I have been reading old archived discussions about incorporating PBUC, Jaska/Roder, and Jim Evans interpretations into the OBR book in the future.

My question is.....WHEN?

If there are 237 errors in the OBR, why haven't we fixed them yet. Every year I tear into my new copy of the rules, and the only thing that ever changes is the strike zone.

All these interpretation manuals, and others such as Carl's BRD, are excellent tools, but until they incorporate them into one official book, they are just opinions, in amatuer baseball.

This is my opinion. Feedback please.

Who knows "WHEN" or "IF" any of the interpretations/rulings wil be incorporated into the rule book(s).... until they are......

Because the various rule books are, in places, confusing (to say the least) interpretations/rulings are provided that make our job on the field easier (or so they say).

Our HS unit here uses the FED case book along with the rule book. We are required to apply the rules using the case book as our guide when necessary. I have worked leagues the use OBR. In that case we were required to use the PBUC as a guide for applying the rules.

I find the interpretations/rulings provided to be a great resource to me. More importantly they also provide some consistency in calls made from umpire to umpire.

Has the OBR rule book changed in the past 20 years? In the past 30? Seems to me that the latest book I have (2001) is exactly the same as my book from the 1960s, except that the old one cost 49 cents and the 2001 version cost 10 bucks.

I heard somewhere that the book remains the same because the MLB players have contracted to play under those rules, and changing something in the book would open a legal can of worms.

So interpretations can be given and instructions can be issued to umpires, but the actual rules remain the same.

I wonder if at some country auction I might find a rule book from way back, from the 1900s. It would be interesting to compare.

Justme,

Every league we work here (many), except for high school, uses OBR, and that is our only required reference. If you used PBUC interps here, coaches (and most umpires for that matter) would say, "what's a PBUC?". The PBUC is for Minor League Baseball, and certainly isn't recognized by most amatuer programs. The same goes for the BRD. Tell a high school coach you're quoting a BRD interpretation, and you'll get the same thing, "what is a BRD, and what does it have to do with the rules?" That is my point. Why don't we just put it in the rules and be done with it. It's great that we have the resources, but not everyone else is familiar with them, that's all I'm saying.

greymule,

OBR hasn't changed much, that's for sure. 1973 with the DH rule, and several changes to the strike zone over the years, and that's it. We get to use the same old book, with the same old errors, and are not given uniform access to the interpretations, so nobody ends up on the same page.
You can't expect every umpire to invest in every manual out there, it just isn't practical. You would then have to furnish copies to every coach, or else grief would surely follow.

Rule changes since 1970
 

There have been several rule changes over the years actually. Here are the changes since 1970, minus any Rule 10 changes, which frankly, who cares about?

1971 - Batters required to wear helmets. Rule 1.16
1973 - American League votes to accept DH on a 3-year experimental basis. National League votes no. Rule 6.10
1974 - Umpires no longer need physical evidence to call illegal pitch, and can warn pitchers if the pitched ball behaves in a strange manner, with ejection on next illegal pitch. Rule 8.02
1975 - Baseballs can be covered in cowhide as well as horsehide. Rule 1.09
Cupped bats allowed. Rule 1.10
1976 - A.L. makes DH permanent. Rule 6.10
1988 - Helmets made mandatory for catcher. Rule 1.16(d)
1996 - The latest strike zone change. Rule 2.00

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 17th, 2005 at 03:32 PM]

Rule Changes through 1989
 

Steve,

Take a look at this link on rules changes.


Tim.

http://www.cosmicbaseball.com/jcba20_rules.html

or...
 

When that High School coach starts giving you a hard time, you could always whip out that ten year old newsletter to support your call!

;)

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 17th, 2005 at 06:05 PM]

Steve,

If there's a question as to how a rule should be applied how is it decided in the leagues you work in? If each umpire decides for themselves and comes up with different applications, I can see that causing more problems with the coaches due to the lack of consistent calls from one umpire to another.

Around here we do not announce to the coaches that we are using a particular resource (PBUC, BRD, etc.) to help us maintain the consistency of our calls throughout the entire association. We umpire buy the rule book but where the rule might cause different umpires to apply the rule differently we do use other established references. Consistency is a good thing.... it keeps the Gods of Baseball happy.

It's true, not everyone is familiar with the PBUC, BRD, FED Case Book or whatever, in fact a lot of people involved in baseball are not even that familiar with the rules. But they're still out there playing, coaching and umpiring.

In addition,
 

"Our HS unit here uses the FED case book along with the rule book. We are required to apply the rules using the case book as our guide when necessary."
---------------

And that is fine as the Case Book is an official document of the NFHS.

