Pickoffs from the windup?

[andrewm]

Great advice David! Thanks.

[Tim C]

Dave:

I am just confused as to how your advice could be implimented.

Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.

As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire.

Seems like this should be a private e-mail between rats.

[GarthB]

Andrew:

It seems you have come up with a choice. One alternative is honest and forthright, the other is dishonest, deceptive and rat-like. Your reputation, conscience, and the example that you set for your youthful players and parents are on the line; and I am not being melodramatic. The influence coaches have can be tremendous and their actions often have consequences, or rewards, that outlive them.

One alternative obviously may not always work. It relies on you being straightforward and on the experience and openness of others. The other alternative is sold much like how "Pleasure Island" was sold to Pinnochio.

I understand that it is tempting to take the sleazy way. At lower levels the honest alternative may be successful only half the time, and being deceptive may get you temporary gains more often than that. But sometimes doing the right thing is part of the reward of doing the right thing.

Your earlier posts did not show signs of a Rat mentality, but then when offered a small bit of cheese by a big Rat, you went for it pretty quickly. I hope my first impression of you was not mistaken.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 21st, 2005 at 01:31 PM]

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Tim C
Dave:

I am just confused as to how your advice could be implimented.

Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.

As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire.

Seems like this should be a private e-mail between rats.

It gets implemented in exactly the way I described it.

If the umpire is having "none of it." The case is closed and no argument can be made. In that regard, you're right. After all, it is a judgment call - as you said.

You're probably a darn good umpire, Tim. So, naturally, you have a difficult time relating to this. First of all, you probably wouldn't make a gross rule misapplication. Secondly, you probably have the game management skills to cover your mistakes - as all good umpires have.

So, in that regard, you're right. You would never be in this situation.

But, would you consider this: Not all umpires are nearly as good as you? And, not all umpires would be able to conceal their incompetence beneath a veneer of "game management" skills?

I know this is a particularly hard pill for you to swallow, but there is a little psychology involved when a person is trying to get "their way" with an individual who is predisposed to not allow them to have "their way." This is just the dynamics of athletic competition and does not need to be characterized as being "sleazy" or "cheating" or "rat like."

When I umpire, I'm frequently aware when there is an attempt to manipulate or intimidate me. I don't let it bother me. I just recognize it for what it is and defuse it.

In the situation we are discussing, YOU would defuse it by never having the discussion with the coach. That would work!

The fact of the matter is that judgment plays can be converted to rule issues if the umpire gets too chatty.

A example to highlight this fact:

Example: The batter hits a screaming shot that rings off the foul pole. The umpire rules it foul. Can there possibly be any call that is more of a judgment call than whether a ball is fair or foul? Yet, if the coach inquires and the umpire categorically states that the ball did, in fact, hit the foul pole, and it is because of that that he ruled it foul. The umpire tells you that, "The foul pole is in foul territory."

Do you know of any rules committee or tournament director in the world that would not give serious consideration to overruling such silliness?

I don't see how this is much different than an umpire who calls a balk on a pitcher who executes a pickoff from the windup specifically because the pitcher failed to first step off the rubber.

"Why is it a balk, Blue?"

"The pitcher must first step off the rubber before executing any pickoff move from the windup position?"

"And that's the only reason it was a balk?"

"Yes."

Bzzzzt!

Now, the tournament director would be free to say, "I can't overrule a judgment call." That's fine. But a team who would have such a gross injustice levied upon them would, at least, deserves to have it addressed. If nothing else, the umpire will never make that mistake again.

But, in answer to your inquiry as to how this could ever be implemented ... I have done exactly this on several occasions over the years.

An umpire once awarded an opposing batter first for being hit with a pitch that bounced on the ground, struck the batter, while the batter was chasing it in a bunt attempt. I got the umpire to state that the batter did, in fact attempt to bunt the pitch, but since he missed the pitch, and it hit him - he is awarded 1st.

The batter clearly attempted to bunt the ball. There was no question about it. I just wanted to know whether the umpire didn't notice the bunt attempt, or, whether he did see the bunt attempt and was misapplying the rule. I had to get him to say, one way or the other. As it turned out, he was of the misconception that a hit batsmen gets awarded a base, whether they attempt to strike the ball or not. That's what I figured.

"So, in your opinion, the batter did attempt to bunt the pitch?"

"Yes. But the ball still hit him."

Bzzzzt!

We protested. The tournament director showed up and when the umpire told him what he told me (What else could he do?), the runner was promptly returned to the plate with a strike added to the count.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:06 PM]

[GarthB]

Tee, Tee, Tee......


