Since I still have time remaining on the paid subscription I was forced to take last fall when I wanted to read the final versions of my articles, I decided to read the article Peter talked about here. And then, imagine this, I'm mentioned in the teaser of the article.

Well, I'll have nothing to do formally with the paid half of the site, so I'll just have to offer a rebuttal here, free of charge.

I'll quote a sentence or two, but if you want to read the original article you'll have to pay to become a member, I suppose.

The teaser was free, so I'll include that in its entirety:

Recently in the Forum, several lively discussions took place regarding umpire knowledge of score and innings. Two recognized big dogs, T. Alan Christensen and Rich Fronheiser, insist that the umpires have no need to know the score or the inning number. "Nonsense!" says Peter. Unfortunately, the threads were so "lively" that they were deleted. The reader won't have that worry here.

---------------
First of all, I'm honored that Peter considers me a big dog. I'm not sure if that's the case. I don't exactly live in a hotbed of college baseball, so half of my games are high school level and the rest are D-III and JuCo games. The closest D-I school to me is too far away for me to worry about. I don't have the time to drive more than 2 hours to get to a game, so I'll stick to my little pond.

Now, Peter starts by giving me a little dig:

"Rich Fronheiser agreed with him, and even bragged how recently, as the BU, he ran to his position in right field between innings after the game had already ended. He was completely unaware of the innings, he claimed, and so did not know the game was over. He was proud of himself."

Nope, I knew the innings. I was unaware of this conference using a 10 run rule. Every college and 95% of the high school fields around here keep very detailed scoreboards. I knew the score and I knew the time of the game. And nobody noticed that I turned right after the third out instead of coming in. This is much ado about nothing.

"I love showing up big dogs. In all of my discussions for the rest of this article, I am assuming NCAA nine inning baseball with only two umpires. Some of these things will not apply to youth baseball. If you umpire seven-inning baseball, where I say eighth or ninth inning, think sixth or seventh inning to apply it to what you do."

Nope, you love stretching the truth where it suits you. You aren't showing anyone up, Peter.

You know for a fact that this discussion started in a thread that involved umpires writing scores down on lineup cards or some other game card. We argued, quite correctly in my opinion, that this is completely unnecessary. You agree with that and then stretch your version of the truth to assume that we have no clue whatsoever of the score, innings, etc.

HOW MANY COLLEGE UMPIRES do you think are unaware of situations?

I *know* that the score is close or not close. I don't need to know the actual score in order to know how a game is progressing or what situations are likely to happen. I know when a pitch is coming for the head and I know when teams are likely to bunt, steal, etc.

Something you posted in this article exposes you as something less than the big dog you make yourself out to be, though:

"A high probability of a steal may require us to move up, either to get the angle on the pick off at first (from B), or get the angle on the steal of third (from C). Good umpires always know when the leadoff batter gets on base. In good baseball, he is generally the fastest player on the team (combined with a decent batting average). Rarely will a rabbit be batting in the bottom third of the batting order."

I'm not aware of the CCA manual advising umpires to move up and back in situations.

I'm also aware that these starting positions are just that -- starting positions. Umpires have brains and legs and if they are able to anticipate situations as you say, those umpires should be able to take those quick steps forward on the pickoff at first base without sacrificing the proper position on the field. They should also be able to use proper mechanics and peek over the right shoulder on each pitch with R2 from the C position to see if a runner is breaking for third.

I called 2 runners out stealing third on Friday, had a swipe tag when starting from C, and had many pickoff attempts at first base, yet I could've put 2 marks on the field (in the book B and C positions) and you can be certain I started each play from those positions when in the middle.

You sound like an umpire who can't get in position, can't adjust, and has to compensate for his weaknesses as an umpire. Like many of the poseur, wannabe big dogs I know.

--Rich

Rich makes a very good point. I had a very tense game last week 4-3 and I never realized it was the 7th inning. I thought we had one more inning to play.

No big deal, I just really don't pay a lot of attention to the score or the inning either.