And contrary to WCB your group should also be using the Spring Interpretation Newsletter as an official NFHS addition to the Case Book.

T

Re: or...
 

Or, you could tell him you've made the call and if he doesn't like it he can lodge a protest, but you're not going to discuss it any further. http://www.officialforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Tim.

BU56 - I've never had to say that.



TAC - Sarcasm is like fine wine, appreciated by those capable of affording it.

Re: Re: or...
 

Or, you could tell him you've made the call and if he doesn't like it he can stick it up his a$$.:D

Do you have to say that a lot? ;)

I was pretty much being facetious when I wrote the part about telling the coach my resource. I would never tell the coach that I got something out of a book other than the rule book. I was just making a point that these interpretation manuals are unknown to most players, coaches, fans, and umpires.

Tee, we go over the new rule changes every January, and we take the Fed test every year. That's about it. Then we have our usual bull sessions to argue rules and tell sea stories. The rookies at least get the benefit of Mike Winters for an instructor. I sneak into the back of his classes whenever I can.

Edited to correct the spelling of facetious. Thanks W.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 18th, 2005 at 05:17 AM]

No, actually I rarely miss a call, and coaches rarely question my calls.

I am my own worst critic, and when I blow a call, I take it personally. I want to join the crowd and boo myself.

Plus, I was just trying to be funny. Don't tell anyone!

Steve, you have to understand that any changes to OBR have to be approved by the MLB Players Union. You can cry all you want about errors but unless they agree, no changes can be made! This is the fault of youth organizations that claim ORB for their rules. Even when youth leagues do use ORB, I always hear "We use MLB rules except for slide and avoid". Why don't these people just use FED? Anyway, for all those who cry about the mistakes in ORB, write to the Player's Union and see if they will listen to you!

Not being snotty, that's just the way it is!

<b> Every year I tear into my new copy of the rules, and the only thing that ever changes is the strike zone.</b>

Every year? I may be mistaken by a year or so, but I don't believe the strike zone has been changed in the rule book for about 42 years.

No Garth, you are mistaken by many more than a couple years. In 1996, an official rule change took place in regards to the strike zone, to wit:

"The Official Playing Rules Committee has adopted changes in Rule 2.00, Strike Zone, which are underlined.

Rule 2.00 The Strike Zone is the area that is over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the mid-point between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determine from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

This changed from "the top of the knee." The mid-point for the upper limit had already previously been changed from the old "armpits" upper limit. I forget what year that was.

By the way Garth, I didn't mean it changed every year, I meant it seemed like it was the only thing that ever changed.

Steve

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 17th, 2005 at 08:58 PM]

Ozzy,

I wasn't crying about it. I'm just tired of reading, "well the BRD says" or "Jim Evans says", when not many have this resource. I have no problem just calling it the way the book says.

You sound like a fan of Fed rules, right? I am not. I prefer real baseball. I like working leagues that go strictly by the OBR, without the slide or avoid connotation. Granted, these are all adult leagues, and few of them let you run over people these days. But all of Pony Baseball (with modifications for level, naturally) uses OBR for its playing rules, except for slide or avoid. Here we have a lot of "horsey ball", from Pinto to Palomino, and everything in between.

I find Fed rules to be "artificial baseball", with all the silly differences. I guess many are for safety, but I haven't seen much of a difference in safety in 20 years of games with both sets of rules. I would rather put up with all the errors in the OBR, than to have every league switch to the Fed.

Steve

Ya know,
 

This thread, in my opinion, has moved into being silly.

No umpire EVER should try to quote any kind of rule reference during a game.

It is the responsibility of an umpire to KNOW the rules (and the correct interpretation) not to quote the rules.

In over 3,700 games I have NEVER heard an umpire explain anything of WHERE a ruling comes from.

I don't really care if someone is tired of hearing about the JEA, NAPBL, the BRD or any other source. All these sources are to help an umpire learn "about" the rules.

No decent umpire would EVER pull a rule book out of his back pocket to make a point as no umpire would ever quote ANY source. The most "OOO" umpires in the world are ones that turn to Skippy and say: "Coach you know that in 3-3-1 the play specifically says . . . 'blah, blah, blah.'"

It is amazing to me that a competent umpire wouldn't take every source avaialble and simply try to understand the reason, common sense, practical applications, letter, spirit, and general accepted philosophies of rules.

Not Evans, Childress, or any other are trying to replace the rule book with their documentation, they are simply filling in blanks.

I am glad that I know the rules but I never let them get in the way of a great game.

