2 man Double play coverage suggestion. (thought)

[Richvee]

This just came to me while driving home the other day...

2 man crew

R1 only, less than 2 outs. potential DP ground ball. 

We have BU turning to watch the fielder field the ball, and insuring there's a throw to 2B, then step to cover the play at 2B, then, continue a series of dance steps while staying with the play at second, calling the safe or out as they are turning, making sure we see a transfer or the drop, then make sure we have a throw to first before we turn quickly and try to steady our heads for what often times is going to be a bang bang play at 1B. 

Meanwhile, we have PU, maybe 80-90 feet away from 2B if they're hustling,without a great angle, "cleaning up" the potential FPS violation at 2B, and being a second set of eyes for a pulled foot, swipe tag at 1B. 

Why not give the play at 1B to the PU? Let BU stay with the whole play at2B. BU umpire can then easily follow R1 to 3B, if he's safe, PU comes out between pitcher's mound and 1BL, as far as he can get, and makes the call on BR at 1B. PU then has dead ball on an overthrow because he's on that side, can easily get back to plate if R1 is safe at 2B and tries to score on a bad throw. 

Besides missing a second set of eyes on a swipe/pulled foot at 1B, is there any other downfall to this? I'm sure it's been thought of before. Maybe I'm missing something? This just seems to cover the most important elements of this play a lot better. 

 

Thoughts?  

[Velho]

Way more experience than I will weigh in (but maybe my inexperience is an asset here?), there is a lot of logic in the thought.

The foundational question I have is: What's the priority? The out at 1B or the FPS violation?

[agdz59]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

Way more experience than I will weigh in (but maybe my inexperience is an asset here?), there is a lot of logic in the thought.

The foundational question I have is: What's the priority? The out at 1B or the FPS violation?

But if base is staying with the complete play at 2nd, they can get FPSR right?

 

@Richvee Sounds good to me on the surface.  Now let's say R1 is safe at 2nd so it opens up plays at 3B and home when there are over throws, etc.  How does the rotation work?

[Richvee]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

What's the priority? The out at 1B or the FPS violation?

I think this does a better job of covering both. BU gets to stay with the slide, transfer or drop, while PU has a damn good angle for the play at first and has more time to get set, focus on the play at 1B and be ready for the banger. PU literally has the "two steps fair" angle for plays at 1B like BU would from "A" . Just from the other side. 

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, agdz59 said:

 Sounds good to me on the surface.  Now let's say R1 is safe at 2nd so it opens up plays at 3B and home when there are over throws, etc.  How does the rotation work?

There's a lot of us who work two man mechanics and work "if the ball stays on the infield,  BU take all plays on the bases." 

So this wouldn't change anything if you follow those mechanics already. BU would know R1 was safe at 2B and be able to get R1 at 3rd. Remember, BU no longer has to worry about BR at 1B, so BU should be able to get a decent jump and good angle on a potential play at 3B.  PU should have no issues backtracking to cover home on a wild throw that got past 1B. In a case where both runners are safe, and maybe an overthrow at 1B, BU would need to split the difference for possible plays on BR at 2B and R1 at 3B. (Which BU would have anyway in any system...after ruling on the play at 1B, which he wouldn't have to do here)

[grayhawk]

@Richvee, great minds think alike. I thought of this a few years ago and I believe it to be much better coverage for all of the essential elements of this dynamic play. I think we would get many more FPSR violations called and don't think we're giving up anything at 1B other than two sets of eyes on pulled foot/swipe tags (especially if F3 is off the bag in the direction of the foul line (towards RF or towards home)).

It certainly would put to bed the absurd notion of PU covering a play on R1 (who was safe at 2B) at 3B when the ball doesn't leave the infield.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

 

Thoughts?  

This has been suggested multiple times over the years -- I first saw it proposed back in the 1990s (and I'm sure it wasn't "new" even then).

 

I think Carl Childress might have had this in his "mechanics for the 21st century book (or whatever ti was called).

[The Man in Blue]

I have long wondered this one . . . 

BU isn't a second set of eyes on most pulled foot incidents anyway.  PU has the best look.

[Jimurray]

7 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I have long wondered this one . . . 

BU isn't a second set of eyes on most pulled foot incidents anyway.  PU has the best look.

Last argument I recall is do you use this with R1 and then revert with R1, R2 or bases loaded. I think the consensus was KISS. But since I am not stupid now, having been so in the past, if you tell me that's what we are doing I'm doing it.

[Kevin_K]

Playing devil's advocate....

Keeping the DP mechanics the same regardless of how many base runners are on may be better. The consistency of who is responsible for the various aspects of many moving parts relieves the crew of another opportunity of missing a rotation/coverage.

I know we should be communicating our responsibilities pre-pitch, but there are many umpires who do not initiate or respond to such efforts. Adding more signals that are not recognized won't help the situation.

 

[maven]

I agree that it makes sense, but only for a single situation: R1 only.

Downside? One of the virtues of a set of mechanics is simplicity: having multiple mechanics for BU depending on the number of runners, outs, etc. complicates mechanics. 

