ASA umpires placement on playing field?

[JDBerry]

I was impressed that they overturned it and he was big enough to say he didn't have a good look. I had always understood the plate ump couldn't say anything until asked. I've seen some umpires whose egos wouldn't have allowed them to overturn the call. These 2 got it right.

To be clear, I was referring to the coach having to ask the PU, instead of them somehow doing it on their own without the coach having to ask.

I have no problem with them getting it right, I was just referring to how it looks if the coach has to ask for them to get it right and then it changes.

I'm glad they got it right.

 

[BretMan]

Are any of you aware of the standard operating procedure for umpires to reverse a call?

Every umpire manual or rule book has guidelines with words to this effect: Under no circumstances will one umpire seek to overturn a call made by his associate. This is a cardinal rule of umpiring.

Can you imagine what it would be like if this wasn't case? Suppose you have a close play at first. Base umpire calls the out, because he's sure he saw the out. Plate umpire has a different opinion, so he decides to unilaterally reverse the call.

Who's to say which one had it right? What if the base umpire is adamant that he was right. Does he reverse it back? Where does it end? Contrary to what most people seem to think, the plate umpire doesn't have the magic power to overturn any call on the field he sees fit to change.

What would these constant reversals do to undermine the credibility of the umpires? Are teams going to trust their judgment after a few of calls have been reversed? Would teams want a second opinion on every close play?

Such a system would be not only impractical, but unworkable. This isn't to say that some calls may be reversed in some situations. There's a standard operating procedure for that too, outlined in the rule book and umpire manual.

A pulled foot or swipe tag are a couple of common examples. So would be a play where the umpire had his view blocked, such as when a player steps in front of him. Or, on occasion, an umpire might get caught way out of position. Any of those might warrant an umpire getting help from his partner.

This is how it's supposed to work:

- Each umpire has a primary area of responsibility. First base belongs to the base umpire. You should no more expect the plate umpire to make a call at first than you would for the base umpire to be making a call at the plate.

- Each umpire should make the calls in his area to the best of his ability, based on all of the evidence before him.

- If there is an issue as outlined above (pulled foot, blocked view) the coach has every right to request that the umpire who made the call consult with his partner. Far too often, I see coaches go to the wrong umpire to ask for help- usually, straight to the plate umpire when the base umpire made the call. In that case, the umpire should make no comment regarding the call. All he should say is, "You'll have to talk to the umpire who made the call".

- It is up to the discretion of the calling umpire to consult with his partner or not. If he's sure of what he saw, there's nothing that says he has to. If there is some doubt in his mind, then by all means he should check with his partner to see if he has any additional information.

One way I see this abused is when coaches want a second opinion on any call they don't like. Just because it was a close play and you don't like the outcome is no reason for the umpires to be huddling up. There should be some concrete reamson why you think that the umpire might have missed it (again, as outlined above, pulled foot, etc.). If coaches could go on a fishing expedition for a favorable outcome on every close play, they would. That would make for a long game and not really be conductive to playing softball.

- The umpire who made the call is the only one who can reverse it. If after confering with his partner he gets some piece of information that convinces him he missed something or had it wrong he, and only he, may reverse his call.

This is the way it's supposed to work. I won't comment on "egos" getting in the way of an umpire asking for help, because now you're talking about personality, not procedure. I've had situations like this come up lots of times. If I'm sure of what I saw, I won't ask my partner for help. It has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with me doing my job and handling my own calls, instead of wasting time just to placate a coach. On the flip side, if the situation warrants I have no problem checking with my partner for help.

 

[JDBerry]

Are any of you aware of the standard operating procedure for umpires to reverse a call?

Every umpire manual or rule book has guidelines with words to this effect: Under no circumstances will one umpire seek to overturn a call made by his associate. This is a cardinal rule of umpiring.

Can you imagine what it would be like if this wasn't case? Suppose you have a close play at first. Base umpire calls the out, because he's sure he saw the out. Plate umpire has a different opinion, so he decides to unilaterally reverse the call.

