Two situations this weekend: One I have never seen. #2, a terrible call, but I defer to the experts.

Same game?  Ouch.  The only reason one is supposed to ask the PU for help @ first is pulled foot/swipe tag - depending on an associations mechanics or a conversation before the game, perhaps this is how the two umpires were taught or agreed to do things. Our association says, FU makes the call and then it's up to the coach to "politely and respectfully" ask the FU for assistance from the PU regarding pulled foot or swipe tag.  As for play at 3B, not sure I want to pick up that short end of the stick. Certainly had to be there. Generally speaking (and I think discussed very recently) is the release of the ball has to be voluntary.  There's also the pause, read, react axiom which goes directly against the make a call axiom.  But in the long run, the team is supposed to get it right. 

1) If it was just that PU had a better angle, then BU should NOT have asked for help.  But, some organizations ask for help on a pulled-foot / swipe-tag before BU makes a call.  Some do it after.

2) The interps on this vary and change over time.  Some would hold that once the act of making the tag was complete, that the subsequent act of landing does not affect the tag out.  Some would look for a subsequent "baseball move" (not really in the rules or interps, but useful for a general explanation) before having the out.  And, "exchange" makes it a voluntary release.  If that's what the umpire saw, he was correct.

When I saw the title, I thought it was my game from Friday...and I was going to tell you I got them both right. Never mind.

According to the conversation coach had with BU, 1Bman clearly kept his foot on the bag, he just felt the PU had a better angle. Just never seen it before. 

Regarding the tag play at 3B, from my vantage point in the stands on 3B side, it looked like it was all one motion and ball came out as a result of the tag. Forgot to mention that player had his back to the P.

I heard Bobby Valentine once say: "Watching a baseball game, you will always see something that you haven't seen before"...lol

Thanks for your insight on both situations.

1)  I like umpires that make sure that the proper call is made, regardless of who's supposed to own the call.  In that specific situation, I would have preferred the FU to make a call one way or the other -- even if he had to guess. Then, after calling time, run down to the PU to seek his input.  Then, make a decision to keep or overturn the original call.  I have no idea if what I described is proper mechanics or not.  But, I think it's maybe not a great thing to immediately put the PU on the spot for a play he may not have thought was his to govern (and, therefore, may have not watched it closely enough).

2)  There's another thread here that goes into great detail about when an out is recorded officially, in terms of baseball control and release.  You didn't specify what rules governed this game and this could be important, as there were some differences between the various rule books.  I'd recommend to always state explicitly the governing rules when asking for rules interpretations.

The umpire appeared to see the following:

• Catch
• Tag
• F5 reaches into his glove to remove and throw the ball
• F5 drops the ball attempting to throw to F1

You state:  " I thought that exchange rule was if an infielder was attempting a throw to another base, [... and] drops the ball while attempting to throw [...]"  I'd replace "base" with "fielder," as players never throw the baseball to a base or any other inanimate object (not on purpose, anyway) -- they may use bases and other objects as aim points, but the expectation is that they're throwing so that another fielder will catch the ball ... players throw to other players.  Anyway, I agree and so would the umpire, it seems.  And, in the umpire's opinion, that's exactly what happened.  The umpire ruled that *after* the controlled tag, the F5 was attempting a throw to another player and dropped the ball while attempting to throw.

This seems less of a rules interpretation and more of a judgment call.  May have been a bad call, but the application of the rules seems correct.

I've seen what you describe and I've seen the opposite:  4-6 force at 2B, FU calls out, F6 slides off bag, retrieves ball, attempts throw to F3, ball flutters up and falls down at F6's feet.  F6 bobbled the transfer attempting the throw to F3.  Umpire rules he dropped the ball, overturns his call at 2B, all runners safe.  Was it a terrible judgment call?  Yes.  Was it a rules interpretation issue?  No.  He correctly applied the rules to the situation as he saw it unfold.  He just happened to see the play differently from literally everyone else at the field.  :-)  I would guess this is the same as your call at 3B.

The FU should make a call.  The PU MAY overrule whether asked or not.  A FU should never throw up their hands (figuratively)  and say I dunno.  Sell it then review with PU if warranted.  

The 3rd base call.  Depends on the length of time the fielder held on and if any action by the runner caused the ball to be dislodged.  Judgement call on the umpire.  

mikezois posted:

  The PU MAY overrule whether asked or not.   

This is totally wrong.  No umpire has the authority to overrule another umpire.  The PU may offer additional info if asked but may never overrule the BU's call.

Well, I guess it depends on the umpire association in question.  It hasn't occurred in my presence but it has been discussed in training with our senior umpires and on mechanics certification tests.  

In FB if relevant or if you care, the white hat can and will pick up a penalty flag if he feels the call is not correct or wrongly assessed.  

I didn't know that about FB but in baseball the rule is clear;  

The NFHS Rule

RULE 10 UMPIRING

SECTION 1 GENERAL

ART. 4 . . . Any umpire's decision which involves judgment, such as whether a hit is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. But if there is reasonable doubt about some decision being in ­conflict with the rules, the coach or captain may ask that the correct ruling be made. The umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize or interfere with another umpire's decision unless asked by the one making it.

THE OBR Rule;

8.02 Appeal of Umpire Decisions

(b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire’s decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be
made only to the umpire who made the protested decision.

(c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with
another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire
making it.

Wow, this long-dead thread got all tangled up in its funeral shroud when it was resurrected.

To clarify:

In NFHS rules, the plate umpire is not required to get help on a checked swing when the defensive team requests it.  As a matter of prudence and game control, I always do request help when asked, but high school rules don't require it. (They also don't require me to wear a cup, but it would be stupid not to.)

On any play where an umpire seeks help from his partner, the call remains his own, and the call doesn't get changed until he accepts his partner's input. Even when the field umpire says, "Yes, he did!" it's not a strike until the plate umpire raises his right hand and calls it a strike.

This principle is true of all plays on which umpires regularly get help, such as a pulled foot or swipe tag at first. Help on a checked-swing call differs only in that the consultation between umpires occurs in public, but the principle is the same. The umpire responsible for the call asks for more information, considers it in light of what he saw, and either changes or does not change his call. 

So what if the plate umpire is sure the batter held up and his partner thinks otherwise? I could stick to my guns, incite a riot and discredit my partner, but I would never do that. Even if my partner is a complete doofus wearing a clown suit and signaling outs with a bicycle horn, he is still my partner. If I publicly ask him for help and he publicly says it's a strike, I will ring up the strike. (Besides, strikes are good and he just gave me license to call another one.)