Why is Rollie still writing?

[LDUB]

In Rollie's latest, he tells the story of when he allowed the #3 coach (Not the manager, not second in command, but the third) to come out onto the field mutiple times and argue calls with him. Eventually Rollie warned him that if he came out again that Rollie would put him "six feet under."

Of course the guy comes out again, and Rollie doesn't eject him, he tells him to leave the field and go sit by some guy on a golf cart. Rollie calls this a "gray area situation", where the umpire has a hard choice of what to do.

Good one Rollie.

Later he wrties this:

Nowadays, when an umpire works a game in which expanded run rules apply, the most welcomed game-ending rule is the USSSA one, which reads: "15 after 3, 10 after 4, and 8 after 5." When that's the mercy rule, an umpire knows at once that the tournament director wants the games kept on schedule. Such a fine young man!

It was a hot afternoon when the visitors scored 14 in the third. There was a runner on third base, one out. The inexperienced pitcher got all shook up when R3 faked a squeeze play. To counter R3's ambition, he speeded up in his delivery, rolling right through a discernable stop. "Balk!" Run number 15 scored. The home plate umpire promptly saw a strikeout, with the third out following on a dribbler back to the mound. Game over.

Either umpire could have slowed the pace of the game. Or, they could have graciously counseled the pitcher to make a discernible stop and ignored the balk. A gray area decision? You decide.

Some more quality advice from Rollie.

[mcrowder]

Because despite numerous near-unanimous user-input regarding him, the powers that be have not figured out that he's a detriment to the profession (both the literary profession and the umpiring profession).

[BigUmp56]

Why would an umpire with his level of experience even be dealing with an assistant coach? I fail to see where the gray area is here. He should have dumped him the first time he came onto the field to argue.

Is he really supporting situational umpiring with the balk scenario he laid out, or is he just asking a question about what others think?

If F1 failed to make a discernable pause, we all know he's balked. So do both managers and most of the players.

What is he going to do if challenged as to why he didn't call it? Tell the manager he didn't see what everyone else saw, or just tell him his team didn't play well enough to be treated to his best efforts in judiciously applying the rules?

I don't see any gray area here either.

Tim.

[Bob Lyle]

Rollie,

There are bad umpire articles out there.

There are awful umpire articles out there.

There are beyond awful umpire articles out there.

There are articles which break new ground for atrociousness and for which new categories must be invented.

Congratulations on your ground breaking article.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bob Lyle
Rollie,

There are bad umpire articles out there.

There are awful umpire articles out there.

There are beyond awful umpire articles out there.

There are articles which break new ground for atrociousness and for which new categories must be invented.

Congratulations on your ground breaking article.

I'll assume you guys are all subscribers — though that's not always a safe assumption these days.

Might I suggest you put your complaints into writing and forward them to RightSports. If you did that, we could know who you are, find out your level of experience, discover what your interests are, decide how much weight to give your opinions.

Better yet: Haven't you been behind the plate, doing what you consider to be a fine job, when some creep behind you begins to butcher you. I've been in this business more than 50 years. The first year I called, an umpire colleague marched up to a "citizen," handed him his indicator, and said: "You're so good, come do it yourself." Not a year passes that I don't hear a similar story.

Pick a topic, write an article, submit it - and watch it appear. Immediately, you'll recoup your subscription money. So you can wait for Osborne and Christensen for free, so to speak.

Nearly every time I make this offer, someone says: "Well, I'm not a writer. I just join so I can learn to be a better umpire." We think we can help.

I think Mr. Wiederaenders can help. Remember, we can explain "pause, read, and react" just so many times before we bore everybody to death. How often can we say: Use the Gerry Davis stance, back up a full step behind the catcher, put your nose on the corner, and don't move unless the batter blocks the pitcher's release point: Once a month? Twice a year?

Roland's current series on gray area calls delves deeply into the impact an umpire's philosophy has on the calls he makes. His thesis: Never think that your personal opinions of and reactions to events don't influence your decisions.

