"New" 2-man flyball mechanic with runner on 3B?

[SeeingEyeDog]

So, my partner on the plate tonight has been umpiring at some capacity since the mid-1970s. With a runner on 3B and a flyball to RF, I cross over the working area from C staying chest to ball and as I setup to view the catch/no-catch, I hear my partner behind me on the plate say, "I got the tag up at third, partner!" He did it on two other similar occasions. Of course we know it's a fundamental of umpiring that someone has the ball and someone has the runner(s). We know PU has ALL tag ups at 3B.

When I asked him about the verbalization in post-game, he said, "Yeah...I think it's preventative umpiring. Yes, I am reassuring you that I have that tag up and...I am also telling the teams and coaches too that I have that tag up. Does it fully stop every coach every time from coming out of the dugout? No, of course not. But, it significantly reduces the likelihood they will."

Brothers, maybe I'm the last one on this train but, I thought this was a really brilliant addition to the 2-man system...what say you?

~Dawg 

[The Man in Blue]

Last summer I worked several games with a new guy who told me this was one of his areas of opportunity/learning.  I would do this on almost every fly ball with a runner on, and he was very appreciative.  As we were doing it, I began to think about the "preventative coach application" your partner mentioned.

Sadly, I let that slip away after working with him.  When I work softball (which I may be giving up next year), I tend to work with the same guys and gals regularly.  When I work baseball, I am frequently encountering partners I don't know or have limited experience with.  I need to bring this back for the latter of those.

I'm also trying to incorporate the raised hand on a fly ball that was mentioned in another thread.  When working a 3-umpire crew a couple of weeks ago, we found this valuable since we don't work 3s very often.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

I hear my partner behind me on the plate say, "I got the tag up at third, partner!" 

~Dawg 

Numerous things are communicated that are not in any mechanics system. verbal "I'm staying home", "I'm going home", visual for tags or appeals. But it should have been "I've got the tag up at third base, SeeingEyeDawg." 

[SeeingEyeDog]

10 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Numerous things are communicated that are not in any mechanics system. verbal "I'm staying home", "I'm going home", visual for tags or appeals. But it should have been "I've got the tag up at third base, SeeingEyeDawg." 

Well, yeah...when one's sight is so limited, the extra bits of auditory based information are so helpful. 🙂

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

16 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Well, yeah...when one's sight is so limited, the extra bits of auditory based information are so helpful. 🙂

~Dawg

Again my wife's complaint arises. My dry humor goes over heads. "partner" should be "Dog" when you are communicating on the field.

[JSam21]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having verbal communication with your partners, especially those that you haven't worked a lot with. I know it puts my mind at ease when I hear my partner behind me telling me what they are doing. It allows me to be proactive to check something off of my mental list and move to my next area of responsibility. 

 

[834k3r]

13 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

So, my partner on the plate tonight has been umpiring at some capacity since the mid-1970s. With a runner on 3B and a flyball to RF, I cross over the working area from C staying chest to ball and as I setup to view the catch/no-catch, I hear my partner behind me on the plate say, "I got the tag up at third, partner!" He did it on two other similar occasions. Of course we know it's a fundamental of umpiring that someone has the ball and someone has the runner(s). We know PU has ALL tag ups at 3B.

When I asked him about the verbalization in post-game, he said, "Yeah...I think it's preventative umpiring. Yes, I am reassuring you that I have that tag up and...I am also telling the teams and coaches too that I have that tag up. Does it fully stop every coach every time from coming out of the dugout? No, of course not. But, it significantly reduces the likelihood they will."

Brothers, maybe I'm the last one on this train but, I thought this was a really brilliant addition to the 2-man system...what say you?

~Dawg 

I need to be more vocal, period. I've been working on it (along with lots of other stuff) in various situations:  going out from A/B/C/D ("I'm going out!"), returning to POP after a 1-3 rotation ("Going Home!"), reverse rotation in 3-man ("Push!"). It eliminates a lot of confusion, but it's not automatic for me yet.

#StillWorking #AlwaysWorking

[MadMax]

3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having verbal communication with your partners, especially those that you haven't worked a lot with.

😁 … then there’s the other corner, wherein you work with a familiar partner (in my case: Vulture) that you don’t have to signal or verbally communicate with much, if at all, because you know – ya just know it – where he’s going to be. 

There’s an aspect of this that college baseball, in particular, illuminates (at least here in the SW). When you work with new (to you) partners, the tendency is to over-communicate in-game, right? Well, the college guys here want you to pre-game everything, exhaustively. So, to them, minimal communication ≠ “cooperative familiarity”; instead, minimal communication = “thorough pre-game”. 

Did I mention that I abhor pre-games? 🤨 

I strive for cooperative familiarity, TYVM. 

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

As we were doing it, I began to think about the "preventative coach application" your partner mentioned.

You know where this also comes up? Appeals and “asks for help”. Why get together? Just ask the bloody, binary question! … More on this later. 

49 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

going out from A/…/D ("I'm going out!")

FIFY. Don’t go out from B or C*. 

