Call reversal

[Guest John schilling]

Runners on first and third no one out , runner try stealing second , throw cut off as runner from third is trying to score throw is to the catcher who throws to the third baseman who run the runner half down the line and tags him out signaled by the home plate umpire! Runner then heads to his dugout on his way to the dugout he is instructed by his coach to touch home plate and he ask the home plate umpire to ask the field umpire if the tag was made on the runner . The call is overturned and the runner who was tagged out between third and home is allowed to score ! Is this the right call ?

[noumpere]

The umpires will rule on what likely would have happened.  Given that the runner was in a run-down, an out seems to be the likely result.

[beerguy55]

Umpires need to determine what would have happened if they had correctly ruled the runner safe at the time of the call.

As a general starting point, the umpires can't expect the defense to chase a player that has already been ruled out and shouldn't punish or place them at a disadvantage for not doing so.  Nor should they punish a runner who simply did what he is supposed to do when called out.

So, as a reasonable human being, you look at a bunch of factors and try to determine in your mind what would have happened if the play had continued...

What direction was the runner going?

How far were they from said base?

Was there another fielder between the runner and said base when the "tag" was missed?

What happened at the time of the "tag"?   What did fielders do with ball after the call?   There are many possibilities that range from the fielder missed the tag and there was nothing between the runner and home...to the runner did a tuck and roll and was actually lying on the ground, with the fielder standing next to him holding the ball, when the ump said "out"...and anything in between.

Without seeing it, and all things being equal (which they never are) the most judicious ruling would put the runner on third base, but there are scenarios and justifications to score the runner, and, I think, keep him "out" (though some/many will argue there was never a tag, there can't be an out).

[SH0102]

Some good advice already given here, so I will add a different perspective, and this just comes with experience, it is difficult to "think this out" in the moment...

I am going to operate under the assumption a tag was never made (the BU had better be 1000% sure to overturn that)

So, if a tag was never actually applied, the HPU quite literally could not have seen a tag occur (since it didn't happen)  As an umpire, you should not call what you don't see.

Had an out not been declared prematurely, the rundown would have continued and LIKELY still resulted in an out, and this whole situation becomes moot. 

Also, if he doesn't call out but was wrong (missed the tag), it is a lot easier to fix that situation than this hypothetical (runner is out b/c he was tagged, R1 is only discussion, he would have achieved 2nd at worst, 3rd at best)

So my point is, don't call what you don't see, which then leads to "why didn't he see it?"  Poor angle?  It is easy to get roped into a rundown (lot of yelling and hoopla) when you aren't experienced...slow down, work a good angle (which sometimes requires adjusting throughout the rundown), and call what you see, not what you THINK/GUESS happened.

[LRZ]

Why assume there was no tag? Why assume the HP made it up or guessed? Am I missing something in the OP? But I'm going to operate on the assumption that a tag was made.

When the OHC presumably asked the HP umpire "to get help"--and, IMO, this is where the mess begins--the proper answer should have been, "Coach, I had a good look, I had a tag, it's my call."

Furthermore, how do we know who was right, the HP or the BU? The BU might have missed it. If I were the HP, I'd not get help on that.

And, of course, once the HP made his call, the BU cannot reverse his partner; all he could do is offer his partner what he had, and then the HP decides to reverse his call or not.

I'm not sure if our guest is questioning the procedure--how the call was reversed--or once that happened, allowing the runner to score. If the former, my answer is no, that was not the right call, for the reasons I stated above. If the latter, I'd probably weigh the facts, as beerguy55 said, and rule accordingly.

[noumpere]

20 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

 

 As an umpire, you should not call what you don't see.

Great in theory.  Not always practical, especially in situations with two umpires.

(In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are different.)

[SH0102]

25 minutes ago, LRZ said:

Why assume there was no tag? Why assume the HP made it up or guessed? Am I missing something in the OP? But I'm going to operate on the assumption that a tag was made.

When the OHC presumably asked the HP umpire "to get help"--and, IMO, this is where the mess begins--the proper answer should have been, "Coach, I had a good look, I had a tag, it's my call."

Furthermore, how do we know who was right, the HP or the BU? The BU might have missed it. If I were the HP, I'd not get help on that.

And, of course, once the HP made his call, the BU cannot reverse his partner; all he could do is offer his partner what he had, and then the HP decides to reverse his call or not.

I'm not sure if our guest is questioning the procedure--how the call was reversed--or once that happened, allowing the runner to score. If the former, my answer is no, that was not the right call, for the reasons I stated above. If the latter, I'd probably weigh the facts, as beerguy55 said, and rule accordingly.

