Changing the call

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
When, and under what circumstances, is it appropriate for an umpire to change his call after discussion with the other umps? Here is what happened:

Top of 10th, tied, two out, runner on 3rd. Wild pitch, catcher chases down ball and tosses to pitcher, who tags the sliding runner. Close play, umpire calls him out. Then the runner points out the ball was on the ground. Umpire confirmed his call, and made a motion that the ball was lost on transfer. Coach immediately started protesting, and the umpire again gave the out sign, and the defense left the field.

That's where it got weird. One of the field umps walked slowly to the plate ump, and the soon after that the other field up joined them. They stood near the pitcher's mound for a full five minutes discussing it; they were the only ones on the field.

When they broke up, the plate ump signalled "safe."

That, of course, got the home coach out of his dugout, arguing that he cannot change a call he made. The TV news reported that he filed a protest.

Now, it is likely that the original call of "out" was indeed wrong. It's not a sure thing, because as you could argue that the tag was made, the pitcher hit the ground and THEN the ball came loose. But my guess is that the runner was safe.

But does it matter? It sure looked to me like the plate ump was talked into changing his call by the other two umps without ever having been asked for any help at all. They initiated the conversation, not the plate up, who had clerly dug in and reiterated a his call when he got push back.

This was in ACC conference play. So one would expect a certain level of quality in the umpiring.

So, my questions:

1) Is it ever appropriate for An umpire to initiate this kind of call change? I always thought that unless one ump asked for help, the others were to simply support the call.

2) Is a protest a viable course on such a situation? I don't see how it could resolve anything, since the score was tied at the time and would have ramained tied if the out was recorded.

3) Is the notion that an umpire should only give his opinion if asked by the one a making the call just a Matter of professional courtesy, or is it a rule?

4) If a judgment call is made, under what circumstances can the umpire reverse his call? What comes to mind for me is the missed call on the final out of the perfect game last summer. Even with incontrovertible proof, and stakes much higher than an ACC conference game, MLB would not change the call.

I will be very interested in your thoughts on this. Thank you.

There's a bunch of salient issues here. I'll start with the play itself, then answer your questions.

There have been a range of opinions at the highest levels regarding control of the ball on a tag. On one end, there is the school of thought that as long as the ball is controlled through the end of the tag itself, then the tag is valid. At the other end, there is the school that the ball must be voluntarily released at the end of the action in which the tag occurred (applying the definition of "catch" to a tag attempt.) The initial call of out is consistent with either of these opinions.

Now, on to your questions:
1) Again, there are schools of thought that the general rule of another umpire not giving unsolicited help do not apply in certain situations, one of which is when the ball is on the ground on a tag attempt.

2) A protest simply on the changed call is not viable; however, it is possible that PU explained an incorrect rationale for changing the call and that might be a grounds for protest.

3) It is a rule, but see 1) above.

4) Theoretically, an umpire can change his own call at any time. In practice, it almost is never going to happen without additional information, because of game management issues--changing calls without input from other umpires shows that umpire is probably not suited for that job and creates more issues on later calls.

All being said, I don't know what was said during the conference. Given that PU stated that the ball came loose on the transfer, I have no idea why any of the other umpires who would have had an inferior look at the play would indicate that there was anything else; because of that initial call, it can be assumed that PU saw the ball come out and had a look at why it did.

Thank you for those answers. Very clear and very interesting.

Is it plausible that the umpire conference went something like this?:

"Guys, I blew the call. When I saw the ball on the ground I had the chance to change the call without looking like a dope, but for some reason i choked and confirmed it as coming loose on transfer. How do we make the call right?"

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Thank you for those answers. Very clear and very interesting.

Is it plausible that the umpire conference went something like this?:

"Guys, I blew the call. When I saw the ball on the ground I had the chance to change the call without looking like a dope, but for some reason i choked and confirmed it as coming loose on transfer. How do we make the call right?"

It's plausible. I've had a partner do that to me. I use that terminology intentionally, because it is implicitly passing the buck for changing the call to the other umpire(s).

