There has been some discussion on the merits of the Under Armour clothing and its value.

This product, without a doubt, simply awesome. I purchased 2 shirts a couple of years ago to wear as undershirts and they work well. I use them for all types of events inlcuding walking a round on the links, calling ball games or running.

Recently I put this product to the test in Iraq. Where temperatures soared as high as 140 degrees in the summer, these shirts allowed my to stay cooler than my buddies. This was even with 60 lbs worth of equipment strapped to me.

I use the heat gear and own a pair of cold gear pants. For those of you north of the Mason Dixon line, these cold gear pants are awesome and when the temp drops below freezing and you are out and about and active. For those of us down south, the cold gear works too well even in Jan/Feb (I have been known to wear a jacket in 80 degree heat). I would recommend you use it for the duck blind or the deer stand - at least something less physical than running up and down a football field.

I have never used McDavid's gear but I hear that it is just as good. Hope this helps.

McDavid's
 

I have purchased and have used McDavid's mock turtleneck for some pretty nasty baseball weather... some of it just last week during district tournament. Ahhh, Idaho!

It works well for keeping me dry and warm. However, I find that it has one major drawback... it doesn't stretch. The sleeves are fairly tight to begin with but as the temperature rises and you want to cool a little... I can't pull my sleeves up past the middle of my forearms.

I haven't tried UnderArmor but it appears to be a substantially lighter weight and a very stretchy, form-fitting material.

On the advice of Carl, I recently went out and purchased a nice blue UnderArmour heat gear shirt to wear under my uniform when calling the plate.

Carl was RIGHT! This stuff definitely works. It kinda goes against common sense to add another layer of clothing to keep cooler but it works. This stuff keeps the sweat off you and somehow manages to cool you down.

The Best $25 I have spent in a while.

If you want to stay cooler, GET UNDERARMOUR!!!

I've just one question: Where can you get it for $25? I've got about 50 umpires who'll buy it at that price.

Me too, me too.

I want to add some more white short-sleeved -- looks great under black umpiring shirts.

--Rich

mcsports has the underarmour heat wear for $25.00...the short sleeve at least.

check out mcsports.com under apparel.

[Edited by wobster on May 17th, 2004 at 11:19 AM]

I love to wear the Turf Gear leggings under my pants. They are great no matter what Temp. and on the base or the plate. In the extream heat it takes about an inning to get cool but after that you are fine.

I bought a heat gear short sleeve UnerArmour shirt at Dick's Sporting Goods for $24.99 plus tax.

On the Under Armour website, they list at $24.99
http://www.underarmour.com/ua2/ua/de...2&pf%5Fid=0039

The reason it is so cheap is it is Heat Gear. If you buy All Season or Cold Gear, the price goes up.

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.

Careful, Carl, you just hit the beehive!
 

Carl, you've just activated the "balls and strikes are the plate umpires job" reactionary forces.

Like you, I carry my indicator for plate or bases.

Just the other day my normal partner and I were joined by one of the big dogs from another association. My partner remarked about having his indicator with him, and the big dog said "what for?, you don't need it". Rather than get into a fruitless debate, I just whispered to my regular partner "If I happen to need help, I'll know better than to ask him".

Usually, nothing exciting happens, but on those rare occasions where I have any doubt, it sure feels good to know he's got my back. It also looks better to have an indicator to look at when asked to verify, rather than appear to be guessing.


Senior

Re: Careful, Carl, you just hit the beehive!
 

One doesn't need an indicator to know the count.

--Rich

Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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".

Rich, why would anyone NOT want the extra evidence to back up an answer? A favorite thought of mine is that we are impressing no-one but ourselves when we go without this count keeping tool. Who, other than our fellow umpires even notices?


Senior

Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

This is your opinion, and for me it simply is not persuasive. I keep the count in my head on the bases and the only time I get involved in the count is when my partner asks. When a player on the field or a coach asks, I refer them to the plate umpire -- HE keeps the count. Even with an indicator, the count still belongs to the plate umpire.

I've had partners ask me to take an indicator on the field and I still won't. Problem is, I'm so accustomed to not working with one I'd hold it in my hand and not turn the wheels. And nothing aggravates me more than a partner out on the bases with his face in his indicator.

I'm sure that in some locations, the indicator is an acceptable tool for the base umpire. But all the top umpires I work with wouldn't ever consider taking one on the field, and neither would I.

Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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.

Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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]

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 <i>Indicator</i> is right, not to make sure <i>I</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.

Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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

Amazing.

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?

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

Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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]

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

Re: Re: Re: Believable Perceptions, perhaps?
 

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]

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?

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.

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.

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?

<font color=red>Carl: The entire state.</font>

Quote:

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?

<font color=red>Carl: The long-sleeve shirt must be navy.</font>