With that I return to my next column, "Strikes & Outs . . .Umpires and the Internet, Part III . . . in praise of the three dumbest umpires ever to post on umpire sites."

Send me a private e-mail to nominate your favorite.

Tee

Re: Ya know,
 

I never said that I would quote rule interpretations to coaches. I said I was being facetious to illustrate a point that most people, including most umpires, have never even heard of J/R, or any of these manuals.

Nobody I know would carry a rule book onto the field. Oh, except Smitty.

I can't afford all the manuals, but gee, I wish I had them.

I am only 700 games behind you Tee, and I never let the rules get in the way of a good game either.

Edited to correct the spelling of facetious, thanks W.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 18th, 2005 at 05:06 AM]

"Facetious" ;)


TAC,

Let me propose a hypothetical situation;
you are a rookie umpire and really enjoy the game but are having a tough time with HS, OBR and some local rec rules.
During one game, still early in your first season, you make what you think is the right call. You think that you read somewhere the exact ruling necessary to support your call. You are being asked about the call by one of the most successful (but doggone really nice) coaches in the area. He isn't really mad but concerned that you are misapplying a rule. The coach wants to know where the rule is so he can look it up. He isn't questioning your knowledge as much as checking his. I'm not suggesting that you pull out a rule book then and there, but you'd better be prepared to back it up with something other than, "That's my call and you can protest if you want." Would you dare quote an ancient newsletter? ;)

Many guys work independently and the relationships with their coaches are crucial. If you are suggesting that they make something up it is a bad move. I would rather see them say, "Coach, I know it's in the Case Book and I'll have a look for it later. Right now, my call stands. Let's get them going again." The coach will probably buy it and may even look it up himself. Maybe he has a book worm assistant who is already poring over his highlighted books. That is why I was so adamant about the mystery rules!

I know that for guys with a few years under their belts, it is an easier bridge to sell. Maybe we have to eat some crow later on but our talent saves us from the wrath of a pissed off coach. I've met some of these guys in the supermarket or airport that still remember calls I made ten years ago. I'm at a comfortable point in my life where I can call most of them by first names and tease them about bad hit and runs or why they dropped a bunt in a certain situation. I would never suggest to my students that this is appropriate banter for a rookie. When you sit down in front of the screen, remember that some newbies out there need more than a smart comment or a war story to fall back on. Yes, an OOO may know the rule number and reference, but in certain situations, it'll save their butts too. I can quote the college balk rules to some of my coaches that still don't get it. One thing is sure, they leave knowing that if I called it, I know it's correct. (At least I hope they do!) ;)

Well WCB....
 

Since you've once againg taken exception to one of my comments, let me be the one to reply.

No rookie umpire, or experienced umpire should have to worry about being able to quote rules to a manager. He shouldn't be on the diamond without an experienced partner. That's one of the reasons we allow conferences, so that we can put at least one more head into the mix to sort things out, away from the manager.

What rules are we talking about here anyway? You're stuck on the newsletter and it's interpretation of verbal obstruction and there's a simple solution to that discussion any way.

You just tell the coach that obstruction can be either physical or verbal, and that it was verbal obstruction in your judgement. End of conversation. If he files a protest, you can write it up the way you called it, and let the protest committee decide.

You brought up being able to quote balks. What do you do, cite the rule by number? I doubt even your arrogance would allow that to happen. Let's say a pitcher does not come set before delivering the ball. Are you going to cite the rule by number, or just tell the manager the pitcher didn't come set, and he can't do that.

I'll explain my calls to a point, but if the manager want's to know where it is in the rules, I'm not doing his work for him. He can look it up on his own after we get the game going, or he can lodge a protest. Either way is fine with me as to how he proceeds.

I only have 15 years experience umpiring and probably only 800-900 games. I'm sure that would make me a rookie compared to you, but in all those games. I've never had a protest upheld.

Tim.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Quote:

SNIPPED I find Fed rules to be "artificial baseball", with all the silly differences. I guess many are for safety, but I haven't seen much of a difference in safety in 20 years of games with both sets of rules. I would rather put up with all the errors in the OBR, than to have every league switch to the Fed. Steve

Steve, I didn't mean to infer that you were "crying", it was just a metaphor.

FED rules are the way they are because of safety and tailored to the younger player (less than NCAA level). The reason I stated that youth leagues should use FED is because these leagues always ba$tardize the OBR with "extra safety additions" and pitching restrictions so they may as well use the book tailored to that. I'd much rather do OBR without any ba$tardization of the OBR rules.


