under armour

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Clearly, my comment was a calculated ploy to bring out some of the "I'm better than that" umpires. It's a fruitless debate. In my experience it's only wannabe umps who eschew the indicator on the bases. The bottom line is a very simple and inescapable truth: Having an indicator never caused any trouble and has saved much.

Originally, leaving the indicator in the car was the way an umpire proved he was an "upper level," college guy. They're the same people willing to make a horrible grammatical blunder "...and the ball is live" rather than say "alive." My advice: When the woodwork begins to leak those posters, ignore them. I'm going to do just that.

Carl: Please show me one professional umpire at ANY level that uses an indicator on the bases -- please show me one clinician that has professional baseball experience that preaches an indicator on the bases. I attended a clinic this season taught by a former AAA crew chief. When asked this question by a student, the instructor made a face that showed that he was trying not to make a face.

And his response was: Don't do it. Break yourself of that crutch. You won't miss something crucial on the bases because your face was in an indicator that you don't need.

Please continue to expose yourself as someone willing to take a leak into the wind. But be careful, because you wouldn't want to get that Underarmour you wear under a short sleeved umpiring shirt wet.

And also recognize that what is acceptable in south Texas may not be acceptable in other areas of the country. Using an indicator on the bases in some areas of the country will brand you a smitty just as fast as a ball bag or brush on the bases.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on May 18th, 2004 at 01:05 AM]

[nickrego]

I stopped using an Indicator on the bases last year because our association would prefer we don’t. I will admit it looks better without them. I keep track of the count and outs without it, which has helped me be less dependant on it while doing the plate. Now I may check my indicator after I have announced the count to make sure the Indicator is right, not to make sure I am right like I used to. I do still keep it in my pocket while on the bases to keep track of innings. ssssh, don’t tell anybody.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by senior


One doesn't need a scorebook to know the score, but most folks would find the scorekeeper more believable than some spectator without anything but his memory saying "it's 10-6 in favor of Smitty's".

Senior

So then, a small plastic object with three wheels is more believable than the person who operates it?

Amazing.

orginally posted by Carl


The bottom line is a very simple and inescapable truth: Having an indicator never caused any trouble and has saved much.

How many exceptions to the above make it no longer an inescapable truth? I have seen, on several occasions, umpires disagreeing over the count because the base ump's indicator did not match the scorebook or the scoreboard or the plate umpires's indicator. Each time the trouble caused was more than if the Base Ump said, "I don't know."

I gave up my indicator after watching a three man game in which after every pitch I could see three umpires, simultaneously, look at and adjust their indicators. Bush. I have seen umpires miss balks and pick-off throws while looking at their indicator.

And surpise of all surprises. Even my feeble mind can remember the count for one batter at a time. When the time comes I can't focus for the duration of a batter or an inning, I'll buy another indicator, or better yet, retire.

I don't have Carl's gift for rhetoric. I can't claim, as he does, that my experience is universal or that it leads to an "inescapable truth." It is just my experience and it is enough to convince me that I work better without an indicator in my hand or pocket.

If anyone feels the need for one, fine, use it in good health. But that's doesn't give anyone the right to make false accusations as to the reasons that others do not share their belief. When one attributes false purposes to another's actions, one is basically lying. Let's just live and let live, shall we?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the shorties. Down here, we only wear the long sleeves: protection from the sun, protection from the heat because you don't lose water.

Why, I'd as soon not take my clicker on the bases as not wear long sleeved heat gear.

A question, Carl: Does this indicate that you wear long sleeved undergarments beneath a short sleeved umpire shirt?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Clearly, my comment was a calculated ploy to bring out some of the "I'm better than that" umpires...My advice: When the woodwork begins to leak those posters, ignore them. I'm going to do just that.

Do you realize that you just defined yourself to be a troll?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Do you realize that you just defined yourself to be a troll?