What was important is what was going on inside the fence.

We have a scorekeeper to handle all of the other stuff.

I know its important to know and anticipate what might be fixing to happen in the baseball game, but I dont see changing your positioning.

Then if they don't do what you are anticipating, you are then "out of position."

Thanks
David

David: I have just one question: What <i>harm</i> does it do if the umpire keeps score?

Answer: None.

But an inning-by-inning record kept by an impartial umpire might become important if a dispute arises.

There's no conceivable downside and plenty of advantages.

Of course, I know you understand the necessity for the umpire to keep score in Youth League games.

I do not care what anyone else wants to know, but I want to know so I can leave when it is over. I officiate football and basketball as well, we want to know the score for those sports and make sure it is correct for all kinds of reasons. If football if I do not know the score, I cannot run the clock in a 40 point game, where the "mercy rule" is used. Because if I do not know, I might apply the rule wrong or kill the clock when am not suppose to.

In Basketball, the half and the score are important. For one in basketball the teams are suppose to be going in a certain direction, based on the half. And in basketball I want to know the foul counts and other things so that we can administer things properly.

Now in baseball there are not many situations you need to know, but I want to know when to go home. Because when that game is over, I do not want to be sticking around so that a coach can get in a "cheap shot" or I am on the field when a fight takes place and I am on the field then I have to file reports, if I was off the field I would not have to do anything. If that makes me a bad umpire, then I am a bad umpire. But while others want to be caught by surprise, I do not. I do not in the other sports, I do not in baseball.

Peace

I'm sorry, but I have yet the see the purpose of this whole discussion. Who cares if I want to know the score and inning or don't want to know the score and inning. As long as I am doing the job I am supposed to do and doing it well, then what is the difference?

They say
 

...a fool and his money are soon parted. Not being a fool, the only part of Peter's article that I could read was the free part.

It contained this:

<b>"I need to state up front that I don't know any NCAA umpires who keep a written record of the score and innings."</b>

Remembering that the entire discussion the article refers to was basically a debate as to whether umpires should keep a written record of the score and inning, This statement was enough.

Peter, thanks for putting the meat of the issue in the free teaser.

Because umpires seem to spend a lot of time worried about what someone does. This is why there are indicators discussed. Why there have even been major discussions about wearing the new helmet masks. Also why guys are debating this issue.

All I want from a partner is to call their game and let us go home. What specific tools you use to help you call the game is really not much of my concern. Of course their are standards and there should be, but an indiciator or writing the score down is not something that interfers with my game.

Peace

That is what the debate was about: doing the job you're supposed to be doing and not someone else's job.

How is keep score for you personal benefit, doing someone else's job?

Peace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

[ How is keep score for you personal benefit... Peace

Who writes your material, Jay Silverheels?

Read the whole sentence. Pay attention to the first part. Now find, in any umpire mechanic book, rule book, binder or casebook, instructions to the umpire or any mention that keeping score or keeping track of innings is the job of the umpire. Be sure to report back to us. We'll wait.

In the meantime: that is what the debate was about. Is this part of the job of the umpire? Is it? No.

Now then, if you think it helps you, by all means do it. I don't shiv a git. But it is not the umpire's job, plain and simple.

Does it get done? Hopefully. By whom? Someone else.

Now you can see where the second part of the sentence came from. It is someone elses' job.


[Edited by GarthB on Apr 18th, 2004 at 08:38 PM]

No harm at all
 

I agree there is no harm at all. I guess my point is that many times we as umpires spend a lot of time doing things on the baseball field that are NOT important to our job as umpire.

Often times these same umpires then miss other important details of their job.

And you are right, in youth league games, it is a necessity.

Thanks
David

Who reads for you.......?
 

I did not realize that everything in umpiring was associated directly from a book. Especially when I hear the "indicator" debates that have gone on. I have never read anywhere that there is something wrong with using one, but I hear umpires make an issue out of if for some reason. So I do not need to report anything, just answer the question.


