Overrule continuation

[Guest Tigersoup]

Runners 2nd 3rd. 2 outs. 

Passed ball. 

Runner from 3rd called tag out at home by home ump. 

IF ump overrules immediately by point / yell / signal emphatically (ball dropped in home ump blind spot)  

pitcher (thinking 3 out) rolls ball to empty mound  

runner that started on second scores in the confusion

umps convene  call both runners safe / both runs score  

at no point was time called  

good call?

 

 

[johnpatrick]

Umps screwed up.  There is no right way to fix this.  You do the best you can.  Defense made  a decision based on an erroneous umpire call (out at home).  Give a little to each side.  I would have left R2 at 3B.

[The Man in Blue]

11 hours ago, Guest Tigersoup said:

Runners 2nd 3rd. 2 outs. 

Passed ball. 

Runner from 3rd called tag out at home by home ump. 

IF ump overrules immediately by point / yell / signal emphatically (ball dropped in home ump blind spot)  

Point of emphasis: There is no such thing as an umpire overruling another.  

 

11 hours ago, Guest Tigersoup said:

Pitcher (thinking 3 out) rolls ball to empty mound  

runner that started on second scores in the confusion

umps convene  call both runners safe / both runs score  

at no point was time called  

good call?

 

No.  Proper mechanics should have gone down like this: The BU should not have said anything.  The out should have stood.  Then the offensive coach comes out to talk to the PU and ask him to go for help since he couldn’t see the dropped ball.  PU goes to BU.  BU offers what he saw.  PU makes the correction.  Run scores, R2 stays where he was at (second OR third) depending on where he was during the action at the plate.

Since BU jumped the gun and PU continued the action ... JohnPatrick is partially right in that the blue guys goofed, but I disagree that it isn’t correctable.  His solution is correct, the runner goes back to second (or third) depending on where he was during the action at the plate and the umpires’ discretion on where he would have ended up had the PU seen the dropped ball and not stopped play.  No way should he have been allowed to score also though.

 

[Jimurray]

56 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Point of emphasis: There is no such thing as an umpire overruling another.  

 

 

No.  Proper mechanics should have gone down like this: The BU should not have said anything.  The out should have stood.  Then the offensive coach comes out to talk to the PU and ask him to go for help since he couldn’t see the dropped ball.  PU goes to BU.  BU offers what he saw.  PU makes the correction.  Run scores, R2 stays where he was at (second OR third) depending on where he was during the action at the plate.

Since BU jumped the gun and PU continued the action ... JohnPatrick is partially right in that the blue guys goofed, but I disagree that it isn’t correctable.  His solution is correct, the runner goes back to second (or third) depending on where he was during the action at the plate and the umpires’ discretion on where he would have ended up had the PU seen the dropped ball and not stopped play.  No way should he have been allowed to score also though.

 

A dropped ball during a tag that was not seen by the calling umpire should be communicated to that umpire by his partner/s without waiting for the defense to ask for help. I don't know if a "ball's on the ground" would be appropriate in the OP. Most of the guidance I've seen anticipates relaxed play. NCAA wants you to give help unsolicited. MLB wants a crew to have signals that will direct the calling ump to get everyone together.

[The Man in Blue]

Guess it depends on the sanctioning then?  That’s kind of odd IMO if NCAA wants unsolicited help, as I was told last year NCAA does not want BUs calling foul balls off the batter before the PU (debated mechanic at a NFHS clinic).

I know the pendulum can swing on the thoughts on this, but I have always been taught not to offer unsolicited umpiring.  Discreet signals to offer assistance for catch/no catch on D3K or even a screamer/low line drive?  Sure.  Correcting a call?  No.

Even the discreet assistance can get you in trouble.  Had a low line drive to deep 2B (I’m in “A”) that appeared to me to hop before the catch.  I had a finger pointing down just off of my leg, PU calls “Out!”  First base coach immediately comes to me saying “You called it down!”  I advise him I didn’t call anything, it is the PU’s call.  He goes to PU who tells him he had a catch and it was his call.  I had it different, but he felt he had a good call.  I’m not obviously pointing across the field or screaming otherwise and I’m not contributing to the myth of the “overrule.”

Different philosophies.  

