PBUC , J/R, and Evans

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Hey BigUmp,
More of my games are called solo than are called with partners. These are all sanctioned games, not pickup games. I would love to have a partner for every game, but that ain't how it is.

You may want to consider that there are places that actually do things differently than you do instead of relagating all of us to "pick up" game status.

"1) In many parts of the country, one umpire may be all that is available or budgeted. Rookies get the bottom of the barrel stuff as well as some nice treats. I've lived in places that had players moving farm equipment from the outfield just before the game. Those rookies were the only thing that allowed the game to happen.

I thought we were discussing sanctioned baseball games here Windy. I had no idea you were talking about pick up games in the middle of a farm. I would imagine that yes, it would be hard to be a rookie working a non sanctioned game for a bunch of pick up players."

Kaliix,

Tim was questioning the part about moving farm equipment, not bashing one-man umpiring. WWTB was the one who said that the rookies were the only thing that allowed the games to happen. Tim has worked his share of solo games, as have we all. I still mix in some one-man JV games, because they pay more than 2-man Varsity games, and I often need the money. In your one-man games, do you have to move farm equipment before you can start? If not, then Tim wasn't talking about you.

[BigUmp56]

Sorry if I offended you. I must have it good here then. I don't work games solo very often. The only games I do solo are small diamond games, and games where another assigned umpire didn't show.



The comment about pick up games had nothing to do with working solo. It was about the need to move farm equipment to get onto a HS baseball field. That's a load of crap IMO. I live in and work games in northern Indiana. The vast majority of our HS's are in rural farming communities. I've never heard of such a thing.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 18th, 2005 at 03:06 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Tee,

In 1992, our commissioner was trying to dramatically improve our umpire association and was looking for ideas to copy. We had Jim Evans in for a clinic and he told us about many of the local associations that he had visited. Our commissioner asked him to name the best one that he had ever seen.

Without hesitating, Jim named San Diego. Since then, I've heard several well traveled umpires name San Diego as an association that has their stuff together. None of my information, however, is more recent than 1997. An association can go into the toilet in a hurry without proper leadership so who knows what the present state of affairs is.

Peter

Thanks for the kind words, Peter. I assure you that they haven't as yet put me in charge, so everything is still just great.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Sorry if I offended you. I must have it good here then. I don't work games solo very often. The only games I do solo are small diamond games, and games where another assigned umpire didn't show.

Even LL juniors thru bigs are all done with at least a two man here.

The comment about pick up games had nothing to do with working solo. It was about the need to move farm equipment to get onto a HS baseball field. That's a load of crap IMO. I live in and work games in northern Indiana. The vast majority of our HS's are in rural farming communities. I've never heard of such a thing.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 18th, 2005 at 02:41 PM]

Tim,

You haven't lived until you've worked AAU Frosh or JV ball by yourself. It's a joke. They want the games called as if there were four umpires, when there is only you. Usually, there is a least one play, that if there were two umpires, you would have gotten the call right. Like check swings when the catcher raises up and blocks you out, for example. When they b*tch, we are instructed to tell them, "pay for two umpires, and then that play will be covered." I've worked hundreds of solo games. Lots of laughs.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness

Tee,

In 1992, our commissioner was trying to dramatically improve our umpire association and was looking for ideas to copy. We had Jim Evans in for a clinic and he told us about many of the local associations that he had visited. Our commissioner asked him to name the best one that he had ever seen.

Without hesitating, Jim named San Diego. Since then, I've heard several well traveled umpires name San Diego as an association that has their stuff together. None of my information, however, is more recent than 1997. An association can go into the toilet in a hurry without proper leadership so who knows what the present state of affairs is.

Peter

Peter:

The discussion is about baseball player talent, not umpire organizational skills.

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

2) I'd just rather not call the verbal obstruction in the first place. I am one of those picky umpires that likes to see the rule in writing before enforcing it.

As the old song says, "I can help":

From 2006 Rules Book, 2-22-1: "Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder...."

From 2005 Case Book, Situation 2.22.1: "R1 attempts to steal second. F2, upon receiving the pitch, throws a pop-up to F6. F5 yells "get back, get back." R1 thinks B2 has hit a pop-up and starts back to first where he is tagged out. RULING: This is verbal obstruction and R1 shall be awarded second base.