Who said anything about what your job is or what your job is not? I did not think this discussion was about what was part of the job discription. There are a lot of things not associated with job discription, but I and many do them.

Again, did not know we were debating whose job was what and what our job was suppose to involve. But then again, this is why I am confused by your issue here.

OK, and your point is what? What does that have to do with myself or anyone else that decides to write down the score? Does that mean you are the only person doing it? Does that mean if what you have done is wrong is the last and final say on the issue? I know I keep things on my lineup cards that others do not, does that mean if I put something down that I am the final say on this issue?

Again, I did not realize that we were debating what was someone's job or not. But that is not the question I asked you. I just wanted to know why it matters to you or anyone else what they put down for their own personal reference? But as usual, umpires like yourself cannot have a discussion without making this into a personal issue and name calling everyone that does not agree with you. I am just trying to find out why it matters to folks like yourself if I wear a West Vest as compared to a +POS Chest protector when both are personal choices? Just like what I write down on a card that you would not even know I had.

Peace

Garth, Garth, Garth:

Do not attempt to wrestle in the mud with a pig.

Tee

Just goes to show again, that many are more worried about being thought of as a "Big dog" than explaining to the rest of us how to not be a "little dog" in your eyes.

Keep on keepin on!!!

Peace

Re: Who reads for you.......?
 

Let's see. I posted: "That is what the debate was about: doing the job you're supposed to be doing and not someone else's job."

And you posted: "did not know we were debating whose job was what, etc."

Well, now ya know.

Please take the last word. Tim is right.

1. They enjoy it. 2. You get as dirty as they are.

Re: Re: Who reads for you.......?
 

I did not realize that this post was started by you. And I did not realize that the initial conversation was started by you as well. I thought w_sohl made the original post and I thought that Rich started this one. So I guess that makes you the one that started this debate. :rolleyes:

Your post is just another example why we are having a hard time trying to keep guys umpiring. If this is the attitude of a "big dog" no wonder most of us see no reason to get to the D1 and pro levels.

Peace

Way too much bull here for me to absorb. I keep track of innings, but not score. The indicator I like to use has a thumb wheel and counter for innings but not score, so it is easy to do.

But wait a minute, you are not suppose to use those either. Have you not learned anything from these discussions we have here. :D

Peace

I know I should bow to the all knowing, but I will keep my indicator, and it will keep track of innings with just one push of the thumbwheel, just once per inning. Don't seem like much to me.

Have you ever used one of those +POS indicators that only has BALL/STRIKE/OUT and doesn't have Ball 4, Strike 3, or Out 3? Couldn't use anything else these days -- I'm so used to the fit in my hand.

There are reasons why we don't use indicators in the field, but I agree that it is such a tired discussion I don't have the energy for it.

The main reason we don't have enough umpires is that high schools schedule baseball games without realizing that umpires (and parents for that matter) have to work during the day. Many good umpires I know don't work much school or college ball -- they prefer to keep their day jobs and wait until the summer season when most games start at a reasonable time, like 6PM.

Now that DST is here and it doesn't get dark until 7:30PM or so, schools still start their games at 4PM. How many more qualified umpires would there be if games started at 5PM instead of 4PM or 4:15PM?

The pool of baseball umpires will always be smaller because of this. I will take varsity basketball games up to 100 miles away (actually worked one game in Illinois last season 112 miles from my house) but baseball? I hesitate taking COLLEGE BASEBALL games that far away. The games start too early and last too long for me to be traveling that far from home. I'd just as soon work a HS game close to home, which is what I usually do.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Apr 19th, 2004 at 09:18 AM]

It's been asked a couple of times, "What's the harm" in knowing the score. I'm sure that for most of you big dogs and many of the medium sized dogs - there is no harm. I don't know what sized dog you all consider me, and frankly it doesn't matter.