When a coach comes to me with “You saw that!” I tell the coach “I can offer my partner some assistance IF he/she comes to me, but you need to talk to him/her.  If he/she needs what I have, we will get together.”

Yes, there are times when I have had to eat my partner’s bad calls because my partner wouldn’t go for help.

[LRZ]

7 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

“I can offer my partner some assistance IF he/she comes to me, but you need to talk to him/her.  If he/she needs what I have, we will get together.”

Too wordy, too suggestive (a coach might hear it as "I agree with you, coach, my partner was wrong, but...."). My version would be: "you need to talk to him/her."

[grayhawk]

4 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

Umps screwed up.  There is no right way to fix this.  You do the best you can.  Defense made  a decision based on an erroneous umpire call (out at home).  Give a little to each side.  I would have left R2 at 3B.

I agree.  Changing the call put the defense at a disadvantage.  If I was the base umpire, I would have called time when the pitcher rolls the ball to the mound.  I would then give my partner the information that he lacked to get the call right.  There are times to wait for the coach to come out, but this is not one of them.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray is right about the NCAA philosophy on umpires getting the call right. Here’s the relevant text from their rule book--

2019-2020 NCAA Appendix E Getting The Call Right: 

Getting the Call Right without the use of video review:

SECTION 1. Following are general guidelines for this policy:

c. In the situations listed below, a partner who is 100 percent certain he has additional information unknown to the umpire making the call should approach unsolicited and alert the other umpire to such information. However, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the calling umpire…

5) Cases when an umpire clearly errs in judgment because he did not see a ball dropped or juggled after making a tag or force.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, LRZ said:

Too wordy, too suggestive (a coach might hear it as "I agree with you, coach, my partner was wrong, but...."). My version would be: "you need to talk to him/her."

Point taken.

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray is right about the NCAA philosophy on umpires getting the call right. Here’s the relevant text from their rule book--

2019-2020 NCAA Appendix E Getting The Call Right: 

Getting the Call Right without the use of video review:

SECTION 1. Following are general guidelines for this policy:

c. In the situations listed below, a partner who is 100 percent certain he has additional information unknown to the umpire making the call should approach unsolicited and alert the other umpire to such information. However, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the calling umpire…

5) Cases when an umpire clearly errs in judgment because he did not see a ball dropped or juggled after making a tag or force.

That makes more sense.  Maybe I misinterpreted your original comment Jimurray ... I thought you meant during the play.  The way I read Senor Azul’s post from the NCAA is to do so after the play (which I would be OK doing; not how I was taught, but it makes good sense).

[noumpere]

FWIW, in the OP, I am trying to get it fixed before we have to get it corrected (because the defense and the offense will / might have different ideas on "what would have happened.")

 

So, I'm coming in hard with "the ball's on the ground" signal and verbal.

 

OBR has a very similar philosophy as NCAA on this.

 

From MLBUM (2002, I think); emphasis added:

4.12 CREW CONSULTATION AND GETTING THE PLAY RIGHT
As the Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 9.00 point out, the first requisite as an
umpire is to get all decisions ultimately correct. Umpire dignity is important-but never as
important as getting the play right.
In line with this reasoning, the following guidelines should be followed:
(1) An umpire is urged to seek help when that umpire's view is blocked or positioning prevents
such umpire from seeing crucial elements of a play. An umpire is also encouraged to seek
help in instances when that umpire has doubt and a partner has additional information that
could lead to a proper ruling.
(2) Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) states, "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere
with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it." Therefore,
except in special situations such as those referred to below, the umpire making the call must
be the one to seek assistance of a partner.
(3) In a limited number of situations, a partner may have critical information that is unknown to
the umpire making the call. When the partner is certain that the umpire making the call could
benefit from such additional information, the partner should alert the other umpire that there
is additional, important information that should be shared. While the mechanics of bringing
this information to the attention of the umpire who made the call is left to the crews (walking
towards the partner, inconspicuous signal, etc.), crucial, potential call-changing information
should not be withheld on a play that has clearly been missed. As noted in the Official
Baseball Rules, "Each umpire team should work out a simple set of signals, so the proper
umpire can always right a manifestly wrong decision when convinced he has made an error."
Nevertheless, the ultimate decision to change a call rests with the umpire who made the call.
Plays such as the following lend themselves to the philosophy described above:
C Deciding whether a fly ball that left the playing field was fair or foul.
C Deciding whether a batted ball left the playing field for a home run or a ground-rule double.
C Cases where a foul tip is dropped by the catcher, causing it to become a foul ball.
C Cases when an umpire clearly errs in judgment because a ball is dropped or juggled after
making a tag or force.
C Spectator interference plays.
C Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher's foot was off the rubber.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. noumpere, you are in luck. The text you quoted from your outdated source is still valid. Even though the text has been rewritten a little, the message remains the same in the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 8.5, p. 125).