Let's think for a moment: You have to see the rule in writing, so ...

Suppose that very play happens in one of your games. What do you do?

Oh, don't worry that I didn't quote the 2006 Case Book. It's not out yet.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

As the old song says, "I can help":

From 2006 Rules Book, 2-22-1: "Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder...."

From 2005 Case Book, Situation 2.22.1: "R1 attempts to steal second. F2, upon receiving the pitch, throws a pop-up to F6. F5 yells "get back, get back." R1 thinks B2 has hit a pop-up and starts back to first where he is tagged out. RULING: This is verbal obstruction and R1 shall be awarded second base.

Let's think for a moment: You have to see the rule in writing, so ...

Suppose that very play happens in one of your games. What do you do?

Oh, don't worry that I didn't quote the 2006 Case Book. It's not out yet.

Carl, the example you gave is not what we've discussed, please don't try to pass off this charade. It is beneath you to try to trick those unfamiliar with the play we are discussing.

If you truly believe that a fielder can be guilty of verbal obstruction for saying 'Back' to a runner who is leading off, then why not penalize him for saying 'Go' when the runner is caught stealing? The runner can say that he thought it was his coach and was confused! If I were the coach, I would start teaching my runners to say "Back" and then dive back to the base. You can then send them to third without having seen the infraction. After all, you heard the words and saw the reaction. This is just another reason why that rule is so ludicrous. [Please don't tell me that a plate ump can see who said it - he is focused on the pitch being delivered at the same instant.]

No book has your approved interpretation. Most interps worth their salt have been added to the Case Book over the last decade. We both know this to be true, your BRD is based on the new interps.

I have already explained what I would do if I hear it - ignore it. We have a very clear Case Book example of putting the onus on the offensive coaches for controlling confusing situations. This is just an extension of that, IMNSHO. We can A2D, but you asked for my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BU56,

You are changing the subject after making an erroneous statement that I corrected. You allege that rookies should not be on the field without veteran partners. Even in Chicago and the suburbs, most Freshman, Sophomore and JV games are single man games. These often have rookie umpires because there is a tremendous umpire shortage in our area. Across the country, rookies are put to work because they are available. Others have told you that and you claim that you weren't being derisive.

My comment about farm equipment was made to support the fact that rural America is much different than our urban centers. I can't tell you how many baseball fields I have worked on that didn't have outfield fences or were shared use properties. They often were next to farm crops. I've seen tractors, chisel plows and other impliments stored on athletic fields in rural communities. I'm sure that some of our members have witnessed similar sights. You implied that you are old enough to know better than to speak in generalities. You did and then you tried to deflect your mistake. There are still many places in America that have single umpires working on sub-standard baseball fields. Often, these umpires do not have the experience needed to work the more prestigious Varisty games in their commnnities. This should not be a puzzle.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Carl, the example you gave is not what we've discussed, please don't try to pass off this charade. It is beneath you to try to trick those unfamiliar with the play we are discussing.[/B]

I'm not talking about what we've discussed. You are alone in your interpretation of that. Neither I nor anyone else is interested in continuing that fruitless discussion. Everybody save one has ignored your constant digs about the "ancient" news letter.

I'm talking about your simple statement: "I'd just rather not call the verbal obstruction in the first place. I am one of those picky umpires that [sic] likes to see the rule in writing before enforcing it."

Now, suppose, for the sake of argument, I give you this point. I'm changing discussions, and that's not fair. Boo, Carl.

But answer my question:

From 2005 Case Book, Situation 2.22.1: R1 attempts to steal second. F2, upon receiving the pitch, throws a pop-up to F6. F5 yells "get back, get back." R1 thinks B2 has hit a pop-up and starts back to first where he is tagged out. RULING: This is verbal obstruction and R1 shall be awarded second base.

If that happened in your game, what would you do?

I'll make it easy, so that you're not tempted to write a novel:

a. Call verbal obstruction.
b. Ignore the verbal obstruction.
c. Convince the coach it isn't verbal obstruction. (After all, as you wrote about your college coaches: "One thing is sure, they leave knowing that if I called it, I know it's correct.")

Pick a letter.

Please.

