What's the call?

I'm not an umpire, but feel if there was a definite 3rd out called, ball should be dead at that point. When overturned, runners at 1st and 3rd.

Federation rule 10-2-3-l gives the umpire in chief the responsibility to "rectify any situation in which an umpire's decision that was reversed has placed either team at a disadvantage."

 

So how should this particular rule affect this particular play? I see the defensive team was placed at a disadvantage by allowing runner to score from second on a missed call.

Umpire needs to make a judgment of what would have happened if the field umpire had got the call right.  Unless the baserunner had done something extremely unusual in the situation described, I would place him at third.  

 

If, in the umpire's opinion, the run would have scored if the BR was called safe originally then the run scores. If he wouldn't have then you would place them back on 3rd.

 

Exactly, and unless the runner is Billy Hamilton and he never slows down coming around third, what you would expect to happen in this situation as soon as the field umpire says, "Safe!  Off the bag!" is for the first baseman to bounce a few steps toward third to look the runner back.  

 

In this situation, the OP says the runner went home during the argument.  If so, I'd put him back on third.

The other things that irks me in this situation is the coaching staff going to the UIC and not the FU going to him. Then the UIC over ruling the FU and not the FU changing his call.

When I was umpiring I was taught to never say anything unless your partner asked for help. And if they did come to you, you let them make the ruling.

Yeah.  It's still the field umpire's call.  

 

In our association, the procedure is for the UIC to stand back from the conversation between the coach and the FU, but to draw just close enough to hear what is being said.  If it is a play where he is permitted to get help, the FU will agree to ask his partner, but he will not consult the UIC until the coach returns to the dugout and understands he can't come back on the field to discuss this judgment call after the umpires confer.  

 

(Which brings up another problem with this situation:  namely, why are the umpires even talking to the 1B coach?  The only person we'll have any discussion with about a call is the head coach.)

 

After the head coach returns to the dugout, the FU consults with the UIC.  If the UIC has definite information that persuades the FU change the call, the FU changes the call and makes the announcement/signal.  The UIC doesn't overturn his call; he gives him additional information to make the call right. It's still the FU's call.

 

In this case, the umpire conference should have included a  discussion of what to do about the other runner, and the FU should have been the one to announce the result.  

 

In a situation like this one, where both coaches will be unhappy with the result (the defense loses the third out; the offense doesn't get the run), it is advised to call both coaches out to explain the ruling before making a public announcement.

 

 

My son's HS team lost a district tourney game last spring on a blown call at first.  1B came off the bag toward home to field a high throw and swiped at the runner as he was going by.  FU was in perfect position to make the call...and said safe.  Coach comes out to argue...with FU.  FU says safe.  Coach walks to home plate ump...talks to him then walks off.  Home plate ump calls FU to talk...then calls runner out.  Never seen anything like it.   Home plate ump was directly behind the runner and would have had no way to tell if the swipe hit the runner in the back or not...yet ruled him out from 90' away...even though FU was 5' away with a perfect angle to make the call. 

Here's what happened last night.

 

ground ball to SS was sharply hit, throw to 1B was wide. FU immediately calls out.  1B coach argues then runs to UIC at home...lead runner is told to run home....obviously as stated earlier,  even the fastest runner does not get two bags on that play if runner would have been called safe.

 

when call is overturned, originally they scored the run.  Defensive team argues the lead runner cannot have scored had the safe call originally been made, and eventually they reset the inning, runners at 1st and 3rd, two outs.   HC for offensive team goes nuts, and gets tossed.

 

i agree.....UIC should have not come into play unless FU asked for help, and good catch by someone --- "why is any umpire in HS going to listen to any argument from an asst. coach ?"....