[Jimurray]

22 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Point taken.

That makes more sense.  Maybe I misinterpreted your original comment Jimurray ... I thought you meant during the play.  The way I read Senor Azul’s post from the NCAA is to do so after the play (which I would be OK doing; not how I was taught, but it makes good sense).

I think I'm with @noumpere on this. "Ball's on the ground". 

[The Man in Blue]

I know I am fighting a losing battle, but that citation is a prime example of what I take umbrage with in some of these rule interpretations...

(2) Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) states, "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere
with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."

Ok, that’s pretty clear ... 

Therefore, except in special situations such as those referred to below, the umpire making the call must
be the one to seek assistance of a partner.

   That is NOT what that rule said.

 

Yes, let’s get the call right.  If that is what we want to do, I am OK with it BUT change the damned rule/mechanic.  You don’t just get to make #### up though!  

Coach: ”Blue, he wasn’t out.”

Umpire: “The throw beat him to the bag; the fielder held the bag.  Out!”

Coach: “But Blue, that was a special situation ...”

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I know I am fighting a losing battle, but that citation is a prime example of what I take umbrage with in some of these rule interpretations...

(2) Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) states, "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere
with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."

Ok, that’s pretty clear ... 

Therefore, except in special situations such as those referred to below, the umpire making the call must
be the one to seek assistance of a partner.

   That is NOT what that rule said.

 

Yes, let’s get the call right.  If that is what we want to do, I am OK with it BUT change the damned rule/mechanic.  You don’t just get to make #### up though!  

Coach: ”Blue, he wasn’t out.”

Umpire: “The throw beat him to the bag; the fielder held the bag.  Out!”

Coach: “But Blue, that was a special situation ...”

Are you saying “ ball is on the ground” is interfering with another umpire’s decision?

[beerguy55]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I know I am fighting a losing battle, but that citation is a prime example of what I take umbrage with in some of these rule interpretations...

(2) Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) states, "No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere
with another umpire's decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it."

Ok, that’s pretty clear ... 

Therefore, except in special situations such as those referred to below, the umpire making the call must
be the one to seek assistance of a partner.

   That is NOT what that rule said.

 

Yes, let’s get the call right.  If that is what we want to do, I am OK with it BUT change the damned rule/mechanic.  You don’t just get to make #### up though!  

Coach: ”Blue, he wasn’t out.”

Umpire: “The throw beat him to the bag; the fielder held the bag.  Out!”

Coach: “But Blue, that was a special situation ...”

If we were to take every rule in the OBR book literally not only would the game be unplayable, most umps' heads would explode.

This isn't congressional legislation - it's a set of rules written by non-lawyers meant to instill the spirit of the game.   That gets lost in many of these conversations.

 

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Are you saying “ ball is on the ground” is interfering with another umpire’s decision?

 

I’m saying that yelling “Ball is on the ground” when it is in contradiction with the other umpire who is in progress of the call or has just made a call lends itself to that appearance.  The coach is hearing you yelling “safe” (that is how they will hear that) while watching your partner call “out” and now you have a bigger problem than getting together and fixing it after play ends,

You don’t stand out in B or C and yell “Strike!” or “Ball!” When the pitch looks good/bad, so why would you yell any other “overruling” command?  Again, that is how a coach will hear/interpret that, as an overruling command.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this whole thing.  If we are talking discreet signals, then I am good.  I stated that discreet signals can still get you in some hot water, but you have plausible deniability.  If you are making a call — and loudly, visibly “offering information” is going to be seen by a coach as making the call — that is not yours and is in contradiction with your partner, you are in for some trouble.