We all have preferences. I like pitchers who keep the ball low because that's the best place to put it and not get hurt. Umpires who were catchers, as I was, often give a little bit extra at the knees.

On the other hand, umpires who were pitchers generally prefer the high strike: Batters are not trained to swing level at that pitch at the letters and so find they can't catch up to it. Call a few strikes up there, the batters will try to adjust, and the pitchers will love you as more and more swing and miss.

It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."

We've filled many pages in discussing "the accepted call," the neighborhood play at second, the phantom tag. Mr. Wiederaender's series reminds us there are many other such calls, perhaps some we may not have considered: How do we handle an approaching time limit when one team begins to stall or rush? In summer youth ball, are game control techniques different? Someone complained that Roland talked to a third assistant. I suspect that person doesn't call much summer ball. At least he doesn't work in Texas, where everybody gets in on the action.

What about calls that end a slaughter? (They don't call it a "mercy rule" for nothing.) You've heard more than one umpire say, semi-seriously: "Only a bad umpire lets the game go into extra ininings." Someone in The Forum has a signature that states he will get an out when he needs it.

Mr. Wiederaenders challenges us to think about those types of calls. He argues at one point — and that article may not yet have been published — that a good technique is to imagine third-world plays (gray area plays) and set up in advance "first-world" solutions. That's not a bad idea. (I think he stole it from Jim Evans: "Surprise is the umpire's worst enemy.")

If you're happiest going over and over what constitutes a balk, you need to let us know "in person," so to speak. Writing on pblic message boards tends to create exaggeration.

If there's a particular topic that interests you, let us know. We'll commission someone (other than Mr. Wiederaenders) to explore your subject.

If you think you can do better than Roland, take your shot. We prefer articles of 800 - 1000 words, sermons rather than text books, illustrations rather than bullets.

Finally, you might email Mr. Wiederaenders directly. Offer some suggestions. Strike up an acquaintance. You might find you have more in common with him than you think.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
much weight to give your opinions.

My opinions? You are saying that you don't think that Rollie gives bad advise?

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Pick a topic, write an article, submit it - and watch it appear. Immediately, you'll recoup your subscription money. So you can wait for Osborne and Christensen for free, so to speak.

From what I hear, it will take a whole lot longer than immediately for my money to show up.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Roland's current series on gray area calls delves deeply into the impact an umpire's philosophy has on the calls he makes. His thesis: Never think that your personal opinions of and reactions to events don't influence your decisions.

Yes, that is a good topic. Rollie puts bad advise in his articles. That is what I have a problem with.

I don't say anything when Rollie writes a boreing article (which is 99% of the time), I only speak up about him when he writes something which is misleading/incorrect. Proper editing could solve this problem.

I understand that you have a problem finding writers (we don't need to get into why many of your writers quit), and that you have to publish what you can get. I think Rollie wrties boring stuff. Some people might not find it boring (Everyone I have ever talked to who has read a Rollie article finds it boring). There is a difference between being boring and telling people to do things which are incorrect.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Someone complained that Roland talked to a third assistant. I suspect that person doesn't call much summer ball. At least he doesn't work in Texas, where everybody gets in on the action.

That was me, and I do. I suspect the reason that everyone gets into the action is because of a history of poor officiating. Over time, coaches have pushed more and more, and the umpires have failed to do their job by taking control and ejecting the coaches. It must suck to have to deal with 5 dads each game.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Mr. Wiederaenders challenges us to think about those types of calls. He argues at one point — and that article may not yet have been published — that a good technique is to imagine third-world plays (gray area plays) and set up in advance "first-world" solutions. That's not a bad idea. (I think he stole it from Jim Evans: "Surprise is the umpire's worst enemy.")

I thought that was Peter.

TWPs and gray area plays are very different. The catcher throwing the ball to the mound and the defense running off the field as the BR runs to first is a TWP. Contemplating whether or not to call an obvious balk is not.

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Nearly every time I make this offer, someone says: "Well, I'm not a writer. I just join so I can learn to be a better umpire." ... If you think you can do better than Roland, take your shot. We prefer articles of 800 - 1000 words, sermons rather than text books, illustrations rather than bullets.