Here's the one time it has happened to me. No runners, I'm BU. Batter hits one down the line in LF, and there are going to be two decisions: fair/foul, and whether it stays in or goes out. Right as the ball is crossing the fence at the pole, I'm picking up BR's touch of first. My partner yells "Foul!" immediately followed by a, shall we say, vociferous request by the offensive manager to get help because it hit the pole.

As the BR was rounding first, I was anticipating a potential double, so my pivot was more towards second base more than it would have been on a normal ball to the outfield. As such, when this "conversation" between my partner and the OM transpired, I was about where I would have been in "B" position. My partner starts walking towards me, and makes mistake #1 (aside from the initial call): Instead of following my lead and going towards the 45-foot line, away from any ears, he starts explaining what happened while he's 20 feet away from me, with the pitcher closer to him than I am. Here's mistake #2: "Matt, I just called it too fast; I heard it hit the pole. I'm just pretending to get help so that I can change the call." I bite my tongue and lip long enough so that we get to a spot with no audience, and tell him, "John (not his real name,) if you do that, and Brian (the defensive manager) comes out to me, I'm telling him exactly what happened. He's not dumb and he knows I didn't have anything for you." Thankfully, my partner accepted this and Brian never came out. Unthankfully, the next pitch drilled the batter in the ribs, and "John" did nothing about it. That led to more issues down the road--all in all, there were at least four ejections that should have happened (after the retaliatory hit batsman the next half-inning,) but didn't.

Lessons to learn from this:
1. Take your time on your calls.
2. Don't have umpire conversations near others.
3. Don't hang your partner out to dry.
4. Take your time on your calls.
5. Clean up your own mess.

You may be asking why I had the response I did. As I stated, there was no way I had help for him, and the DM would have very easily realized it. If I were to fall on that sword, the DM would have known I was full of it and it would not have been pretty.

I still do not know what "John" was thinking. He's been doing college ball, let alone all umpiring, longer than I've been alive. During our postgame, his comment still floors me: "I don't think any of the hit batters were intentional. They don't do that outside of the pros." I set a new record for swallowing my tongue due to his actions and statements that game. I think I also have the scars below my lip from my teeth.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Thank you for those answers. Very clear and very interesting.

Is it plausible that the umpire conference went something like this?:

"Guys, I blew the call. When I saw the ball on the ground I had the chance to change the call without looking like a dope, but for some reason i choked and confirmed it as coming loose on transfer. How do we make the call right?"

That would be more plausible if it were PU who initiated the conference.

Matt is correct in his explanation. My guess is that one of the base umpires, probably the first to approach the PU, saw the ball on the ground DURING the tag attempt. If that is the case, where he erred is in his timing. He should have come in much sooner.

Where th PU erred was not finding the ball before making his call.

For those who think today's umpires are more aggressive and arrogant than in the past, 30 years ago there would not have been a conference and no change of call.

quote:

For those who think today's umpires are more aggressive and arrogant than in the past, 30 years ago there would not have been a conference and no change of call.

Great statement here Jimmy. Call me old school but if I am PU and the play is a tag out at home I am not letting any field upm who was 90-feet away change my call that I made from 2-feet away, and if the coaches come out asking me to get help I would tell them the same thing, "I had the best view of the play," and the call stands.

Owtown - I'm not sure that is what Jimmy is saying. Jimmy aren't you saying that the base ump should have "come in sooner" - meaning that he should have let the plabte ump know that he disagreed sooner somehow?

At every level, getting the call right has never been more of a priority than it is now. Umpires offering additional information without being solicited is accepted practice in numerous situations. This is one of them.

I have a problem with the way Matt's incident was handled. I don't think a coach has the right to question other umpires about a partner's call. If it's my call, I'm going to intercept that coach and tell him it's my call and he talks to me. I expect my partner(s) to tell him the same thing if he gets to them. If he persists, he gets dumped, and the conversation about the call is over. We're not taking a poll.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I have a problem with the way Matt's incident was handled. I don't think a coach has the right to question other umpires about a partner's call. If it's my call, I'm going to intercept that coach and tell him it's my call and he talks to me. I expect my partner(s) to tell him the same thing if he gets to them. If he persists, he gets dumped, and the conversation about the call is over. We're not taking a poll.