Any set of mechanics is a series of compromises, and this one never caught on (for long) at any level, AFAIK.

[The Man in Blue]

I am with @Kevin_K that it should stay the same regardless of the runner situation.

As @maven said, it is always a series of compromises.  If I can't catch a fluke happening at third base because my eyes are on the actual, most-likely, and probably inning-ending play . . . well I wouldn't have caught it anyway if I was watching for a pulled foot.

[Richvee]

It's obviously an R1 only situation.

Do we not already have different rotations due to baserunner/ outs/count now? 

PU rotations to 3B called off with a fly ball down the RF line.

Mechanics already change based on runner and number of outs....or counts..

R1/R2 changes depending on outs, R1 2 outs, 3-2 count PU is not rotating to 3B on a hit

In 3 man we change the whole configuration for R2 or R2 R3 when there's 2 outs.

CCA even has an optional 3 man positioning and mechanic for R1 , R2 in an obvious bunt situation.  

Would it be considered an advanced mechanic? sure. I wouldn't try it with just anybody. 

 

 

[maven]

Not arguing, Rich, just a possible explanation for why a sensible mechanic never caught on.

[Richvee]

9 minutes ago, maven said:

Not arguing, Rich, just a possible explanation for why a sensible mechanic never caught on.

And that makes sense. Everyone is always trying to simplify things.

Heck, I know proponents of "Base umpire always starts in "B or "C"" and zero rotations ever". 

How's that for simplification? And the sad part is that probably could gain acceptance quicker than PU taking BR on a DP. 

[MadMax]

On 7/25/2024 at 1:01 PM, Richvee said:

And that makes sense. Everyone is always trying to simplify things.

… but yet, trying to also appease any/all grievances and sources of input/influence. The CCA Manual has several notable departures / differences from the OBR/MLBUM, among them “rimming”, and – directly relevant to @Richvee’s entire inspiration for his topic – a potential DP & FPSR (at 2B, specifically). And college “evaluators” hammer umpires on this, expecting and enforcing a measure of compliance and conformity. 

It could be simpler… but does it go against the CCA Manual, or (worse) go against what So-&-So instructed at X Clinic? 

FTR, I’m not against clinics, manuals, training materials, or instruction. I’m concerned with how they’re conducted & conveyed. 

“Here, read this”, doesn’t really have effective results. 

[dumbdumb]

59 minutes ago, MadMax said:

… but yet, trying to also appease any/all grievances and sources of input/influence. The CCA Manual has several notable departures / differences from the OBR/MLBUM, among them “rimming”, and – directly relevant to @Richvee’s entire inspiration for his topic – a potential DP & FPSR (at 2B, specifically). And college “evaluators” hammer umpires on this, expecting and enforcing a measure of compliance and conformity. 

It could be simpler… but does it go against the CCA Manual, or (worse) go against what So-&-So instructed at X Clinic? 

FTR, I’m not against clinics, manuals, training materials, or instruction. I’m concerned with how they’re conducted & conveyed. 

“Here, read this”, doesn’t really have effective results. 

so they don't like to see baseball instincts anymore, or would this instinct above be a little too involved, versus something like taking a step one way or the other to possibly see a swipe tag (instincts). so everything in life has parameters and it is who/whomever runs the parameter department that gets to promote the correct instincts to be used and adopted, or otherwise we would potentially have chaos with all the different instinct situations that would arise everyday all over the country. and that would keep us having to write up 1000 chaos case book interpretations everyday for disimination the next day, including pictures and videos both ways of the parameters to use and not use.

[umpstu]

On 7/24/2024 at 8:11 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I have long wondered this one . . . 

BU isn't a second set of eyes on most pulled foot incidents anyway.  PU has the best look.

Yeah, that play and throw from second happens so fast that getting your eyes into a good position and still is tough for the BU. And if something happens at second and the PU doesn't have the balls to enforce it, who is the coach coming out to argue with? 

[JSam21]

On 7/27/2024 at 10:22 AM, dumbdumb said:

so they don't like to see baseball instincts anymore, or would this instinct above be a little too involved, versus something like taking a step one way or the other to possibly see a swipe tag (instincts). so everything in life has parameters and it is who/whomever runs the parameter department that gets to promote the correct instincts to be used and adopted, or otherwise we would potentially have chaos with all the different instinct situations that would arise everyday all over the country. and that would keep us having to write up 1000 chaos case book interpretations everyday for disimination the next day, including pictures and videos both ways of the parameters to use and not use.

They want you to do it as the manual says, but show instincts off of the prescribed techniques. Use the manual as your base and then work off of there. They don't want people "free wheeling" on the field. 

NCAA baseball, almost exclusively at the Power 5 D1 level, has become less regional when it comes to their umpire pools for conferences. You may have people from 4 different areas working on a crew for a conference weekend. They want everyone, throughout the country, to work from the manual as prescribed to prevent missed coverages. 

Use your instincts within the system you are running.