Firm & Secure Possession by F3 or Not?

[johnnyg08]

This is also kind of a mechanics play. It doesn't appear as though we see a head snap to the glove from the BU. Proper use of eyes, probably cleans this play up a bit. 

 

[Velho]

Agreed. Even an umpire at that level has to remember "timing, timing, timing".

I really dislike the look of the off field director of umpiring (according to the announcers) chiming in and changing placement of the runner.

Question: do the on field umpires themselves do the review (as opposed to central review like MLB)?

Tangent: the advent of replay is now encouraging teams to play for a 4th+ out. I understand but don't love that.

[Umpy]

He clearly didn't spend enough time being a bad rookie umpire or he would have mastered the "Out! - no! Safe! Safe! Ball is on the ground! Safe!" mid-call correction when you screw up your timing.  I should put on a clinic, share my wisdom.

[jimurrayalterego]

29 minutes ago, Umpy said:

He clearly didn't spend enough time being a bad rookie umpire or he would have mastered the "Out! - no! Safe! Safe! Ball is on the ground! Safe!" mid-call correction when you screw up your timing.  I should put on a clinic, share my wisdom.

Did he miss the ball on the ground? He didn't give an "on transfer" signal but there was no transfer. Did he judge secure possession? With a ball on the ground the crew can change that to safe with crew consult. They didn't. But did they go to video to review secure possession?

[johnnyg08]

22 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Did he miss the ball on the ground? He didn't give an "on transfer" signal but there was no transfer. Did he judge secure possession? With a ball on the ground the crew can change that to safe with crew consult. They didn't. But did they go to video to review secure possession?

It doesn't appear as though his eyes even moved to the glove. They definitely went to review....presumably for safe/out? 

[jimurrayalterego]

40 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

It doesn't appear as though his eyes even moved to the glove. They definitely went to review....presumably for safe/out? 

If the ball was on the ground why do you have to go to review. Isn't that one of the things in review without video that the crew can change?

[johnnyg08]

I wonder if there were conference tournament parameters in place? 

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Velho said:

I really dislike the look of the off field director of umpiring (according to the announcers) chiming in and changing placement of the runner.

While most of the conversation will be on the kicked call, I don't want to lose sight of this piece of the discussion.

I believe we had a discussion in another thread about the concept of "is the ball immediately dead after the third out?"  I don't recall where we landed.

I don't like the look of sending him back to second, as it seems he obtained third cleanly.  I suppose there is an argument to be made that F3 might have thrown the runner out -- or that the runner relaxed enough that they felt he would not have advanced with an initial safe call.

To be more specific, I don't like the look of it coming from off the field, especially with the supervisor interjecting themself.  If they had gone to him, or if he had just asked them to get together and discuss the placement, It would feel less icky.

[noumpere]

At least the replay got the game moving again quickly.

[Replacematt]

6 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

If the ball was on the ground why do you have to go to review. Isn't that one of the things in review without video that the crew can change?

This isn't a play where U1 should be going to a crew review. They were in position. I assume the call was that there was secure possession (albeit briefly.) There is not a person on that crew that will have information to change that judgment. I have a prime example of this from a conference I work, where U1 called an out, went for help upon request from OC on something (I think it was a pulled foot,) another umpire was "100% sure" the fielder was off the bag, they flip it, DC asks for video review, which confirmed U1's original call. Credibility shot all around.

Get your own calls when you have the best look, and let them use the video as a tool.

12 hours ago, Velho said:

I really dislike the look of the off field director of umpiring (according to the announcers) chiming in and changing placement of the runner.

Was that what happened, or was it (more likely) a rules confirmation as to how to place them? By rule, we cannot award more than one base unless we are certain a runner would have achieved that base (or if it's required by some other rule.)

[The Man in Blue]

33 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

This isn't a play where U1 should be going to a crew review. They were in position. I assume the call was that there was secure possession (albeit briefly.) There is not a person on that crew that will have information to change that judgment. I have a prime example of this from a conference I work, where U1 called an out, went for help upon request from OC on something (I think it was a pulled foot,) another umpire was "100% sure" the fielder was off the bag, they flip it, DC asks for video review, which confirmed U1's original call. Credibility shot all around.

Get your own calls when you have the best look, and let them use the video as a tool.

Was that what happened, or was it (more likely) a rules confirmation as to how to place them? By rule, we cannot award more than one base unless we are certain a runner would have achieved that base (or if it's required by some other rule.)

 

He was in position for the safe/out.  The glove was turned away from him for a trap or secure possession look.

Totally get what you are saying about conference vs. replay and the potential outcome.  So how do you make that determination?  If I'm the coach, I'm pointing out that you were NOT in position to see that (it was turned away from you), even if you were in good position for the safe out.  Are you getting together, or telling me I need to use a challenge?

As for the runner placement, possibly . . . but it sure looked as if they were resuming play, not getting a confirmation, when he stopped them.  (Agree on the certainty aspect.  I'm not certain he would have been safe at third with an immediate safe call.)

 

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

He was in position for the safe/out.  The glove was turned away from him for a trap or secure possession look.

I disagree with this. The ball came up with the mitt, and the salient point is that no one else is going to have a better look at it than U1. The only question, to me, is when the possession ended and under what circumstances. 

9 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

I wonder if there were conference tournament parameters in place? 

Unless something drastically changes with the quality of review, there will never be a time where there is a suggestion/mandate to bypass the crew consultation and go directly to review. There are too many elements and observations to be considered to do so, and those should be taken into account for the final call on the field, at which time someone can choose to go to review.

Let's take something that is often a crew chief's review--malicious contact. Whether called on the field or not, the crew is going to consult, the appropriate umpire will make a call, and then we will go immediately to review. 

We want the highest-quality call on the field, not just to have the highest likelihood of not being overturned, but to be informative for review, and the highest probability of being correct if review fails for some reason. If we have a question that can be addressed by crew consultation, we say F*#K it and go right to review, and review isn't working for some reason, we now are making a call based solely on the calling umpire who felt that they possibly missed something.

[Velho]

11 hours ago, Replacematt said:

On 5/18/2025 at 8:00 AM, Velho said:

I really dislike the look of the off field director of umpiring (according to the announcers) chiming in and changing placement of the runner.

Was that what happened, or was it (more likely) a rules confirmation as to how to place them? By rule, we cannot award more than one base unless we are certain a runner would have achieved that base (or if it's required by some other rule.)

Can you clarify what you mean by "cannot award more than one base" in regard to OP? R1 was on 2B when F1 threw the ball. They placed him on 3B, talked to someone off field, and then moved R1 back to 2B.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Can you clarify what you mean by "cannot award more than one base" in regard to OP? R1 was on 2B when F1 threw the ball. They placed him on 3B, talked to someone off field, and then moved R1 back to 2B.

There are two things at play with this rule:

Awarding more than one base from their starting position requires the decision to be "obvious." The default is runners are placed at the base last legally touched at the time of the call.