[Edited by ozzy6900 on Nov 18th, 2005 at 07:49 AM]

Re: Well WCB....
 

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. Stop speaking in generalities.

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.

3) I have called balks that required a chapter and verse to a manager with a degree in moronics. I've called it and had the guy come out to ask me to show him what the guy did wrong. Instead of acting like Marcel Marceau, I tell him what it was and if he wants to look up x-y-z, he can do it after the game is restarted. It shuts them up quickly when the guy in dark blue polyester knows what he's saying. Maybe you can't pull it off yet, but trust me, it works.

4) I've never lost a protest, since I'm not playing anymore. I can't recall a protest being lodged as a result of my calls either, but I'm getting old. Being able to support your call is based on both communication and intelligence. Sometimes a simple look replaces a five minute rookie conversation. Other times, it is nice to know that if I have a coach that vehemently diagrees with my explanation, I can tell him to look up a-b-c while we get the game going again. It gets him off my field, let's him cool down and if he comes back to argue about it an inning later, he's crossing a very big line.

I'm not Yoda yet, but I like to think that I'm more than a Jedi in training. The robes are cooler!

FYI
 

'Facetious' is one of two words in English that have each of the 5 vowels, in order. If you prefer to think of y as a vowel, you may use 'facetiously'.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but who really wants to get into the "FED isn't real baseball" nonsense?

Re: FYI
 

Only 2? Off the top of my head I can think of abstemious and arsenious. I'm sure there are "industry specific" or scientific words that fit this description as well.

Thanks for refocusing the thread, because it was really getting silly. I am so glad we are now discussing vowels.

Mbyron, Fed rules IMO, suck. As I have explained before, most umpires where I work don't like Federation rules. We enforce them, but we don't care for them. We service over 80 high schools, and even though there are 6 or 7 other competent associations, we are the exclusive supplier of umpires for high school baseball here. Approximately 75 to 80% of my games are played under Fed rules, and I work a ton of games.

Let's look at it the other way around. Kids grow up, from Cap League on up, playing some form of OBR baseball. Then, after 7 or 8 years of, what I term, "real baseball", they suddenly have to learn a totally different set of rules and regulations. Safety? They made it this far in one piece. What, they got to high school, and all of a sudden forgot how to play ball safely?

When Marcus Giles played Pony League, he did a Pete Rose take-out of the catcher. I mean he flew horizontal like Superman into this kid and knocked him into next week. He dislodged the ball, and was safe. I called him safe, then said, "Marcus, you're done, you know you can't do that." This game was played with OBR, with a slide or avoid Fed style rule. The only difference was that he was safe and gone, instead of out and gone, as he would have been under Fedlandia.

While some Fed rules make it a bit safer for little Johnny to play baseball, many rules are just weird. For instance, the balk rule. Kill the ball on a balk. What genius thought of this? Balk...crack...HR...not. Again, not baseball. The pitcher can go to his mouth on the rubber, but must wipe his hocker off on his uniform, or it's a balk. See where I'm going? I guess I'm just a traditionalist.

The term "real baseball" is used by umpires or coaches as an ice breaker in pre-game conferences, and usually gets a laugh. "Coach, are we using high school rules today?", "No, Blue, we're playing real baseball." See? It's just an expression. When we sit around at our meetings discussing another rule change to the Fed, we grumble and gripe, and voice our displeasure with the sadists that come up with some of this stuff.
__________________________________________________ _________

Now then, this thread started by asking when all the rule errors in the OBR would get fixed, so everybody would be on the same page, without having to take out a loan for all the manuals needed to interpret the rules.

Ozzy answered my question, that it is MLB's resistence to change that is the culprit.

Then I said that the rule book had not changed much over the years. But then I did some research and discovered many changes to the rules.

Then I did a thing about the strike zone rule change of 1996. The only reason I knew this is because my "old faithful" rule book was a 1996 model. You know, that favorite rule book, with all the yellow highlights, and notes crammed in every margin. So, no, I don't have all of the rules memorized by number. I am not an OOO umpire. In fact, I usually let everyone else argue the rule first, then I speak up and give the correct answer. Or the wrong answer. But you know that.:D

Hmmm,
 

Steve:

I have posted this about a million times:

Fed makes rules for four reasons:

1) Player safety -- While the players might have made it through other leagues while learning the game FED recognizes two important factors: a) High school aged player run from 14 to 19 years old and there is a serious difference in the size of players in any one FED game and b) all FED plyers have parents which in turn have lawyers.

2) Player participation -- FED wants the "high school sports expereince" to be all it can be for as many children as possible. Additonal ways for players to enter, leave and reenter open more opportunity for all types of players.