I don't think I can do better than Rollie. I cannot write. It is hard for me, and I do not enjoy it. I think Tim McCarver is a terrible broadcaster, but could I do better than him? No. I could not go on national TV and talk in front of all those people.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Dear Blabby,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Childress
"It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a much nicer way of putting it - inaccurate and no less inflammatory than "ingratiate", but I'll let it slide.

How would a realist answer the following query?

Doesn't one team gain an advantage when an umpire ignores the proper call for appearance sake? As an example, he sees a player miss a base and ignores it because it would require an unusual call on a routine play. Which rule intends to permit this?

Signed,
Hopelessly Romantic

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Dear Blabby,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Carl Childress
"It's impossible to keep our personal philosophy out of the game. The romantic says: "Get every call right, regardless." The realist says: "My job is to see that the game is played as my League wants." The romantic says: "You must be fair." The realist says: "I must ensure that one team doesn't gain an advantage not intended by the rules."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a much nicer way of putting it - inaccurate and no less inflammatory than "ingratiate", but I'll let it slide.

How would a realist answer the following query?

Doesn't one team gain an advantage when an umpire ignores the proper call for appearance sake? As an example, he sees a player miss a base and ignores it because it would require an unusual call on a routine play. Which rule intends to permit this?

Signed,
Hopelessly Romantic

Against my better judgment, but....

Let's talk specifically about my sample play. The batter crushes one over the fence in flight, like Albert did against the Astros. Instead of Minute Maid Park, though, the game is at Busch, and it is a walk-off. Around he comes and amid all the bench players he jumps into the air and comes down an inch from the white. Clearly he missed it. Clearly you saw it. Now, you intimate you would uphold an appeal on that play. Gosh! Talk about threats made by St. Louis fans against Don Denkinger....

The rules INTEND that a baserunner NOT gain an advantage by missing a base. You tell me: Would Pujols gain an advantage, missing the plate by an inch? A realist says "no"; consequently, a realist denies an appeal. (Myself? I would be halfway toward the tunnel by the time he reached the plate and wouldn't see the miss.)

But let's say I'm the third-base umpire in a four-man crew. I've been there many times since we use those almost exclusively in Texas' high school playoffs. Consider: R2. B1 singles to short right, and R2 tries to score. As he rounds third, he plants his spikes several inches from the bag and continues his mad dash home. He is safe on a close play. The defense appeals he missed third.

I can't wait to call out that sucker! Why? He gained an advantage not intended by the rules. Now you (the romantic) would call him out also, which means: You're always ready to make the easy call, which this one is, but the tough ones may give you pause.

You never answered Tee's question; namely, do you call strikes on pitches in the dirt? (Isn't not making such a foolish call the purpose of "timing, timing, timing"?)

Your previous writing said you do, so I believe you even though I don't believe you're "real."

That said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing a discussion with you. You are not hopelessly romantic, merely....

[RPatrino]

Carl, it probably was against your better judgement, like fighting a fire with kerosene.

You can explain it to them, but you can't make them understand.

My question, are these guys so argumentative and rude in their real life? Do they treat their real life umpire partners in such a way? I have my suspicions.

As for Rollie's articles, if you don't subscribe, are you just reading the tease? Makes great sense to me...HAHA

Bob P.

[Rich Ives]

CC wrote: "We've filled many pages in discussing 'the accepted call,' the neighborhood play at second, the phantom tag."

There have been many threads over the years on these and similar subjects.

Example: One author wrote recently that a MLB umpire said that "a strike is when I call it and they don't *****". I would submit that this doesn't cover the gray area where the batter and catcher have different opinions,

Another example: Paid umpires, and most volunteer umpires, take it as a matter of pride and professionalism to dress properly. Keep those hackles under control. It's not limited to umpires. It's a philosophy that fits most of society. OTOH, one of the writers here quoted a D1 coach as saying that the creased pants only mattered up to the first pitch. I wrote that I don't care what you wear as long as you can "umpire".