Don't bother. Leopards don't change their spots and Rats don't grow a conscience and a respect for integrity.

Consider that a Rat posted this: I know this is a particularly hard pill for you to swallow, but there is a little psychology involved when a person is trying to get "their way" with an individual who is predisposed to not allow them to have "their way." This is just the dynamics of athletic competition and does not need to be characterized as being "sleazy" or "cheating" or "rat like."

Now think about this for a second. He is admitting that using psychology to get his own way is just part of athletic competition. Then he resents that this kind of manipulation and lobbying is considered sleazy or Rat-like.

Unfortunately, he is half-right, that behavior has become common in athletics. But he is also half-wrong; it IS sleazy and Rat-like.

The inablilty of Rats to understand what makes them Rats would be amusing if it weren't so sad. As an educator, it really is disheartening to see the effect this has on kids sometimes. They come to class with that same attitude learned from their coaches...."manipulate and get what I want" with little consideration to what they deserve or what is right.

Some schools foster this behavior in their better athletes by giving in to it. Many high school superstars aren't held to the consequences of their actions. This carries over to college and then the world can't figure out why pro athletes act spoiled. I can. It started with a Rat for a coach.

[David B]

Originally posted by David Emerling

It gets implemented in exactly the way I described it.

If the umpire is having "none of it." The case is closed and no argument can be made. In that regard, you're right. After all, it is a judgment call - as you said.

You're probably a darn good umpire, Tim. So, naturally, you have a difficult time relating to this. First of all, you probably wouldn't make a gross rule misapplication. Secondly, you probably have the game management skills to cover your mistakes - as all good umpires have.

So, in that regard, you're right. You would never be in this situation.

But, would you consider this: Not all umpires are nearly as good as you? And, not all umpires would be able to conceal their incompetence beneath a veneer of "game management" skills?

I know this is a particularly hard pill for you to swallow, but there is a little psychology involved when a person is trying to get "their way" with an individual who is predisposed to not allow them to have "their way." This is just the dynamics of athletic competition and does not need to be characterized as being "sleazy" or "cheating" or "rat like."

When I umpire, I'm frequently aware when there is an attempt to manipulate or intimidate me. I don't let it bother me. I just recognize it for what it is and defuse it.

In the situation we are discussing, YOU would defuse by never having the discussion with the coach. That would work!

The fact of the matter is that judgment plays can be converted to rule issues if the umpire gets too chatty.

A example to highlight this fact:

Example: The batter hits a screaming shot that rings off the foul pole. The umpire rules it foul. Can there possibly any call that is more of a judgment call than whether a ball is fair or foul? Yet, if the coach inquires and the umpire categorically states that the ball did, in fact, hit the foul pole, and it is because of that that he ruled it foul. The "foul pole" is in foul territory.

Do you know of a rules committee or tournament director in the world that would not overrule such silliness?

I don't see how this is much different than an umpire who calls a balk on a pitcher who executes a pickoff from the windup specifically because the pitcher failed to first step off the rubber.

"Why is it a balk, Blue?"

"The pitcher must first step off the rubber before executing any pickoff move from the windup position?"

"And that's the only reason it was a balk?"

"Yes."

Bzzzzt!

Now, the tournament director would be free to say, "I can't overrule a judgment call." That's fine. But a team who would have such a gross injustice levied upon them would, at least, deserve to have it addressed. If nothing else, the umpire will never make that mistake again.

But, in answer to inquiry who this could ever be implemented ... I have done exactly this on several occasions over the years.

An umpire once awarded an opposing batter first for being hit with a pitch that bounced on the ground, struck the batter, while the batter was chasing it in a bunt attempt. I got the umpire to state that the batter did, in fact attempt to bunt the pitch, but since he missed the pitch, and it hit him - he is awarded 1st.

"So, in your opinion, the batter did attempt to bunt the pitch?"

"Yes. But the ball still hit him."

Bzzzzt!

We protested. The tournament director showed up and when the umpire told him what he told me (What else could he do?), the runner was promptly returned to the plate with a strike added to the count.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Since this is an umpiring board, this is a good opportunity for young umpires to see how coaches think - always trying to get an edge.

And, a good lesson for young umpires - only offer rule book information. When a coach asks for information, use the rule book, don't tell him what you think happened.

Example - the play about the kid bunting. No coach he did not offer at the pitch, he was simply trying to get out of the way of the ball.

In other words, I'm not going to bail out the pitcher who threw a horrible pitch simply because the coach wants an explaination.

There are many many times during the season there will be plays that I can't explain exactly what happened - so I don't try.