Hey, this is just my opinion.  I’m not an self-proclaimed expert who paid money for a school or had a minor league career.  I’m somebody who has been umpiring for about a decade.  But more importantly, I come from a lifetime of “people” experience, change management, and a mindset that comes from organizational development.  I’ve spent my professional career as a “fixer/problem solver” in a number of industries and as a professional communicator.  I’ve found those skills have served me very well as an umpire.

That background is why I have issues with the mentality of “the rules says ‘this’, but we do ‘that’”.  My professional perspective is not that you cannot do ‘that’ but that you need to fix ‘this’ so it supports you doing ‘that’.

[JSam21]

10 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I’m saying that yelling “Ball is on the ground” when it is in contradiction with the other umpire who is in progress of the call or has just made a call lends itself to that appearance.  The coach is hearing you yelling “safe” (that is how they will hear that) while watching your partner call “out” and now you have a bigger problem than getting together and fixing it after play ends,

You don’t stand out in B or C and yell “Strike!” or “Ball!” When the pitch looks good/bad, so why would you yell any other “overruling” command?  Again, that is how a coach will hear/interpret that, as an overruling command.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this whole thing.  If we are talking discreet signals, then I am good.  I stated that discreet signals can still get you in some hot water, but you have plausible deniability.  If you are making a call — and loudly, visibly “offering information” is going to be seen by a coach as making the call — that is not yours and is in contradiction with your partner, you are in for some trouble.

Hey, this is just my opinion.  I’m not an self-proclaimed expert who paid money for a school or had a minor league career.  I’m somebody who has been umpiring for about a decade.  But more importantly, I come from a lifetime of “people” experience and a mindset that comes from organizational development.  I’ve spent my professional career as a “fixer/problem solver” in a number of industries and as a professional communicator.  I’ve found those skills have served me very well as an umpire.

That background is why I have issues with the mentality of “the rules says ‘this’, but we do ‘that’”.  My professional perspective is not that you cannot do ‘that’ but that you need to fix ‘this’ so it supports you doing ‘that’.

I'm not coming flying in while the ball is still live... Once play has relaxed, I am calling time and calling my partner over to let them know that I 100% have the ball on the ground, then we fix it from there. 

[The Man in Blue]

32 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If we were to take every rule in the OBR book literally not only would the game be unplayable, most umps' heads would explode.

This isn't congressional legislation - it's a set of rules written by non-lawyers meant to instill the spirit of the game.   That gets lost in many of these conversations.

 

See my comments above to understand a bit of my perspective ...

So fix the rulebook to address those inconsistencies.  I don’t have a problem with change.  I have a problem with telling me to memorize a rule book/process (mechanics) manual and then telling me “but we are going to ignore A, B, and C and do J, K, and L instead because somebody else said so.”

I disagree that the rule book is written to instill the spirit of the game.  It does that, yes.  But it’s purpose is to standardize the game.  It is written because people want to do what people want to do.  It is written so that the bases at Wrigley are the same distance apart as the bases at Busch Stadium.  It wasn’t written so that the Cubs could set their bases at 80 feet because they play in an older stadium or have slower baserunners.

How many times have you had a seemingly ridiculous situation in the middle of the game and the coach says “but we’ve done it that way all year.”?  Your reply is “coach, that’s not the rule.”  So why do we get to make things up?

[lawump]

I know one ex-MLB umpire's autobiography (going off of my memory, I believe it was Durwood Merrill's autobiography) talked about the time he came running in from the bases (I believe second base) to yell at his partner (who had just called a runner out at the plate) when the ball was on the ground.  He did this spontaneously and without a crew conference. 

Unlike the OP there was no continuing action after the play at the plate.  However, considering that Durwood's career was mostly in the 1980's and 1990's, it shows that even in that era  [an era when each umpire was expected to live and die with their own call] this was one call when another umpire could come in unsolicited and get an obvious error changed quickly.

[As an aside, even if my memory is wrong and it was not Durwood's autobiography, but another umpire's autobiography...my final point is still valid in as much as any autobiography I own was written by an umpire whose career was in the 1990's or earlier.]