A question on "accepted calls." Are they accepted because the participants think it's OK (or normal) or because they know they can't change it? Do they wish it would change? Same thought on neighborhood plays.

When a coach tells you he understands what you are doing is he really just avoiding confrontation and/or future bad feelings?

Umpires (except HHH) write about dumb coaches and of discussing them over a beverage after the game. (Coaches talk about the umpires too folks).

Some of you welcome evaluations by coaches. Some of you think they're not capable of accurately writing one. Does this reflect truth or aprehension?

For the most part though, what we have here and on the other umpire/rules boards is umpires debating with other umpires on all these issues.

So I would challenge Carl to get, and the participants to tolerate, articles by HS and D1 coaches on the subject(s) of how calls are made and games managed versus what they'd like to see - and if there is a difference. Find several in each category, from various sections of the country. Don't you really want to know - deep down inside?

[mcrowder]

It's bad enough that the most common writer on this site consistently gives HORRID advice, which will eventually be a detriment to our profession if newbies read it and think, "Ah, here's an experienced guy telling me to do this... so I will."

It's 100 times worse that the person in charge of a site dedicated to improving the profession consistently backs up the articles containing the horrid advice. Continually using the tactic of "If you think he sucks so bad, why don't you try to do better." That is the excuse of the weak. It's YOUR job to publish articles that further the cause of our profession, or at least to not publish those that are a detriment to it. You are failing your job.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Against my better judgment, but....

Let's talk specifically about my sample play. The batter crushes one over the fence in flight, like Albert did against the Astros. Instead of Minute Maid Park, though, the game is at Busch, and it is a walk-off. Around he comes and amid all the bench players he jumps into the air and comes down an inch from the white. Clearly he missed it. Clearly you saw it. Now, you intimate you would uphold an appeal on that play. Gosh! Talk about threats made by St. Louis fans against Don Denkinger....

The rules INTEND that a baserunner NOT gain an advantage by missing a base. You tell me: Would Pujols gain an advantage, missing the plate by an inch? A realist says "no"; consequently, a realist denies an appeal. (Myself? I would be halfway toward the tunnel by the time he reached the plate and wouldn't see the miss.)

But let's say I'm the third-base umpire in a four-man crew. I've been there many times since we use those almost exclusively in Texas' high school playoffs. Consider: R2. B1 singles to short right, and R2 tries to score. As he rounds third, he plants his spikes several inches from the bag and continues his mad dash home. He is safe on a close play. The defense appeals he missed third.

I can't wait to call out that sucker! Why? He gained an advantage not intended by the rules. Now you (the romantic) would call him out also, which means: You're always ready to make the easy call, which this one is, but the tough ones may give you pause.

You never answered Tee's question; namely, do you call strikes on pitches in the dirt? (Isn't not making such a foolish call the purpose of "timing, timing, timing"?)

Your previous writing said you do, so I believe you even though I don't believe you're "real."

That said, there's nothing to be gained from continuing a discussion with you. You are not hopelessly romantic, merely....

Before I begin, I'll address Bob Patrino. You know not of what you speak. If you believe that was a rude rebuttal, you missed the Editor's prior comments. One can only imagine what you construe as offensive on the field. I would say any of those things to his face. A simple question posed in an eloquent manner...how uncouth?!?

Papa C., I asked you to behave as a gentleman. You failed that litmus test. If you disagree with my position, express it without the cloaked denegration. I would be happy to debate this issue in a forum of officials. Your fifty years and gift of gab would be more than met. I chose the high road earlier and found that no matter what I did, you continued to mock and abuse the privilege you've been given. What happened to A2D?

