I am stuck with. 

If the coach is saying "that was a swing" -- then I agree -- he's arguing B/S and it needs to be dealt with under that protocol.

If the coach is saying "the rules require you to check with BU" then he's not arguing B/S and a different (more lenient) protocol is used.

[BrianC14]

1 minute ago, noumpere said:

If the coach is saying "that was a swing" -- then I agree -- he's arguing B/S and it needs to be dealt with under that protocol.

If the coach is saying "the rules require you to check with BU" then he's not arguing B/S and a different (more lenient) protocol is used.

If we're in FED the rules do not REQUIRE the request to get help.  Otherwise, we agree.  The protocol used will also consider the totality of the circumstances with the coach coming out of the dugout, and my understanding of what his intentions are.

[956UMP]

This happened in a Junior Little League Game (13-14 year olds). Point is no umpire should ever come over to give his opinion on play especially balls and strikes unless asked my his fellow umpire.

[Aging_Arbiter]

 

@956UMP was BU a softball ump?  May be confusing rule sets...