However, as someone in charge of several "little dogs", I'd prefer that they NOT follow the score, inning, etc. My reasoning - I don't want there to be any tendency at all to make a call differently, or focus any less, or hustle any less, simply because of the score or the inning. And say what you will about the quality of the umpires that might allow themselves to become a little less diligent, a little less focused, in a blowout or late in the game - but this WILL happen to some people if knowing the score/inning is an issue.

I'm sure that each of us, individually, feel that we, ourselves, would never change the way we do our jobs based on the score or inning. But can you honestly say you don't know (or haven't seen) someone who might?

I may be new to this discussion board but this Tim C guy is a real character. Officials need to stick together, there is enough grief from others. Most of us learn from these forums, but do not come here to be degraded.

As far as knowing the score or even using an indicator as BU, I very seldom know the count, inning or score when I am the BU. As PU, I know the count and outs, but little more. (watch it guys, that is a loaded statement).

To each his own, right. Feel comfortable, do your job.

Whatever the exact reasoning is, to put on your chest that you do college baseball and I do not, is rather laughable to me and anyone that knows the process to become a college umpire. Because I know more people that bend over backwards to do a college basketball game and will travel much longer distances, doing that, than staying in their back yard to do a HS game. And whether the game starts at 4:00, 4:30 or 5:00 does not make that much difference. And if using a indicator, putting down the score on my own personal lineup card is going to hold me or anyone back, then so be it. Not that has ever been a hinderance for myself, because I have worked college games since my very first year of umpiring. And my first couple years I had a +POS card that had where I could not only put the score, but list conferences and other information about the games. I stopped keeping score for myself, because it became a pain when other issues where more important to me personally. But when I was doing it, not a single person knew unless I decided to tell them. If I ever asked, it was usually because there was no scoreboard and I was talking to a scorebook about subs and I would say something about the score and they would tell me. It was also not completely uncommon for coaches to try to get you to do another 2 or 3 innings, after the game was officially over and something that was not listed on the contract. So I always want to make sure of the inning, whether I have an indicator or not. But do not tell me what my job is or is not. This has nothing to do with what my job is, this is about things I want to know so I can umpire more effectively. It makes me feel secure, who cares what it does for you.

Peace

One Comment
 

You guys really didn't expect me to stay out of this one, did you?

Well, for those of you that don't know, I am a very small tadpole in a mud puddle, not even close to being a big dog in a small pond.

However, here is my comment anyway:

Scorekeepers are scorekeepers. The only things I want to know about the score are whether or not the game has been run-ruled and whether or not we are playing the bottom half of the last inning, and my scorekeeper will let me know those things. I do keep track of innings on my indiclickitator because I need to know when substitutions are being made. By the way, I only do youth ball. There are really no other reasons for me to know the score.

Peter:
You should know better. If you are anticipating, you are either 1.) not calling what you are seeing, or 2.) out of position for what is really happening. My training has given me the tools to be ready to move in accordance with the plays being made, not what we think will happen. I understand that higher level ball means that the expected play will more than likely be the play, but there is still a significant chance that it won't be. In youth ball, we all know that the expected play has a 50% chance or less (more likely less) of actually occurring. Be careful when you talk about anticipation. Some poor rookie ump is going to take this advice and will be pulling a baseball out of his ear. Hope your insurance is paid up.

Just my two 1/2 cents.


(Edited with apologies to Carl...sorry, all you big dogs look the same from my perspective in the puddle!).


[Edited by Striker991 on Apr 19th, 2004 at 01:10 PM]

Re: One Comment
 

I think this is the best point and one I did not make or consider in this conversation.

Keeping track of the inning helps in keeping the lineup card. Because when the coaches make a substitution or a position change with the pitcher, I can put down the inning and which half of the inning that took place. So when a coach wants to do something not allowed in the rules with substitutions or pitching switches, I have that information written down. I also do this for charged conferences. I can easily tell them the inning and I put down who was up to bat when they took place. Because if I just let it slide, it has happen when the coach debates whether they took one conference or 3 conferences. And at least in NF and NCAA, it can make a difference. Now keeping the actual score does not help much, but keeping the inning can help prevent problems with subs.