Gosh, yes. And I caught most of the expected group of fish. Small fry, though. But as dependable and predictable as usual.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Gosh, yes. And I caught most of the expected group of fish. Small fry, though. But as dependable and predictable as usual.

I prefer to think of it as: Some of our careers are still on the upswing, and then there is you, wearing long sleeved shirts and soccer shin guards on your arms. Can a balloon and a tie be far behind?

But, there's also something equally disturbing -- Garth and I both listed valid reasons for eschewing the "bankie" out on the bases. You have not, and I predict, will not address any of those points we brought up. We'll let the average reader judge whether those points are valid.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on May 18th, 2004 at 09:21 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

A question, Carl: Does this indicate that you wear long sleeved undergarments beneath a short sleeved umpire shirt?

Yes. That is part of the state-approved uniform.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Do you realize that you just defined yourself to be a troll?

I wouldn't consider Carl a troll, even if he admits to trying to be one. When trolls attempt to arouse, they usually don't really believe what they post. I don't believe Carl has ever posted something he doesn't believe.



[Edited by GarthB on May 18th, 2004 at 12:13 PM]

[tiger49]

Carl just looking for clarification on something you sounded as though you think you don't loose water when wearing your long UA. Working as an Equipment Manager with a high profile team in Canada I can tell you that you loose more. The fabric takes water off your body which inturn causes you to sweat more in an effort to cool down.

With cotton shirts water(sweat) stays on your body thus blocking your poors.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by tiger49
Carl just looking for clarification on something you sounded as though you think you don't loose water when wearing your long UA. Working as an Equipment Manager with a high profile team in Canada I can tell you that you loose more. The fabric takes water off your body which inturn causes you to sweat more in an effort to cool down.

With cotton shirts water(sweat) stays on your body thus blocking your poors.

What makes UnderArmour work is the wicking system that moves the water from the skin to the outer layer of the fabric. Anyone who sweats loses water. The skin-tight version of the product keeps the water (like the cotton jersey) and clings to the skin, which gives the impression of air-conditioning.

All that aside, does anyone on your team wear the cold weather gear?

[tiger49]

We only get to wear our heat gear for about 1/2 of the season. I don't find much difference between the cold gear and the turf gear even being in Canada.

[Kaliix]

While what you say sounds good, it doesn't hold, um...water. (hehe, pardon the pun)

Your body sweats in an effort to cool down. The cooler you are the less you sweat. While UnderArmour does pull water away from the skin, that has the effect of cooling the body down even more so than keeping the water close to your body, like when wearing a cotton t-shirt.

You cool down more effectively with the UA so you sweat less, even though it pulls the moistue away from your body.

And blocking the pores with a cotton t-shirt that is wet is not based in any science or fact. If that was the case, we wouldn't sweat in the water and that is untrue.

The pores in our bodies need to be physically blocked to not function. A simple layer of water couldn't do that.

Originally posted by tiger49
Carl just looking for clarification on something you sounded as though you think you don't loose water when wearing your long UA. Working as an Equipment Manager with a high profile team in Canada I can tell you that you loose more. The fabric takes water off your body which inturn causes you to sweat more in an effort to cool down.

With cotton shirts water(sweat) stays on your body thus blocking your poors.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Yes. That is part of the state-approved uniform.

1. I've been reading about the Texas FED uniform. Is the longsleeve undershirt under the short sleeve uniform the state approved uniform for the entire state, or just in the valley?

2. Does the longsleeve undershirt have to be the same color as the shortsleeve uniform short, or could it be different, say red under a blue uniform shirt?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

1. I've been reading about the Texas FED uniform. Is the longsleeve undershirt under the short sleeve uniform the state approved uniform for the entire state, or just in the valley?

Carl: The entire state.

2. Does the longsleeve undershirt have to be the same color as the shortsleeve uniform short, or could it be different, say red under a blue uniform shirt?

Carl: The long-sleeve shirt must be navy.