Oh, one last point: Have you ever made a mistake on the field? If so, why not share it with us? Humility is not your strong suit. Perhaps your admission might gain you a second friend.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Carl,

I have oft admitted that my goal and that of any of my crews is to get the call right. We have never had a perfect game, but that is what keeps us coming back.

I can cite hundreds of examples of blown calls from early in my career. I would like to think that like most of us, I have learned from them. I recall admitting on this very site that in one NCAA game, I followed the catcher back for a pop up and was screened ffrom the actual catch. I asked to see the ball and made my out call, much to the disapproval of the offensive team. The head coach was out barking his head off and I looked at him in stunned silence. Had he never seen a pop up out before? My 1B partner had a great angle of the ball deflecting off of the net and signalled that I should talk with the crew. We huddled and I came back to say that the ball was foul after the screen deflection. We both took a ton of heat for the remainder of the game, but that was a small price to pay for getting it right. This was a few years before the NCAA actually told us to handle it this way. We had a game at the offense's school a few weeks later and they didn't eve remember the play. I did and it haunted me for a while.

You are the scion of the "expected call", surely you have calls that haunt you. Had you called it by the book rather than ignoring it in deference to those watching, the outcome would have been different. Do any of those calls ever bother you? I humored you, kindly reciprocate.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program - you are mixing my statement with what you want me to say and have taken it out of context. The title of my initial post about VO was "I hate this call". The fielder who says 'back' is what I was referring to. I have no problem enforcing a VO call on a player who yells "Time", "Foul", "Balk" or "You missed the base, come back." and it affects the play. I have mentioned these before, but you must have forgotten them.

In reference to your play, I would probably call the Verbal Obstruction, since it is specifically mentioned in the book. I say probably, because few things are absolute in this life. Like I wrote, if it is supportable by a Rule or Case book, I will call it. I decline to amuse coaches with anecdotes from a decade old newsletter that only a few people still have. Hell, some of my coaches were in college ten years ago. Why is it that the interp never made its way into the casebook? I choose to file it along with the rule about not throwing the ball around after a strike out. Yes, it was once in a newsletter, but has since been ignored by sensible officials. Let's face it, how many people still have it - I've only seen you and TAC acknowledge such. Neither of you is a textbook OOO, let's not breed any more with interps like this.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Carl,

I have oft admitted that my goal and that of any of my crews is to get the call right. We have never had a perfect game, but that is what keeps us coming back.

I can cite hundreds of examples of blown calls from early in my career. I would like to think that like most of us, I have learned from them. I recall admitting on this very site that in one NCAA game, I followed the catcher back for a pop up and was screened ffrom the actual catch. I asked to see the ball and made my out call, much to the disapproval of the offensive team. The head coach was out barking his head off and I looked at him in stunned silence. Had he never seen a pop up out before? My 1B partner had a great angle of the ball deflecting off of the net and signalled that I should talk with the crew. We huddled and I came back to say that the ball was foul after the screen deflection. We both took a ton of heat for the remainder of the game, but that was a small price to pay for getting it right. This was a few years before the NCAA actually told us to handle it this way. We had a game at the offense's school a few weeks later and they didn't eve remember the play. I did and it haunted me for a while.

You are the scion of the "expected call", surely you have calls that haunt you. Had you called it by the book rather than ignoring it in deference to those watching, the outcome would have been different. Do any of those calls ever bother you? I humored you, kindly reciprocate.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program - you are mixing my statement with what you want me to say and have taken it out of context. The title of my initial post about VO was "I hate this call". The fielder who says 'back' is what I was referring to. I have no problem enforcing a VO call on a player who yells "Time", "Foul", "Balk" or "You missed the base, come back." and it affects the play. I have mentioned these before, but you must have forgotten them.

In reference to your play, I would probably call the Verbal Obstruction, since it is specifically mentioned in the book. I say probably, because few things are absolute in this life. Like I wrote, if it is supportable by a Rule or Case book, I will call it. I decline to amuse coaches with anecdotes from a decade old newsletter that only a few people still have. Hell, some of my coaches were in college ten years ago. Why is it that the interp never made its way into the casebook? I choose to file it along with the rule about not throwing the ball around after a strike out. Yes, it was once in a newsletter, but has since been ignored by sensible officials. Let's face it, how many people still have it - I've only seen you and TAC acknowledge such. Neither of you is a textbook OOO, let's not breed any more with interps like this.