3) Game Speed-up rules -- Now I don't know one umpire that is against shorter games. There is an issue that in some pocket areas of the United States 7 inning high school games take over 3 hours to play -- ON A REGULAR BASIS.

4) Weakest Link Umpire Rules -- Sorry but not all umpires have the same capabilities and conditioning. FED has attempted to make rules that require less and less judgment and less and less physical activity from umpires. Face it, they have no idea if Smitty will be able to cover a triple from "A" because of physical limitations.

Now Steve, you seem to put a lot of importance in your local association. You name drop continually of players that enventually become MLB guys.

I doubt seriously if San Diego is that much better than many of the areas where noted posters on this site work.

"If" names of players are so important to you, every time I write F3 (insert Jon Olrude or Greg Brock), every time I say F4 (insert Harold Reynolds), every time I say F2 (insert Tom Lapkin), every time I saw F6 (insert Kevin Stocker), every time I saw F5 (insert John Elway) . . . I think you get my drift.

You mentioned once that you had worked over 40 players that went on the MLB baseball . . . well I worked over 60 does that mean Portland and Seattle are better than your area . . . nope, it just means I am older.

WCB says he wants to call rules that he "sees in print" . . . he will not accept that the Interpretation Newsletter is official and that's fine . . . like the rules or not I will call FED games as they have asked them to be called.

Tee

<i>"You are being asked about the call by one of the most successful (but doggone really nice) coaches in the area. He isn't really mad but concerned that you are misapplying a rule. The coach wants to know where the rule is so he can look it up."</i>

I have news - the coach IS testing you. Don't fall for it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Quote:

No Garth, you are mistaken by many more than a couple years. In 1996, an official rule change took place in regards to the strike zone, to wit: "The Official Playing Rules Committee has adopted changes in Rule 2.00, Strike Zone, which are underlined. Rule 2.00 The Strike Zone is the area that is over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the mid-point between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determine from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." This changed from "the top of the knee." The mid-point for the upper limit had already previously been changed from the old "armpits" upper limit. I forget what year that was. By the way Garth, I didn't mean it changed every year, I meant it seemed like it was the only thing that ever changed. Steve [Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 17th, 2005 at 08:58 PM]

Forgive my memory lapse. My amazement that you might be suggesting that the strike zone changed annually moved me to post prior to putting my brain in gear.

I do find, interestingly, that a vast minority (is that an oxymoron?) of coaches, players and umpires do not have clue as to what the "hollow beneath the knee" refers to.

In case anyone cares, here's a history of the rule changes for the strike zone:

1996

The Strike Zone is expanded on the lower end, moving from the top of the knees to the hollow beneath the knees.

1988

The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

1969

The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the batter's armpits and the top of his knees when he assumes a natural stance. The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch.

1963

The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the top of the batter's shoulders and his knees when he assumes his natural stance. The umpire shall determine the Strike Zone according to the batter's usual stance when he swings at a pitch.

1957

A strike is a legal pitch when so called by the umpire which:

(a) is struck at by the batter and is missed;
(b) enters the Strike Zone in flight and is not struck at;
(c) is fouled by the batter when he has less than two strikes at it;
(d) is bunted foul;
(e) touches the batter as he strikes at it;
(f) touches the batter in flight in the Strike Zone; or
(g) becomes a foul tip. Note:
(f) was added to the former rule and definition.

1950

The Strike Zone is that space over home plate which is between the batter's armpits and the top of his knees when he assumes his natural stance.

1910

With the bases unoccupied, any ball delivered by the pitcher while either foot is not in contact with the pitcher's plate shall be called a ball by the umpire.

1907

A fairly delivered ball is a ball pitched or thrown to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that passes over any portion of the home base, before touching the ground, not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulder. For every such fairly delivered ball, the umpire shall call one strike.

An unfairly delivered ball is a ball delivered to the bat by the pitcher while standing in his position and facing the batsman that does not pass over any portion of the home base between the batsman's shoulder and knees, or that touches the ground before passing home base, unless struck at by the batsman. For every unfairly delivered ball the umpire shall call one ball.

1901

A foul hit ball not caught on the fly is a strike unless two strikes have already been called. Adopted by National League in 1901 and the American League in 1903.

1899

A foul tip by the batter, caught by the catcher while standing within the lines of his position is a strike.

1894

A strike is called when the batter makes a foul hit, other than a foul tip, while attempting a bunt hit that falls or rolls upon foul ground between home base and first or third bases.