Peace

Re: One Comment
 

Hey, I hope you can see better than you can read. Don't put me into the mix with Peter about changing mechanics. You have no way of knowing whether that's my position or not. All I said was, keeping score can hurt anything.

Anyway, I'm glad you put your 1 1/2 cents in.

Re: One Comment
 

What you say is true of youth ball, however all mechanics is anticipation of the the next play. The reason we don't stay in position A with runners on base is because we are anticipating a play at another base besides first.

I am 53. The players who I umpire have average age of about 20 and most of them are prime athletic speedsters.

Unlike the LL or Babe Ruth player, I have no hope of keeping up with them. At my level, I cannot afford the luxury of calling all of my plays from the working area. I need credibility on my calls and that means being somewhere in the vacinity of the play.

As a base umpire, I am fooled by the players about once every three games. That's a testament to the quality of the play as much as it is to my instincts. If the players screw up, a good coach will yell at them, not at me.

Example: Two weeks ago in a two man game we had R1, R2, and two out. The batter hit a routine grounder to short. This play normally calls for throw to first or perhaps a flip to second. From C, I moved over halfway between first and second and the shortstop threw to THIRD for a wacker of a play. I called him safe from 70 feet away. The coach yelled something like the following out of the dugout at his SS.

"If you want the umpire to make a good call, you have to play college baseball instead of Little League baseball."

I could have stayed in the working area and waited for the play to develop. I would get two or three steps after the release (college players fire the ball to first at 85 mph) not four or five steps like you can get in high school. All of my calls would be long distance.

Instead, I anticipate the play. As a result, I am 20-25 feet from the play and in a position to sell the call, see a pulled foot, swipe tag, or any other wierd stuff. That's the difference between a college umpire and a cookie cutter umpire. I talk about cookie cutter umpires in Part VIII of my series which the "On Deck" portion of this site says will be published on 4/28.

When my college evaluator sees umpires who constantly hang out in the working area, he knows that the has a high school umpire on his hands. He is looking for more than pro school knowledge in his umpires. He wants game awareness and game feel. One of the ways to get perfect game awareness is to know the exact score and exact inning.

Peter



[Edited by His High Holiness on Apr 19th, 2004 at 02:07 PM]

Oh, please stop....
 

Another reason I am not renewing my subscription to the paid part of this site...

The type of mechanics you are talking about may (and I only say "may" because I "may" not agree) be appropriate for the most experienced umpires that have trouble hobbling about the infield and can no longer apply the correct mechanics. However, do not forget that your audience, or at least 95% or better, is not at that level. The only thing you are trying to prove is that you think because you are such a big dog with God's experience on the field, that incorrect mechanics are the right way to do it. I'm calling BS, and that umpires should do it the right way, using the correct mechanics, to be in the best position at the right time.

To teach something so drastically different to this audience is wrong and on the verge of malpractice. No one is talking about the mechanics of positioning at the start of the play. If you are in "C" with a runner on 2nd, you aren't anticipating a play at 3rd. Your statement to anticipate by moving to where you expect the play to be during the play is opening up a whole can of worms, especially for newer umpires. Anticipate the play....next anticipate the outcome. What did you see on the bang bang play? Why, OUT! of course...that is what I anticipated. An even worse outcome is not quite getting out of the way of the 85mph (embellished? maybe..) ball because I was anticipating it going somewhere other than it did.

So, I guess what I am really saying is to do what you are teaching...anticipate who your audience is and teach appropriately.

I appreciate very much the people who have trained me and are training me, because they realize what my level is and understand what I should be working on. In other words, if my career goal were to be a rocket scientist, I need to learn the basics about chemistry first. To show me how to do hands on experiments with rocket fuel when I am in High School is only going to get me hurt.

Oh, please continue
 

I am in good shape for age 53. I don't hobble, use a cane, or need a knee replacement. I am 6 feet tall and weigh 185 lbs so I am not overweight but there are no umpires my age or even with 15 years of my age that I know that can keep up with with 20 year old athletes who have visions of MLB in their heads. It ain't gonna happen, that's reality.