Are you referring to what my partner did (or didn't do,) or what I would have said had DM come to me?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I have a problem with the way Matt's incident was handled. I don't think a coach has the right to question other umpires about a partner's call. If it's my call, I'm going to intercept that coach and tell him it's my call and he talks to me. I expect my partner(s) to tell him the same thing if he gets to them. If he persists, he gets dumped, and the conversation about the call is over. We're not taking a poll.

Are you referring to what my partner did (or didn't do,) or what I would have said had DM come to me?

I was referring to what you would have said had the coach approached you. "Brian, that's his call, talk to him" would be my preferred response.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Owtown - I'm not sure that is what Jimmy is saying. Jimmy aren't you saying that the base ump should have "come in sooner" - meaning that he should have let the plabte ump know that he disagreed sooner somehow?

I think you and otown are talking about two different things. Yes, you are correct...if U3 has something to offer on a dropped ball during a tag play at home, and he is going to come in, he needs to do it right away.

What otowon in referencing is my comment to those who think today's umpires are more stubborn, arrogant and aggressive that than those of earlier days, (a sentiment posted here several times by a couple of coaches)...this sort of huddling and getting the call right would never have happened 30 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
I was referring to what you would have said had the coach approached you. "Brian, that's his call, talk to him" would be my preferred response.

I've had a loooong time to think about it, and I've tried to come up with alternatives I could have done. Other than taking the plate, I haven't found one I think may have worked, and nothing negative intended, but I don't think yours would have, either. The reason he would have been coming to talk to me is to figure out what help I would have given my partner; to send him in that direction initially would have delayed the inevitable, I'm afraid. There were two things that would have happened:

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
B: "Yeah, but he changed it after talking to you, so what did you tell him?"
...and we're back to square one, with a slightly more irritated manager.

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
He does, and my partner says that I gave him more info.
B: "He says you gave him some help. How did you do that when you were watching the runner (or when the ball crossed on the opposite side of the pole?)"
...and now I either have to tell him the truth, and basically state that my partner is a liar, or lie myself.

Any of my regular partners, I'd have no problem sending him their way (of course, I can't think of any of my partners who would do this; they wouldn't have called it this quickly in the first place, plus they are a bit more crafty and would have asked me "Matt, did you see any reason the ball would have been foul?" and would have explained it similarly upon request: "He gave me information as to what the ball did not do.") It's the fact that this guy had somehow managed to make a series of screwups in a matter of seconds that caused me not to trust him not to do it in a conference with a manager. If my integrity is going to be maligned, it's going to be on its own merits, not because a partner picked up enough ****ty sticks to build a log cabin.

There is no reason an umpire can't change his call. Now I am a firm believer in not getting together just to make a coach happy. If I know my partner had nothing then I am not dragging him under the bus with me. Since he did drag you in then you need to handle the coach. If the manager comes out then certainly send him to the PU.
As far as a protest, that has no standing.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
The reason he would have been coming to talk to me is to figure out what help I would have given my partner; to send him in that direction initially would have delayed the inevitable, I'm afraid. There were two things that would have happened:

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
B: "Yeah, but he changed it after talking to you, so what did you tell him?"
...and we're back to square one, with a slightly more irritated manager.

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
He does, and my partner says that I gave him more info.
B: "He says you gave him some help. How did you do that when you were watching the runner (or when the ball crossed on the opposite side of the pole?)"
...and now I either have to tell him the truth, and basically state that my partner is a liar, or lie myself.

The coach does not get to have either of these conversations.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt13:
The reason he would have been coming to talk to me is to figure out what help I would have given my partner; to send him in that direction initially would have delayed the inevitable, I'm afraid. There were two things that would have happened:

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
B: "Yeah, but he changed it after talking to you, so what did you tell him?"
...and we're back to square one, with a slightly more irritated manager.

B: "What did you have on that?"
M: "It's his call, go talk to him about it."
He does, and my partner says that I gave him more info.
B: "He says you gave him some help. How did you do that when you were watching the runner (or when the ball crossed on the opposite side of the pole?)"
...and now I either have to tell him the truth, and basically state that my partner is a liar, or lie myself.