Another example - Saturday game and kid is struggling with his pitching mechanics. But, he's still legal.
Suddenly coach says, he can't do that and calls time.

He told me he was on the mound and then changed to the set without stepping off. My comment, "coach I didn't see it." I asked PU, same comment. Game goes on no problem.

I didn't see the kid do anything wrong, but I'm not going to try and argue with the coach.

Thanks
David

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by David B

Since this is an umpiring board, this is a good opportunity for young umpires to see how coaches think - always trying to get an edge.

And, a good lesson for young umpires - only offer rule book information. When a coach asks for information, use the rule book, don't tell him what you think happened.

Example - the play about the kid bunting. No coach he did not offer at the pitch, he was simply trying to get out of the way of the ball.

In other words, I'm not going to bail out the pitcher who threw a horrible pitch simply because the coach wants an explanation.

There are many many times during the season there will be plays that I can't explain exactly what happened - so I don't try.

Another example - Saturday game and kid is struggling with his pitching mechanics. But, he's still legal.
Suddenly coach says, he can't do that and calls time.

He told me he was on the mound and then changed to the set without stepping off. My comment, "coach I didn't see it." I asked PU, same comment. Game goes on no problem.

I didn't see the kid do anything wrong, but I'm not going to try and argue with the coach.

Thanks
David [/B]

Excellent!

Your observations and advice are dead on!

You, at least, are mature and wise enough to understand the dynamics - and learn from it without getting all offended and appalled by the interaction. You calmly deal with it - and life goes on.

You exercise people skills and purposely withhold information to serve a greater good. Completely understandable.

And, while coaching, when an umpire deals with me in this way - I respect him (although I may disagree with him) and understand exactly where he's coming from.

At least you realize there is a lesson in all this. You are absolutely correct in bringing this to the attention of the younger/inexperienced umpires. That is a much better (and more mature) approach than to just give out an top-of-the-lung cry of "Rat!" like some little kid who just had somebody steal his lollipop.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:08 PM]

[andrewm]

Garth, I just want to be able to execute a legal pick-off manuever - from the windup. I'm not trying to get over on anyone. It's in the rulebook plain as day. However, based on my discussions with other coaches in the area and a few umps, it sure looks like I'm going to get a balk called.

If there is a good chance of that happening, I would like to find out the best way to handle the situation. One option is pro-active (talk to the ump before the game) and the other option is reactive. If I'm unable to talk to the ump prior to the game, then I have two choices - not run the play or deal with the ump if I get a balk call. David's advice seems like a good way to handle the situation in the latter case.

As someone said, pick your battles. We will pick a timely point in the game to attempt this. Either to set a tone for the rest of the game by keeping baserunners off balance or to get a crucial out. Therefore, it will be a battle I want to fight.

It's unfortunate that we're even having this dicussion. I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules.

[orioles35]

Unless an umpire is already familiar with a coach, keep in mind he is forming an impression of you during the game. Most umpires can anticipate and defuse as much trouble as possible during the game and know which coaches are a pain and which are easy to get along with.

I know I've been appreciative of a coach who will tip me off when they're trying the "hidden ball trick", just so it doesn't catch myself or my partner off guard. Same thing in this situation, asking prior to trying a pickoff play that is apparently within the rules for one classification, but a balk in another.

As long as you're respectful, I don't see how this would be a problem. Of course, there's always the chosen few who simply don't want to be bothered. Can't do much about those!

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by andrewm
Garth, I just want to be able to execute a legal pick-off manuever - from the windup. I'm not trying to get over on anyone. It's in the rulebook plain as day. However, based on my discussions with other coaches in the area and a few umps, it sure looks like I'm going to get a balk called.

If there is a good chance of that happening, I would like to find out the best way to handle the situation. One option is pro-active (talk to the ump before the game) and the other option is reactive. If I'm unable to talk to the ump prior to the game, then I have two choices - not run the play or deal with the ump if I get a balk call. David's advice seems like a good way to handle the situation in the latter case.

As someone said, pick your battles. We will pick a timely point in the game to attempt this. Either to set a tone for the rest of the game by keeping baserunners off balance or to get a crucial out. Therefore, it will be a battle I want to fight.

It's unfortunate that we're even having this dicussion. I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules.

You have a very good outlook on this. You properly sensed that you were getting some undeserved heat from others. That's simply because you have revealed the fact that you coach. To many, that, by definition, makes you a "rat."

Allow me to give you some more advice on this. This advice is based on experience. Too much knowledge can be a very frustrating thing. That is often the case when you umpire AND coach - like yourself. Many times you are going to have umpires who are not nearly as accomplished as yourself. You are going to recognize that fact pretty quickly. But you have to learn to accept it and live with it. If you can't - then you shouldn't be coaching AND umpiring.