1887

The batter can no longer call for a 'high' or 'low' pitch.

A (strike) is defined as a pitch that 'passes over home plate not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulders.

1876

The batsman, on taking his position, must call for a 'high,' 'low,' or 'fair' pitch, and the umpire shall notify the pitcher to deliver the ball as required; such a call cannot be changed after the first pitch is delivered.

High - pitches over the plate between the batter's waist and shoulders

Low - pitches over the plate between the batter's waist and at least one foot from the ground.

Fair - pitches over the plate between the batter's shoulders and at least one foot from the ground.

Re: Re: Well WCB....
 

. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

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.

You know where you can read the interpretation of this rule, you simply choose to dismiss it due to your personal beliefs.

3) I have called balks that required a chapter and verse to a manager with a degree in moronics. I've called it and had the guy come out to ask me to show him what the guy did wrong. Instead of acting like Marcel Marceau, I tell him what it was and if he wants to look up x-y-z, he can do it after the game is restarted. It shuts them up quickly when the guy in dark blue polyester knows what he's saying. Maybe you can't pull it off yet, but trust me, it works.,

You start out here by saying that you explain balks by chapter and verse. You finish this paragraph by saying you tell the manager what the pitcher did and to look up x-y-z.
Which is it? Do you explain it chapter and verse, or do you tell him to look it up?

4)Sometimes a simple look replaces a five minute rookie conversation.

Here again Windy, which is it? Should a rookie umpire just give a simple look, or should he give a five minute discertation on the rules? You said earlier that a rookie had better be able to explain himself and what rule he's enforcing. Now you are saying that a simple look will suffice.

Stop speaking in generalities

I pulled this little gem out of your post to remind you respectfully *NOT* to tell me what to say, or how to say it!
[/B][/QUOTE]


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 18th, 2005 at 11:30 AM]

Re: Hmmm,
 

Tee:

You forgot Jason Bay. Oh, and you saw Olerude as F3? F1 here.

Garth, great job! But my favorite rule change was in 1881, when the umpire could toss spectators for booing and hissing at him.:D

Tee, I'm sure you've posted many things millions of times, and I know you're sick of repeating yourself, but I've never seen this one, so it's new to me. I was merely giving my opinion on the subject. I, too, call the games according to the set of rules being used. That doesn't mean I have to like them. By the way, I said over 30 current or former MLB players, including a few old timers in adult semi-pro leagues. Maybe it isn't real cool to name-drop, but these were highlights in my otherwise bland life, so I tend to elevate their importance. My bad.

How old are the players in the Pony league? 13, 14 or so right?

So you know the players of these random teams well enough to call them by name when you eject them?

************

You like calling him safe and ejecting him over calling him out?

Say bottom of last inning, score is tied. Marcus is R3, and is trying to score after a caught fly ball to the outfield. F2 gets the ball well before Marcus is there. Marcus knows he will be out, his only chance is to plow over the catcher. He knocks the catcher over, is called safe and ejected. Who knows how bad the catcher got hurt.

In your Pony game, he is safe and ejected, but the game is over. So there is actually no penalty at all. In the Federation game, he is out, the run doesn't score. Shouldn't that be the way it is? How can you reward someone for running over the catcher?

Playing Devils Advocate, (God help us if this causes him to return to the board) look at it this way: since the offense - taking out the catcher - occurred after the runner safely, and without committing an offense, reached home, why should the run be taken away? Punish the offender for the offense and when the offense was committed.

Mr. Benham,

Suppose R3 crashed F2 prior to reaching the plate.

Under OBR, would you call him out because at the point of initiating the contact, he was ejected and no longer can score, or do you just disallow the run without calling him out?

Obviously I'm not talking about pure OBR, but youth league modified OBR with attempt to avoid rules.

Tim.

I would suppose, as it does in the example I discussed above, it would depend on the organization's rules.

I was hypothesizing about the rationale behind PONY's rule, not creating one.

My understanding is that there are organizations that would treat that scenario in different ways and, again, I could play devil's advocate for either way.