The coach does not get to have either of these conversations.

In an ideal world, yes. Neither of those situations would have been within my control, though.

Sure it's within your control. When he starts toward you you tell him to go talk to your partner, if he keeps coming you warn the ejection and then toss him if he keeps coming. Of course, your partner should intercept him and take the heat himself.

quote:

catcher chases down ball and tosses to pitcher, who tags the sliding runner. Close play, umpire calls him out. Then the runner points out the ball was on the ground. Umpire confirmed his call, and made a motion that the ball was lost on transfer. Coach immediately started protesting, and the umpire again gave the out sign, and the defense left the field.

Based on the original scenario PU calls out and confirms out with the coaches initial protest. The field umps have no reason to come to PU's assistance since the PU did not call on them to get help. Again if I am not looking for help 90 feet away when I am right on top of it, and if asked as a BU for help I am going to defer back to the PU's judgement. Who could have a better view of the play than the PU? It is just not a play that should require help, and changing it makes the crew look bad.

quote:

The field umps have no reason to come to PU's assistance since the PU did not call on them to get help.

This is exactly what I always understood the protocol to be. I was pretty surprised to see exactly the opposite happen at a fairly high level of umpiring.

The plate ump ended up looking extremely foolish, weak and pretty much forever lost any moral and professional authority with either coaching staff, IMO.

quote:

The field umps have no reason to come to PU's assistance since the PU did not call on them to get help.

Ahhhh, I remember the old days.

As Matt alluded to, this is one of a few calls, much like a checked swing on a dropped third strike, or a batter hit by his batted ball that the PU did not see, where a BU may come in when he is absolutely sure he saw something.

This practice is being encouraged at the upper levels of MiLB and somewhat in MLB as well. Witin another ten years it will be accepted throughout baseball.

quote:

As Matt alluded to, this is one of a few calls, much like a checked swing on a dropped third strike, or a batter hit by his batted ball that the PU did not see, where a BU may come in when he is absolutely sure he saw something.

Interesting, thanks. I did not know this.

That does clear it up. I thought I was watching something that was just not done. But if there are certain calls that this is now accepted protocol, then it now makes sense.

The NCAA has established seven situations where an umpire who is 100% certain he has information unknown to the calling umpire, should approach unsolicited and alert the calling umpire to such information. The ultimate decision to change a call still rests with the calling umpire.

1. Deciding if a home run is fair or foul.

2. Deciding if a batted ball is a home run or a ground-rule double.

3. Cases in which a foul tip is dropped or trapped by the catcher [sic].

4. Cases in which a fly ball is caught or not caught.

5. Cases in which an umpire clearly errs in judgment because he did not see a ball dropped or juggled after making a tag or force.

6. Spectator interference plays.

7. Balks called by an umpire who clearly did not realize the pitcher's foot was off the rubber.

quote:

this is one of a few calls, much like a checked swing on a dropped third strike, or a batter hit by his batted ball that the PU did not see, where a BU may come in when he is absolutely sure he saw something.

I am in agreement that the areas you identified are areas where help is not only appreciated but expected from his partner as a PU. Having the BU come in to help me on a tag play at the plate when I have twice called the runner out, initially and when questioned by the coach is not an area I would need or request help on.

quote:

Originally posted by otownmike:

quote:

this is one of a few calls, much like a checked swing on a dropped third strike, or a batter hit by his batted ball that the PU did not see, where a BU may come in when he is absolutely sure he saw something.

I am in agreement that the areas you identified are areas where help is not only appreciated but expected from his partner as a PU. Having the BU come in to help me on a tag play at the plate when I have twice called the runner out, initially and when questioned by the coach is not an area I would need or request help on.

And I understand your reluctance to accept this change, I really do, however, it is becoming the norm at pro levels and I guarantee it will flow downhill. If a BU clearly sees the ball sitting on the ground while the PU is ringing up a tag play, he is expected to come in and inform the BU what he saw.

But he certainly should get there before you reiterate your call.
I saw this mechanic at the pro level last year over a play at first!! A huddle at first where three other umpires informed UI he screwed the pooch on a tag play. The call was changed.

The times, they are a-changin'.