Yet I am suppose to use pro school mechanics developed for 20 something pro school students.

The mechanics are guidelines, starting points if you will. The great umpire adapts them to his abilities, not the other way around. When I was a new umpire, I was not given the option of changing the mechanics; it was one size fits all if you wanted to move up. With experience, comes privileges. Now, when I do a non-standard mechanic, people, even my assingor ask why, rather than condemning it.

In pro school, the goal is to master the mechanics and look good. Getting the calls right is of secondary importance.

At my level, getting the calls right is of primary importance. If I have to modify the mechanics, so be it. There are good reasons to modify the mechanics for umpires of all ages, depending on the situation. The pro mechanics were developed for new umpires who did not want to think or could not think because of their lack of experience.

With regards to the readership, I don't know want the exact experience level is of the paid subscriber. However, I deliberately try to address subjects which no one else is addressing. As GarthB has pointed out, there are a slew of writers addressing the latest rules, Little League, and and a host of the basic subjects. A good magazine presents material for all levels of experience. I am proud that I am taking on subjects that no one else is taking on.

I would hope that the rookie umpire would read my stuff with an idea as to where he can progress. I fully recognize that he might not be able to put it into practice in a new umpire career.

In any event, if you feel that my ideas are dangerous and will lead to lawsuits, you should take it up with management so that they can fire me. It would not be the first, second, or third time that I have been expelled from an internet umpire organization for stirring the pot and preaching heresy.

You deliberately misrepresented my article when you mentioned anticipating the outcome of the play. I never advocate that and there is no connection between anticipating where the play will be and anticipating the outcome.

Situation for wannabe NCAA umpires:

Bases loaded, two outs, pro school mechanics call for the umpire to be in C.

My NCAA evaluator was watching a wannabe umpire in this situation. He was in C as called for. When the count went to 3-2, the wannabe moved. Pro school mechanics require him to stay in C. They make no allowance for the count or number of outs.

The wannabe umpire moved to B. The NCAA evaluator commented that this was an umpire that he wanted to know more about. He was somebody who the evaluator could see understood the game. Yet he had adopted a non-standard mechanic.

If you think about it for a minute, you will understand why B is a superior position in this situation. Too bad that more umpires don't think. I write with the idea of making them think, not with the idea of bowing down and worshipping the gods of pro school.

Peter

As Carl asked me, so I ask you....
 

To read what I wrote....

I specifically said in my post, "No one is talking about the mechanics of positioning at the start of the play." Many umpires, as you have stated and I actually agree with, feel starting in positions other than the "norm" are more comfortable and are affective, within reason. I don't think anyone in this thread is disagreeing with that either.

My specific point is purely anticipation DURING a play.

You, your very self said, "As a base umpire, I am fooled by the players about once every three games." If you let the play itself guide you to where you should be, you wouldn't be fooled at all, because you wouldn't be guessing er, sorry...anticipating. And, following correct mechanics, you would be in position to make a good call.

So I guess the umpires out there would have to make their own decision, right? Let's see, what are the choices? Follow Peter's instructions and get fooled once every three games, possibly being in the wrong place, making a bad call, or getting beaned once every three games. Or, following accepted mechanics, NOT anticipating DURING a play, and not getting fooled, because you are letting the play direct your movements.

You make the call...

Re: Oh, please stop....
 

I’m sorry you don’t plan to renew your subscription. At Officiating.com, we don’t have a “party line.” Each of our contributors is an independent contractor, just as they are when they accept assignments to umpire. Peter Osborne and Tim Stevens may disagree totally about a situation. We’ll provide both points of view to our readership. Disagreeing is healthy; being disagreeable isn’t.

One point Peter makes seem undeniable, and that is mechanics depend on the level of play and the situation. A two-man crew is always a crap shoot; you do the best you can to get to the best position possible. You do that by playing percentages. On that point you and he are in agreement in principle.