@LRZ....because the call was overturned, I assumed (and said as much in my response) that the BU had a clear look at the no-tag...if the BU was unsure, he damn well better not have convinced the HPU to overturn his/her call.

Generally speaking, a call is only overturned when there is clear evidence or conviction that the original call was incorrect.

If the BU came in and said "I didn't see a tag, I think he missed it", there is no way I am overturning my "out" call.

And thus, that went into my paradox I have about all of officiating.  If it human nature to miss seeing something that did happen, but it is literally impossible to see something that didn't happen.

If I try to tag someone and miss, literally do not touch them, it is physically impossible for you, as an umpire, to see me tag him.  You might THINK I did, or be forced to use context clues (reactions of the players for example) that lead you to call a tag, but you can not possibly see me tag him if I didn't.

Thus, if BU is 1000% there was no tag, the HPU called something he couldn't have seen

[noumpere]

6 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

 but it is literally impossible to see something that didn't happen.
 

I went to a show the other night and saw a women sawed in half.

[SH0102]

18 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I went to a show the other night and saw a women sawed in half.

No you didn’t, you saw an illusion, hence the part about THINKING you saw something 

[HokieUmp]

52 minutes ago, LRZ said:

When the OHC presumably asked the HP umpire "to get help"--and, IMO, this is where the mess begins--the proper answer should have been, "Coach, I had a good look, I had a tag, it's my call."

Furthermore, how do we know who was right, the HP or the BU? The BU might have missed it. If I were the HP, I'd not get help on that.

Comment Segment Of The Year contender, right there.  Actually, LRZ for [Baseball] President.

Maybe not the guys *here*, but we as a collective need to learn to say no to fishing expeditions.  Don't have to be mean about it (although I'm not *against* that, necessarily), but we don't have to give in to it.  Yes, coach/player, you're disappointed.  Sad, even.  It's life.  Go get 'em next time, tiger.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

So, if a tag was never actually applied, the HPU quite literally could not have seen a tag occur (since it didn't happen)  As an umpire, you should not call what you don't see.

I generally agree with this in principle, but right or wrong, an umpire (or any human being) may/might use other information to "reinforce" what they saw (or thought they saw)...perhaps the runner behaved like he got tagged...the glove/jersey/runner moved in a manner consistent with a tag...there was a sound consistent with a tag...like you say before, those context clues can sometimes be just as valuable.   

In fact, I would posit that a first base umpire, most of the time, could close his eyes and correctly call safe/out on a standard throw to first base (ie. foot on bag, ball in glove)

 

38 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

but it is literally impossible to see something that didn't happen.

I saw a cat turn into Maggie Smith.  I saw a dinosaur eat a lawyer.  

15 minutes ago, SH0102 said:

No you didn’t, you saw an illusion, hence the part about THINKING you saw something 

That's the point...perception is reality.  Whether you saw it or think you saw it, it is all processed in your mind.

[Senor Azul]

To our guest, John schilling, what rule set was your game played under? It does make a difference. Any other details could be helpful such as age group, did the umpires actually call time, and did they actually confer?

Here’s what I mean by rule set making a difference. In the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual it states (in section 8.4, p. 148) the following:

Some judgment calls are not subject to reversal. These include steal and other tag plays (except if the ball is dropped without the umpire’s knowledge); force plays (when the ball is not dropped and foot is not pulled); and balls and strikes (other than checked swings). Also, some calls cannot be reversed without creating larger problems. An example is a catch/no catch situation with multiple runners.

It goes on to say that, “managers are not entitled to a second opinion simply because they dispute a call.”

[SH0102]

31 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I generally agree with this in principle, but right or wrong, an umpire (or any human being) may/might use other information to "reinforce" what they saw (or thought they saw)...perhaps the runner behaved like he got tagged...the glove/jersey/runner moved in a manner consistent with a tag...there was a sound consistent with a tag...like you say before, those context clues can sometimes be just as valuable.   

In fact, I would posit that a first base umpire, most of the time, could close his eyes and correctly call safe/out on a standard throw to first base (ie. foot on bag, ball in glove)

 

I saw a cat turn into Maggie Smith.  I saw a dinosaur eat a lawyer.  

That's the point...perception is reality.  Whether you saw it or think you saw it, it is all processed in your mind.

I read that At pro school, they have umpires make calls at first blindfolded and their accuracy rate improves.  Teaches them to use the sound to decide safe/out (obviously blindfolded we are assuming foot stayed on the bag)

I never said people can’t be fooled, but my point is not wrong.  You might believe you see something, but you literally can not see something that didn’t happen