51 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

returning to POP after a 1-3 rotation ("Going Home!")

This isn’t directed at you, Beaks, but you (we) should never call Time so as to return to our (next) IP. Never. If Time is called/granted, then you don’t need to say “Going Home”. It’s implied, because you should be going there anyway, so as to administer the plate area and to put the ball back Live. 

56 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

reverse rotation in 3-man ("Push!").

This term must be a holdover from a Fed manual. It’s not a rotation – it’s a push, or a slide, or to look at it a different way, a displacement. “Rotation”s involve PU rotating to 3B. You are going where an umpire is not or no longer is. 

By contrast, a Push or Slide is a displacement. The PU stays in place, while the U1 comes in and pushes / displaces the U3 (or U2, in 4-man) from the (majority) of the infield. If I use the term “reverse rotation”, PU ears perk up at “rotation”, and they think they have to go someplace. Incorrect. Stay Plate. If a rotation does not occur, we (likely) have a base/plate uncovered, right? By contrast, if a Push / Slide does not occur, we’re still “fine”, are we not? In fact, this happens more often than not… such as R1-R2, (routine) base hit to RF… R2 goes to Plate, R1 goes to 3B, and BR goes to 1B. An experienced U1 is _not_ going to immediately step inside, because that is the throwing lane from F9 to Plate. So if the throw comes to the 1B side of the infield, cut off, and BR remains at 1B… do we have all the bases covered? Yes. Did we do the Push/Slide? No. Do we have a “missed (reverse) rotation”? Heck-effin’-no!! 

And thank you for using the term “push!”. In amateur baseball, coaches / teammates typically call out “Slide! Slide!” to their Runners… which, as you can obviously see, can confuse us. Use “Push”! 
 

* - there are extreme instances to go out from the infield (B/C), and CCA delineates some other cases to do so. You, Beaks (and other amateur umpires) are not at that proficiency yet. Stick to the infield. 

[834k3r]

3 minutes ago, MadMax said:

This isn’t directed at you, Beaks, but you (we) should never call Time so as to return to our (next) IP. Never. If Time is called/granted, then you don’t need to say “Going Home”. It’s implied, because you should be going there anyway, so as to administer the plate area and to put the ball back Live. 

💯. I should have been more specific that it's when the ball is live that I call out I'm going home.

3 minutes ago, MadMax said:

This term must be a holdover from a Fed manual. It’s not a rotation – it’s a push, or a slide, or to look at it a different way, a displacement. “Rotation”s involve PU rotating to 3B. You are going where an umpire is not or no longer is.

I learned the term from the CCA manual, and that's how our head evaluator explained it to me. Nevertheless I get what you're saying.

[JSam21]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

 

FIFY. Don’t go out from B or C*. 

 

* - there are extreme instances to go out from the infield (B/C), and CCA delineates some other cases to do so. You, Beaks (and other amateur umpires) are not at that proficiency yet. Stick to the infield. 

Just don't go out from inside, especially in the two umpire system. You most likely aren't going to get any better look at the play and you've taken yourself out of anything else that could happen, leaving one person to cover 4 bases and multiple runners. I am a much bigger proponent of working to create an angle and keep yourself in the play. 

Every time I've seen someone go out from the inside in the 3 umpire system, it has been on a no doubt moonshot that didn't need someone out on it and they have all been in a camp setting. I would ask "Why did you go out on that ball from the inside?" The answer was always, "Well we need to go out on balls challenging the wall, right?" My response, "Brother, that was challenging the county line, never mind the wall."

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

27 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Just don't go out from inside, especially in the two umpire system. You most likely aren't going to get any better look at the play and you've taken yourself out of anything else that could happen, leaving one person to cover 4 bases and multiple runners. I am a much bigger proponent of working to create an angle and keep yourself in the play. 

Every time I've seen someone go out from the inside in the 3 umpire system, it has been on a no doubt moonshot that didn't need someone out on it and they have all been in a camp setting. I would ask "Why did you go out on that ball from the inside?" The answer was always, "Well we need to go out on balls challenging the wall, right?" My response, "Brother, that was challenging the county line, never mind the wall."

 

Even learning to read what a trouble ball is from A in 2-man is a long process. We open up and we read it and we read the fielder and the flight of the ball and all of that...but, one needs reps to really dial that in. Taking 20 or even 50 of those off of an elevated pitching machine from the plate at a camp or clinic doesn't get one fully dialed in. It's an acquired skill that takes some longer than others. I still find myself going out from A in 2-man too unnecessarily. And of course, when we do this and it we shouldn't have...now our partner is left with all 3 bases if that's down fair and we've still got to go cover the plate.

Of course, the reverse is even less desirable...true trouble ball and U1 busts in? Now plate could be potentially left adjudicating fair/foul, catch/no-catch, and or dealing with converging fielders and or below the waist from the catch line...😮

~Dawg

[noumpere]

46 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Of course, the reverse is even less desirable...true trouble ball and U1 busts in?

 

Yep.  It's better to be out wishing you were in than in wishing you were out.

 

And, that applies to baseball umpiring, too.