I understand you only do youth ball. That could mean you are primarily a small diamond umpire, and what Peter is advocating has little application to 60- or 70-foot bases. But sooner or later some assignor is going to see you call and — if your passion on the field is anything like your passion in the Forum — he’s going to want you to help him out in high school.

R1, left-handed pitcher, umpire in B. Lots of umpires will cheat closer to the mound to prepare for the pick-off play. Speedy R1, right-handed pitcher, umpire in B. Those same umpires likely will move closer to second, to prepare for the steal. It’s a matter of probabilities.

Umpires who don’t adjust to the level of play or the game situation are going against all conventional wisdom published by professional umpires and trainers. Take a look at the Gerry Davis tapes used in his umpire school. Their lesson is: Get where you need to be to make the best call. Don’t fall for anyone who says you can call a ball game just from thee working area.

After all, mechanics are merely a system of moving around the diamond so that umpires who don’t regularly work on the same crew can call together without stepping on each other’s toes. And mechanics change, evolve.

National League umpires for years straddled the foul line: They argued they got a better look at fair/foul down the line. American League umpires stood with both feet in foul territory: They argued that if they were hit by a ball, it was automatically foul.

For 40 years all umpires used the box, standing directly behind the catcher. Then, with the invention of the inside protector, some umpires adopted the slot. I used the box from 1954 to 2001. Now I teach only the slot — but only if the candidate adopts the Gerry Davis stance.

For the first seventeen years of my career, in a three-man crew, whenever a runner reached as far as second, the third-base umpire was in D. R1, R2? U1 in B, U3 in C. In 1972 a team of umpires in the International League developed most of our current system: If there’s a runner at first <i>with a double play possible</i> U1 remains at first. R1, R2: U1 in A, U3 in C. Even that’s changed. Now many associations tell U1: “Heck, you just stay in A.” R2, 2 out, U1 in A, U3 in B.

The major difference in opinion appears to be the definition of "anticipation." Here's what I wrote about that in <i>Working the Bases</i>, published and distributed by Gerry Davis Sports Education. (BTW: When I wrote that book, I still called from the box.)

<i>One of the major blunders made by umpires of amateur games is anticipation, not of where the play might occur (that's good) but what the call might be (that's bad). You've seen that happen to your partner.

Play: R1 rolls slowly to short. F6 hustles in, picks up the ball, drops it, picks it up, and fires an off-balance throw to first. The runner is safe. Right? Except when the umpire reviews that play, he realizes that....

Heck, you might even have done that yourself. I have, as you'll find out. In the 1990 National Baseball Congress World Series, some umpires and I were sitting around discussing benefit of the doubt and other oddities, like, what a bounce does to the speed of a throw. "Remember," I intoned sagely and correctly, "when that ball hits the dirt, it's going to slow down." Everyone nodded solemnly.

That evening, in the marquee game, a throw from third bounced in the dirt just before B1 hit the bag. "Safe!" I screamed safely and solemnly -- and wrongly. Almost the instant I signaled safe, I knew B1 was out. When the defensive coach popped out of the dugout and arrived in the middle of my face, I realized I couldn't say: "But the ball bounced, so he should have been safe." I told the truth: "The runner was slower than I anticipated. Yell a little. Uh, not too much, though."

But anticipating the next play is as important a skill as the umpire can have.</i>

Our goal at Officiating.com is never to <i>tell</I> any official how he should call, where he should stand. We think they should be exposed to many — and varied — ideas. That’s because we understand that in the long run each umpire will do what his association dictates.

When someone likes what we present in the magazine (in roughly seven sports), our hope is that he/she might help make a difference in the local association.

You seem to know what you want in an umpire. Put that into an article — and we’ll pay you for your ideas.

Bad assumptions
 

So many assumptions, and two of them dead wrong. A third is probably wrong.

First, you wrote:

"...If you let the play itself guide you to where you should be, you wouldn't be fooled at all, because you wouldn't be guessing er, sorry...anticipating. And, following correct mechanics, you would be in position to make a good call."