Specifically, with regard to balks, it has been my experience that if you do something surprising or unusual (like a pickoff from the windup position), an inexperienced (or a bad) umpire will call it a balk nearly every time. This will especially be true when he's faced with a chorus of "That's a balk!" from you opponents who will certainly make that comment when they are equally surprised. It's often a losing proposition.

The bottom line: Sometimes you can be too smart for your own good.

As already mentioned, your only choices are 1) communicate with the umpires ahead of time or, 2) prepare to go to war and climb that hill.

The third and, by far, the more remote possibility is that the umpire will be good enough to know exactly how to call the play - like many of the fine umpires in this forum.

In the area in which our team plays, my money is not on the third possibility.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Tim C]

orioles35 wrote:

"Of course, there's always the chosen few who simply don't want to be bothered."

Does this statement mean that you allow coaches/managers to come onto the field of play and argue your call of balk?

[GarthB]

Originally posted by andrewm


It's unfortunate that we're even having this dicussion. I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules.

What level do you coach again? MiLB, MLB? D-1 SuperRegionals? Great. Then your umpires should be able to have complete faith that you and your players will perform accordingly, eh?

As do players, umpires have to learn their craft and you have to expect you will get a lot of "learners" at your level. You are wrong to think "I should be able to have complete faith that the umps know the rules."

But acting appropriately and with integrity is never wrong, no matter what level of umpire you are dealing with.

And it is not unfortunate that we are having this discussion at all. It is very fortunate. You have the opportunity to learn to deal honestly with situations or choose to deal with them manipulatively.

A true Rat attempting to justify his sleazy actions reminds me of my Grandfather's explanation of advertisers and other "smooth talkers". While walking in our pasture he pointed at a pile of manure. "That, Garth, is a pile of sh!t", he said. "You can pour all the perfume in the world on top of it and it might smell better, but it's still a pile of sh!t."

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Tim C
Dave:

I am just confused as to how your advice could be implimented.

Balks,as balls and strikes, are not an issue that can be argued.

As you could not enter the field to talk with me it seems impossible to use your trap in a game where real umpires umpire.

Seems like this should be a private e-mail between rats.

Mr. C: I'd be interested in your citation to support your assertion that a coach/manager cannot "enter the field" to discuss a balk. According to the MLBUM, the only balk where he cannot leave his position is one having to do with the pitcher stepping toward a base. All other balks are fair game.

MLBUM 7.5(e) A manager, coach, or player may not come onto the field or leave his position to protest the call of a balk as defined in Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) (failure to step directly towards a base before throwing there). If such protest is made, the manager, coach, or player shall be ejected from the game.

MLBUM 7.5(f) A manager may come out and question the reason for a balk call (other than a step balk) and shall not be ejected for his visit to learn why the balk was
called. He may be ejected if he argues the call after explanation.

I mention this because often on Message Boards umpires get urban myths masquerading as rules.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Mr. C: I'd be interested in your citation to support your assertion that a coach/manager cannot "enter the field" to discuss a balk. According to the MLBUM, the only balk where he cannot leave his position is one having to do with the pitcher stepping toward a base. All other balks are fair game.

MLBUM 7.5(e) A manager, coach, or player may not come onto the field or leave his position to protest the call of a balk as defined in Official Baseball Rule 8.05(c) (failure to step directly towards a base before throwing there). If such protest is made, the manager, coach, or player shall be ejected from the game.

MLBUM 7.5(f) A manager may come out and question the reason for a balk call (other than a step balk) and shall not be ejected for his visit to learn why the balk was
called. He may be ejected if he argues the call after explanation.

I mention this because often on Message Boards umpires get urban myths masquerading as rules.

I'll let Tee speak for himself, but in my view and experience, there is a world of difference between a manager "questioning" the reason for a balk and "arguing" the balk. I have no problem with the manager, or in my case, the skipper coming out and asking why I called a balk. If after receiving the answer he chooses to remain and argue, he does so at his own peril.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 21st, 2005 at 04:26 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB

I'll let Tee speak for himself, but in my view and experience, there is a world of difference between a manager "questioning" the reason for a balk and "arguing" the balk. I have no problem with the manager, or in my case, the skipper coming out and asking why I called a balk. If after receiving the answer he chooses to remain and argue, he do so at his own peril.

And I - and the MLBUM - agree with you. Reread Tee's post: He says the manager isn't going to come out at all. Just over-reaching on his part, I guess.