First, I had umpired Brian Giles in high school already, and know his parents quite well, and already knew Marcus from previous games. And, his dad was the coach. Also, when you are working high school, and there are scouts and representatives from major league teams in attendance, you tend to know who they are coming there to see. I know talent when I see it. It is an accepted fact that more pro ball players come from either Florida or California, than from any other state in the U.S. The fact that I mention a particular name of a player in my examples is my business. I certainly wouldn't mind if others listed the pro ball players that they officiated on the way up. I just makes one feel as though they may have had a very small role in that player's overall development. They may have learned a lesson, such as Marcus Giles may have on the day I ejected him. Now he probably wants to knock every catcher's teeth out when there is a play at the plate.:D

As far as that play at the plate goes, that is the way we were told to call it. Every league had different local rules, and this particular Pony league, at that time, said that the result of the play stands, but the offender is ejected. And ejected players could not play in their teams next game, so even if the play occurred on the last play of the game, the ejection had meaning. And, it was really pretty, if you like plays at the plate.;)

And, back in the Stone Age, when I played Pony league, we had no slide rules, or any other safety rules, Hell, our parents didn't even have to put us in seat belts in the car. Nobody gave two sh*ts about our safety in those days. Old School. Go play in the freeway. Children should be seen and not heard. You get the drift...

Are you refering to a FPSR violation? If not, why would the run not count if the the contact happened after the runner scored?

Most youth leagues have the rule that a malicious crash gets you ejected.

Legion also says that the runner should be called out, while LL (I think, I don't have a LL book) doesn't call him out. Therefore, on the last play of the game, there is no penalty for the LL runner who crashes into the catcher.

You must check whatever book you are using to find out.

There are official opinon, like the OBR casebook, authoritative opinion, like Roder and Evans and then who cares opinion like yours and mine. "Opinion" is not a dirty word. Since some rules are somewhat vague, it is opinion that carries the day. One needs to seek out the most authoritaive and accepted opinion available. When you do some homework, you'll find that many of the opinions of JEA and Roder had found their way into practice in MLB.

If it's good enough for MLB it should be good enough for OBR "amateur" baseball, unless of course you are working LL or some other league that expressly disagrees with Major League rules.

I believe the liklihood of a major rewrite diminishes each year. It is what it is. We can work with it or we can b!tch. I quit banging my head against the wall in my thirties.


[Edited by GarthB on Nov 18th, 2005 at 02:00 PM]

1. No.

2. Please re-read my post. I didn't say it wouldn't. I said it would.

Tim,

This is exactly what happened in my example. Giles took out the catcher, who was stradling home plate, in a solid-looking, ready to block the plate stance.

I don't have Giles ejected, until all playing action had ceased, so the run scored, under the prevailing rules that were being used.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 18th, 2005 at 02:00 PM]

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."

Re: Hmmm,
 

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

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.

Kaliix
 

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]

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

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.:D

Re: Kaliix
 

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.

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

Peter:

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

Re: Re: Well WCB....
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Quote:

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.

Thanks, I needed that...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue Quote: 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.

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.

Re: Thanks, I needed that...
 

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:

<blockquote>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.</blockquote>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.

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"?

I answered the questions honestly. Did you reciprocate?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Quote:

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 <i>without a novel</i>, 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

<blockquote><b>flag it or ignore it</b>.</blockquote>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.

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.

Ha Ha Ha!............
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Well WCB....
 

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).

Hmmm,
 

1) I have the 2006 FED Rule Book and Case Book.

2) I have never worked, nor would I ever work, a one man game.

T

BU56,
What is my screen name or would you like me to make something up for you from now on?

Has reading always been a puzzle to you? I said that I would probably call it the way Carl suggested. How many baseball tests have you taken in your life. Even the most scrutinized have problems with the way questions are posed. Unless I am there and witness the play, I am not going to say that I would absolutely call it one way or the other. Obviously you feel that you can answer any question at any time. I've read some of your answers and use them as therapy when I'm sad.

Carl changed the discussion to suit his needs. I do not have a problem with 8.2.3, I have a problem enforcing a rule interp that only appeared in a newsletter a decade ago. I have not deviated from my conviction. Further I gave an example that allows the umpire to put the onus on the offensive coaches for controlling confusing situations. I also said when and where I would enforce the Verbal Obstruction penalty.

I answered Carl's points individually and did it in the same manner we witness time and again on this board. Someone will say that a caught flyball is always an out and then another will say, not if it is caught out of play; not if the batter stepped out of the box; not if the catcher obstructed the batter and not if the pitcher balked before delivering it in high school. There are very few absolutes in baseball and even fewer in umpiring.

You are just as guilty of this and I'm sorry if the flowery prose (try using an original line) confused you. I try to write as an adult and don't like to couch my feelings. I have rarely denied an opponent a verbal battle but this is silly. Carl asked for my answer and when it tripped him up he changed the questions. When I answered those and they didn't fit his formula, he abandoned the effort. TAC knew better than to jump in here, but you still don't know how deep the water is. At least TAC understands that my answers were correct or he would have quoted them and bashed away. Where are JJ, Sal, Bob Jenkins, HHH, Garth or Rich? Those baseball minds love a good discussion and know how to point out errors when they see them. I only see a pretender who likes to prove himself on the internet rather than someone who has been in the trenches proving himself where it counts. You don't know me well enough to use my old nom de net and you haven't proved your mettle here either.