Is that an "a"?

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I answered the questions honestly. Did you reciprocate?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I answered the questions honestly. Did you reciprocate?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

In reference to your play, I would probably call the Verbal Obstruction, since it is specifically mentioned in the book. I say probably, because few things are absolute in this life.

Is that a "b"?

If a pitch enters the strike zone, will you "probably" call a strike?

If the throw beats the runner at first and the first baseman in control of the ball tags the base and throws to the second baseman, will you "probably" call an out?

If the pitcher does not come to a complete and discernible stop in the set position, will you "probably" call a balk?

Aren't "things" on the baseball diamond certain? We're not talking whether the defendant in a civil suit is 40% liable for his injuries, so he collects 60%. We're talking ball or strike, safe or out, balk or not.

No, I didn't answer your questions. I don't need to since my views are known all around the world.

But give me five (a) or (b) questions without a novel, and I'll give you a string of letters.

I'm a realist, a black and white umpire. Leaving aside blow-out games, when I meet an infraction, I

flag it or ignore it.

And the issues I ignore are well known and have been for over 30 years.

I don't ever say I would "probably" or "likely" or "usually" call it. Such a philosophy is certain to indicate an indecisive man. I'd hate to have you umpiring my team because I could never depend on whether this was the game when you would "probably" call something.

Your insistence on being a troll has backed you into a corner from which the only escape is (probably) honesty.

With or without a decade-old news letter.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

You changed the questions to look intelligent, but wait...

"If a pitch enters the strike zone, will you "probably" call a strike?

Yes, I will call it a strike unless the batter hits it. I will not call it a strike if a high school pitcher has just balked. I did not think I had to explain such rudimentary things to such a well published umpire. Lah me!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the throw beats the runner at first and the first baseman in control of the ball tags the base and throws to the second baseman, will you "probably" call an out?

Are you asking me if the runner at first is out or the runner at second? If the runner was obstructed by the catcher, I will not call him out. Again, these are those 'absolute' things I tried to explain before. You unwillingness to accept reality is troubling.
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the pitcher does not come to a complete and discernible stop in the set position, will you "probably" call a balk?

Provided that we don't have a verbal obstruction call on the offense for yelling 'Time', I would call that a balk. I would also not call it a balk if the ball was not declared live, as in a quick pitch situation. I've seen both and haven't been at it over 30 years. It seems like we keep encountering challenges to things you feel are absolute.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't "things" on the baseball diamond certain? We're not talking whether the defendant in a civil suit is 40% liable for his injuries, so he collects 60%. We're talking ball or strike, safe or out, balk or not.

Wow, apparently they are not! In thirty years, I would have thought you would have witnessed hundreds of occassions that were 'firsts' for you. I've seen routine plays become monstrous affairs and things that weren't supposed to happen show themselves before my eyes. Those six calls are never absoulte, most umpire schools teach that - mine did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I didn't answer your questions. I don't need to since my views are known all around the world."

Yes, we know them and I can't believe that no one has pointed out that the King has no clothes. Your vanity has prevented you acknowledging the most basic tenet of life - few things are absolute, life is always in a state of flux.

You failed to answer the questions for the same reason you failed to acknowledge my claim that "expected calls" cheapen the game and embarass our trade. You are more worried about what people think about you than making the proper call. I can only imagine that a career at Gallup would have better suited you. Your condescension may work with someone else, but the real umpires here have long known that you change subjects when you are baffled and blunder along. Why don't you come up with new quizzes? At least one of us can answer them and post his opinions. The other will ramble about how he has published more 1,800 word articles than I have seen games. More puffery...

The fact remains, I've provided my opinion and you can't counter it. You've resorted to low brow tactics again. You are lucky that I don't umpire your games. I would have to enforce the rule book.

[BigUmp56]

Carl,

Isn't there an old saying about giving an idiot enough rope...................


I'll give you this WCB, you're still the best at diverting attention from the question and hiding your answer in flowery prose!

Tim.

[mbyron]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Oh, don't worry that I didn't quote the 2006 Case Book. It's not out yet.

Carl, FYI: I've had the 2006 Case Book for about 3 weeks now. The situation you've cited is still in it (as, alas, is 8.2.3).