Who's to say which one had it right? What if the base umpire is adamant that he was right. Does he reverse it back? Where does it end? Contrary to what most people seem to think, the plate umpire doesn't have the magic power to overturn any call on the field he sees fit to change.

What would these constant reversals do to undermine the credibility of the umpires? Are teams going to trust their judgment after a few of calls have been reversed? Would teams want a second opinion on every close play?

Such a system would be not only impractical, but unworkable. This isn't to say that some calls may be reversed in some situations. There's a standard operating procedure for that too, outlined in the rule book and umpire manual.

A pulled foot or swipe tag are a couple of common examples. So would be a play where the umpire had his view blocked, such as when a player steps in front of him. Or, on occasion, an umpire might get caught way out of position. Any of those might warrant an umpire getting help from his partner.

This is how it's supposed to work:

- Each umpire has a primary area of responsibility. First base belongs to the base umpire. You should no more expect the plate umpire to make a call at first than you would for the base umpire to be making a call at the plate.

- Each umpire should make the calls in his area to the best of his ability, based on all of the evidence before him.

- If there is an issue as outlined above (pulled foot, blocked view) the coach has every right to request that the umpire who made the call consult with his partner. Far too often, I see coaches go to the wrong umpire to ask for help- usually, straight to the plate umpire when the base umpire made the call. In that case, the umpire should make no comment regarding the call. All he should say is, "You'll have to talk to the umpire who made the call".

- It is up to the discretion of the calling umpire to consult with his partner or not. If he's sure of what he saw, there's nothing that says he has to. If there is some doubt in his mind, then by all means he should check with his partner to see if he has any additional information.

One way I see this abused is when coaches want a second opinion on any call they don't like. Just because it was a close play and you don't like the outcome is no reason for the umpires to be huddling up. There should be some concrete reamson why you think that the umpire might have missed it (again, as outlined above, pulled foot, etc.). If coaches could go on a fishing expedition for a favorable outcome on every close play, they would. That would make for a long game and not really be conductive to playing softball.

- The umpire who made the call is the only one who can reverse it. If after confering with his partner he gets some piece of information that convinces him he missed something or had it wrong he, and only he, may reverse his call.

This is the way it's supposed to work. I won't comment on "egos" getting in the way of an umpire asking for help, because now you're talking about personality, not procedure. I've had situations like this come up lots of times. If I'm sure of what I saw, I won't ask my partner for help. It has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with me doing my job and handling my own calls, instead of wasting time just to placate a coach. On the flip side, if the situation warrants I have no problem checking with my partner for help.

Could you show me where someone suggested that one umpire should overturn the call of another umpire?

Quite frankly, I didn't read anything after that since you apparently took this attitude straight off the bat and couldn't simply straight up address the idea.

An idea brought up by umpires, btw. Umpires who are refs in basketball, football, etc where they have the luxury and don't feel the same pressure. But also umpires who's egos don't get in the way of admitting it.

 

[GI Tom]

Quite frankly, I didn't read anything after that since you apparently took this attitude straight off the bat and couldn't simply straight up address the idea.

That's unfortunate because he answered your statement about officials "somehow doing it on their own" as you stated in your earlier post.

 

[MTR]

Could you show me where someone suggested that one umpire should overturn the call of another umpire?

If the PU clearly saw enough to overturn the decision, then they should conference before the coach got involved.

Quite frankly, I didn't read anything after that since you apparently took this attitude straight off the bat and couldn't simply straight up address the idea.

I agree with Tom, Bretman offered an excellent post. There is over 80 years of research, development and practice that has gone into this. As much as umpires would love to have every angle on every play, it isn't possible and that includes expecting a partner to provide back-up when that partner has other duties and in some cases, much more important than the call at 1B.

An idea brought up by umpires, btw. Umpires who are refs in basketball, football, etc where they have the luxury and don't feel the same pressure. But also umpires who's egos don't get in the way of admitting it.

Yeah, right. Gotta love all us umpires who have these alleged egos simply because we do not agree with those offering critique from the cheap seats.