You assume that my experience is negligible and any "real world" umpire would know better than to utilize my theory of umpiring. I suggest you contact, Hopkins and Yeast to discuss your thesis. In Detroit, Yeast said that he accepts nothing less than our best effort out there. He demanded that we hustle, get into position and conference if necessary to make the correct call. Expected calls have gone the way of the umpire's black suit. Hopkins is on record with a similar desire. We don't cheat the game. It has nothing to do with being a "romantic" any more than it deals with you being a "coward". In the NCAA, we keep players off the field even on homeruns - this was put in place because of missed bases! Can't you sell a missed base? Yes, it has a bearing and MLB players are paid an awful lot of money to play correctly. A missed plate on a walk off homerun is a big deal! Remember Robin Ventura's grand slam a few years ago? He stopped at second and they credited him with a double. According to your logic, he should be given the grandslam because it was expected. There, I believe that qualifies as a valid counterpoint to your direct question. He didn't touch home, no home run.

I also addressed the strike zone and balls in the dirt - you seem to forget my comment about the 12-6 deuce. Consistency and communication - these have helped me avoid being stuck with "free hot dogs and soda".

You like to sling mud and think that if you cover it in enough fluff, no one will notice. It may look like chocolate, but it smells a whole lot like manure. You put words in my mouth about the missed third base. Why is that any easier than the play at the dish? I think I know why you were working third base instead of home. The high road be damned, you don't seem to know what it means.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Before I begin, I'll address Bob Patrino. You know not of what you speak. If you believe that was a rude rebuttal, you missed the Editor's prior comments. One can only imagine what you construe as offensive on the field. I would say any of those things to his face. A simple question posed in an eloquent manner...how uncouth?!?

Papa C., I asked you to behave as a gentleman. You failed that litmus test. If you disagree with my position, express it without the cloaked denegration. I would be happy to debate this issue in a forum of officials. Your fifty years and gift of gab would be more than met. I chose the high road earlier and found that no matter what I did, you continued to mock and abuse the privilege you've been given. What happened to A2D?

You assume that my experience is negligible and any "real world" umpire would know better than to utilize my theory of umpiring. I suggest you contact, Hopkins and Yeast to discuss your thesis. In Detroit, Yeast said that he accepts nothing less than our best effort out there. He demanded that we hustle, get into position and conference if necessary to make the correct call. Expected calls have gone the way of the umpire's black suit. Hopkins is on record with a similar desire. We don't cheat the game. It has nothing to do with being a "romantic" any more than it deals with you being a "coward". In the NCAA, we keep players off the field even on homeruns - this was put in place because of missed bases! Can't you sell a missed base? Yes, it has a bearing and MLB players are paid an awful lot of money to play correctly. A missed plate on a walk off homerun is a big deal! Remember Robin Ventura's grand slam a few years ago? He stopped at second and they credited him with a double. According to your logic, he should be given the grandslam because it was expected. There, I believe that qualifies as a valid counterpoint to your direct question. He didn't touch home, no home run.

I also addressed the strike zone and balls in the dirt - you seem to forget my comment about the 12-6 deuce. Consistency and communication - these have helped me avoid being stuck with "free hot dogs and soda".

You like to sling mud and think that if you cover it in enough fluff, no one will notice. It may look like chocolate, but it smells a whole lot like manure. You put words in my mouth about the missed third base. Why is that any easier than the play at the dish? I think I know why you were working third base instead of home. The high road be damned, you don't seem to know what it means.

First, there's no comparison between a man who ran all the bases - and missed home by an inch - and a man who hit a ball over the fence - and stopped at second. You know that.

Second, I went six years where I didn't call the bases once in a 100-plus game season except for double-headers and tournaments. I was at third after calling the plate in the first game.

You dont' have to worry about my combative style anymore, at least as it pertains to you.

The last message was against my better judgment. This one is simply the last once.

[mcrowder]

He says for the third time.

[RPatrino]

I would suppose that you consider "Dear Blabby" as a witty retort. I consider it rude and disrespectful. However, given the propensity of those on this board to sink into the despair of name calling and personal attack, maybe Dear Blabby was an attempt at humor.

I know of what I speak, because I speak my own opinion. Nothing in the Editor's response or opinions seems rude to me.

These forums are a waste of time. I'll go back to reading the pay site. If I want mindless arguing, I'll go talk to my ex.

Bob P.