That's true, I won't be fooled but it is false to say that I will be in the correct position to make the call. I will be near the working area for a call at first base in NCAA baseball. NCAA players are simply too quick and too strong for me to move very much after they indicate where they are going to throw the ball. For average high school ball, I can get a reasonable angle and distance. If you have never done NCAA ball, you cannot appreciate how fast these players are. You must experience it for yourself. All new NCAA umpires comment on how surprised they are at the quickness of the players at this level.

So, if it is correct for me to be two steps from the working area, then yes, I am in the correct position to make the call. However, I have no credibility if something goes wrong when I am 40 feet from the play. With accpeted mechanics, you do not get ideal angle and distance. You get what some big dog pro has determined is an acceptable compromise.

Second, you wrote:

"So I guess the umpires out there would have to make their own decision, right? Let's see, what are the choices? Follow Peter's instructions and get fooled once every three games, possibly being in the wrong place, making a bad call, or getting beaned once every three games."

That's deliberate deception on your part. I have never been beaned by a thrown ball. Where did I write that I take my eye off the ball or place myself in any possible throwing lane?

Here's the real choice. I can be in great position to make 98% of my calls and horrible position to make 2% of my calls. Or I can be is so-so position to make 100% of the calls. If I am in so-so position, I will be just like any other cookie cutter umpire. If I am just so-so, there is nothing to distiquish me from the 10 wannabe NCAA umpires available for each game. I will be a high school umpire.

One more luxury that I have that most umpires don't have. On the 2% of calls that I am in horrible position for, it is the players that screwed up, not me. And just like the example that I gave in the previous post, their coaches know it. I did not hear a word about that play at third. In any event my partner thought that I got it right. He was only a little farther away than me.

The third assumption that you got wrong is that I will blow a call that I am 70 feet away from. If my head is still and locked in, I can get at least as good a look at the play as the coach in the dugout. That's all I need for the rare call that I am out of position for. If I am on top of 98% of the plays, I can sell the 2% that I am out of position for. If I am so-so on all plays, the coach is going to be on my a$$ sooner or later.

A coach rarely comes out on me regarding one these rare plays that I am out of postition for. First, he knows that his team screwed up. And second, he knows that in the two umpire system, we have to make compromises. The answer to his question of having an umpire on top of every play is "4 umpires." His budget won't allow it.

Striker, you think like a rec ball umpire or high school umpire. When I was a high school umpire, I knew better than to share any of my ideas with my fellow umpires, especially those senior to me. They will not accept new stuff from a little dog. To get ahead in your organization it may be necessary for you to regurgitate the pablem that they feed you. To stay ahead, however, you will have to engage your brain.

Peter

Re: Oh, please continue
 

How about worshipping the CCA manual, the book required to be used by all D-I conferences?

Comments like the above make me wonder. Any good umpire knows he can get the same position on a play at first from C as from B if he knows how to move and anticipates the play properly.

--Rich

Re: Bad assumptions
 

To show I'm not completely against what Peter writes, I will agree with this -- if there is a routine ground ball in a college game and the player makes the "wrong" choice, like throwing to third with R1&R2 with 2 outs, I likely will be making a long distance call at third. I'll admit and agree with that and in a 2-umpire crew there is little I can do about it. But I still don't think that C is inherently a worse starting position than B. Anticipating a play properly means that there is a lot of moving going on after that ball turns you toward the fielder.

here is a comment from a little dog proud to be a HS official, but anticipation to me is being aware of possibilities. For example, pitcher is working inside part of plate, LH hitter, defensive coach yells at RF to move toward CF. I'm in A. When I see all of this, I anticipate the possibliy of going out on a fly ball has increased.

So you should then move 25 feet closer to the outfield wall to compensate for.....wait, wrong poster.

I'm simply saying that the possiblities have INCREASED. I'm not sure how to interpret your post, but I don't think you would disagree with what I am saying.

I was poking fun at someone else. Not you.