 

[JDBerry]

If the PU clearly saw enough to overturn the decision, then they should conference before the coach got involved.



I agree with Tom, Bretman offered an excellent post. There is over 80 years of research, development and practice that has gone into this. As much as umpires would love to have every angle on every play, it isn't possible and that includes expecting a partner to provide back-up when that partner has other duties and in some cases, much more important than the call at 1B.



Yeah, right. Gotta love all us umpires who have these alleged egos simply because we do not agree with those offering critique from the cheap seats.

Well, I see there are 3 umpires who one can't trust their interpretation of rules because they can't even comprehend simple english without twisting the intent and meaning to fit their own bias.

How the umps conferencing automatically equals one ump over-ruling the other (check swing) is beyond me? The only way you jump to that conclusion is bias and closed-minded ego. Forget logical discission, that's apparently to scary.

There's 80 years of changes, improvements and clarifications.

 

[JDBerry]

That's unfortunate because he answered your statement about officials "somehow doing it on their own" as you stated in your earlier post.

No he didn't. He didn't address them working together at all before the coach getting involved because he twisted it as one over-ruling the other.

 

[BretMan]

Could you show me where someone suggested that one umpire should overturn the call of another umpire?

Maybe if you had read the entire post you would have realized that I was commenting on the entire process of how a call can be reversed, not just that one aspect of it. It all ties in with the subject of umpires reversing calls or looking to their partner(s) for help. It's a subject that there often seems to be a lot of confusion about, so I thought that I would try to explain the correct procedure.

Speaking of confusion...

To be clear, I was referring to the coach having to ask the PU, instead of them somehow doing it on their own without the coach having to ask.

Why would the coach go to the plate umpire to ask about a call made by the base umpire? If you had bothered to read my post a little further, you'd know why that isn't acceptable. But your closed-mindedness actually prevented you from learning something here.

Quite frankly, I didn't read anything after that since you apparently took this attitude straight off the bat and couldn't simply straight up address the idea.

How would you know if I addressed your idea or not, if you didn't read beyond the first couple of sentences?

To what "attitude" are you refering? I went back and re-read my post to see if there might be something offensive. Not that I could find. My "attitude" was that the discussion involved reversing calls at first base and, since some posters seemed to have some confusion about how that is supposed to work, I thought that I'd give an account of the accepted procedure.

And speaking of egos...

Nothing in my post was directed at you, I didn't quote anything you'd posted and certainly made no mention of you by name. So why do you seem particularly upset with what I wrote? Just because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of how things ought to be? That seems like a very egocentric attitude.

What is it with the sudden rash of people on this forum who have most likely never umpired a single game in their lives, never attended a single umpiring class or clinic and never so much as seen an umpire manual, let alone read one, who are all of a sudden experts on umpiring?

 

[BrianMonk]

What is it with the sudden rash of people on this forum who have most likely never umpired a single game in their lives, never attended a single umpiring class or clinic and never so much as seen an umpire manual, let alone read one, who are all of a sudden experts on umpiring?

I was wondering the exact same thing. Same user creating/created multiple screen names?

Seems like all of a sudden a number of posters are some how going to revolutionize the game of fastpitch softball and they have no desire to even learn the game that currently exists.

 

[JDBerry]

Maybe if you had read the entire post you would have realized that I was commenting on the entire process of how a call can be reversed, not just that one aspect of it.

Perhaps if you wouldn't have started your post with the condescending attitude and just attempted to have a discussion about the subject matter instead of interjecting something that wasn't discussed and then going off on a tangent based on that item and doing so without such an extreme effort to appear like a jerk, your long-winded attempts at explaining things that were not part of the discussion would have merit.

and yes... I misspoke in an effort to shortcut. I wasn't addressing you and was attempting to clarify something in a discussion with another poster and the context between our two posts which had a specific event that occurred to which I addressed.

But don't let that get in your way of twisting things to avoid the real part of the discussion.

No, you want to argue. I don't. I wanted a discussion and no one is going to get anything out of this discourse.



I'm done.