When I was an assistant coach, it didn't happen often, but when I saw something wrong (such as what happened in this case) I would be the first to call time and go talk to the umpire (at least the umpire who made the call). I would be heard. Why? Because I am a coach of the team. Albeit essentially a HC in a supporting role at the time, but still handled myself and the situations as if I were the HC... At least until the HC got there and took over the conversation (or argument). I quickly gained respect from the HS baseball community for doing so (coaches and umpires alike). I always received more "Thank you's" from umpires, after games, as the assistant then I did/do as HC. With all that being said, I am highly respectable to the umpires. I do, however, get a little heated from time to time.

No. That is not your role. That is his role. Your job is to coach, not engage umpires in debate on a call. You have a question? That's fine, and doing it the way you mention is the way to do it. Just don't let it turn into a debate. 

 

As we say it, "I'll argue with the organ grinder, but not the monkey."

 

Exactly. That's an ejection by rule. HC gets restricted or ejected, as well.

The "role" of the assistant(s) is to be the eyes and ears for the HC when he may not be in position to see calls, player positioning, and typically 1st base (some occasions even 3rd base) duties.

 

Rules or no rules in the hand book, I feel there are unwritten rules with on field interactions. Any coach on that field deserves a certain level of respect. If egos get involved, it could get nasty real quick ("I'm not going to talk to you because you are 'less' than that guy over there.") After all, coaches aren't just another parent on the other side of the fence barking all game. I wouldn't want an asst. who does not make known what he saw, if what he saw was not the right call (or player out of position, dropping hands at plate, etc.) To me it would be the same level of disrespect if the HC never talked to any other umpire besides the UIC simply because he felt other ump(s) were 'lesser' importance. Kind of an arrogant statement if you ask me.

No one said ACs deserve disrespect. Everyone has their part to play. ACs and umpires talk, have conversations, cooperate on game management, etc. I have a great time with assistants, especially when we can work together to make things go smoothly.

 

That being said, I hate to break it to you, but ACs are of lesser importance.The HC has responsibilities the ACs don't. ACs do not have the role of advocate for their team in arguments. That's the role of the boss. Because of that, ACs don't get the leeway that HCs do. That's why in HS, it's an automatic ejection. That's why at levels above HS, ACs will get tossed quicker than HCs.

 

Also, keep in mind that umpires and coaches are not peers. Because of that, there are certain things that are not analogous when it comes to comparing interactions initiated by participants and interactions initiated by officials. If I need to have a come-to-Jesus meeting, it's going to be with the HC and HC alone. The hierarchy that exists, both de facto and de jure, on the coaching side doesn't exist to the same degree on the umpiring side. There are only two responsibilities that the UIC has that the other umpires don't, and even those are required to have the input of the rest of the crew. Furthermore, the rulebook UIC designation is generally ignored in favor of those responsibilities going to the crew chief.

UIC and crew chief in baseball-- Are they typically not one and the same in HS? 

 

On the other hand, may I say that the couple years I was the asst., I didn't have too many interactions (as far as calls) with the umpires, as mentioned previously. However, I can honestly say that my overturned calls were of higher % than HC. No, I obviously didn't get them all overturned, however, once I explained my position, what I saw compared to what both umpires saw and then explanation of the rules (them hearing themselves explain the specific rule to me), I was pleasantly surprised with the overall outcome. Maybe 50% or so overturn. That's not bad coming from the "not supposed to talk to that guy" asst. would you say? So, as far what I said earlier, in this process, I gained much respect from the umps and other coaches alike. The unwritten rules allowed for me to be able to advocate for my team, even as asst., when specific instances occurred. That's all. Not disagreeing with you about the rules or hierarchy, just stating personal experience.

 

ADD* And no, I have never been ejected as either HC or AC. Restricted to bench? Well...

Like I said, there's a difference between arguing and asking. If you couch something in neutral terms, I can explain. If you phrase it oppositionally, I will tell you, very directly, that I'm not talking to you, I'm only talking to Bob.

 

It seems you've gotten that, and that's great, and a great asset to have.

I got'cha. I thought you were simply speaking of confronting. I understand the arguing aspect. Very short fuse there.

 

But it goes back to what was discussed earlier. One mentioned why ump would even talk to 1B coach. What I was trying to explain was; Why not?