I suggest a remedial reading program and then you should attend umpire school. Try one that understands that some games are umpired by one umpire out of necessity. I work with two partners for 90% of my season. Occassionally we have a fourth member of the crew and I may grab a two man game for a coach I really like. But, just sixty miles from the Golden Dome, single man games abound in the Third City. I wouldn't want to work those games, but I applaud those that do. Stop for a minute and think about all of the guys you offended by your comment. Rookies shouldn't work alone...do you always have a partner, rook? Maybe your assignor is telling you something.

Garth is in Washington state where the head state FED clinican received an email from Hopkins last season specifically instructing that, with a runner on a base, if a fielder yells "back, back" and it impacts the play, obstruction shall be called per FED 2-22-1.

That's where Garth is.

He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved.

Also, he's had an adverse reaction to some tetracycline for the past three days and one stomach ache is enough.

Fair enough WWTB
 

1) Let's talk about your screen name and mine. You're the one who had come back to this board under a new assumed identity. I was the first one to figure out that it was the old WCB back under a new alias. This must have really bothered you that a low life like me, who by your account has limited reading skills, was able to ferret you out. I on the other hand, use one moniker on at least five umpiring boards. I'm not afraid of my convictions, and I have no need to hide behind multiple aliases. When I'm wrong, I have no problem with being corrected by someone with more knowledge than I have, as long as they do it in an informative polite manner. You my friend, are simply unable to help anyone out without insulting them with your underlying rude comments. The primary reasons I frequent these boards are to learn from others, and to enjoy a little camaradarie with other baseball officilials from around the country. You come here to lord your writing skills over anyone who has a view on a topic contrary to your own. You very seldom answer a question directly. You have a knack for skirting the heart of the question by trying to show everyone how smart you think you are. Let me give you one example of your condesending remarks. I made a post about the proper mechanic for the miss of homeplate. I kicked it badly, and I'm not afraid to admitt that I did. The first thing you said in your response to me was, "do you own a television?"
That comment was uncalled for. It would imply that I'm either too poor to afford a television, or that maybe my religous beliefs kept me from owning a television, or that I must be an ignorant hick who doesn't understand what a television is, or whatever. You could care less if I own a television, so why ask the question if it was not for the purpose of being a smart @$$?

2)I will stand by my comment about rookie umpires working solo. They shouldn't be on the diamond without an experienced partner to learn from. You should know why they need a partner if your the umpire you claim to be. They need to be trained by someone on the field. A few clinics on rules and field mechanics does not an umpire make. If they're out there alone, they're developing bad habits with no one to correct them, or help them handle sticky situations. If your association want's to throw them to the wolves, so be it. My association will not do it. If they can't come up with the $$$ for a two man, thay can get a "daddy" to work their J/V and Frosh games. If I offended anyone in making this statement I apologize. You may wan't to consider getting your association to have the jewels to put an end to this treatment, unless of course the schools are willing to pay enough, and you just don't want to split the money two ways.


Tim.

One Man Games
 

To both Tims,

One-man games in large urban areas such as the one I live in are very commonplace. There are simply way too many games that need coverage to always provide two officials. While some leagues request only one umpire, many request two, but on occasion, we can only provide one. When I first began umpiring in 1986, about 90% of my first year games were solo jobs. My very first baseball (I had already worked basketball and softball) game was a LL Majors game that I worked alone.

Our association has a good training program, with classroom instruction and field clinics. However, when I started, it was already April, so I just jumped in after one meeting and started working. I convinced the assignor that I could handle it, and I did just fine.

Tee, what would you have done back in the days where the umpire wore a top hat and tails, and sat perched on a tall stool? One-man mechanics, buddy.:D

and,
 

. . . as stated above I have never, nor will I ever, work a one man game.

T

The other stuff is just blah, blah, blah...you'll never get it. As Steve Martin said in Planes, Trains and Automobiles - "Here's a little suggestion, next time...have a point."

But...

"1) Let's talk about your screen name and mine. You're the one who had come back to this board under a new assumed identity. I was the first one to figure out that it was the old WCB back under a new alias."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you register to use this board, you have to choose a name. My old screen name was unavailable as it had been locked out. I had to choose another one in order to use this board. Have you ever been tested for Mensa? I believe you are showing a rare intelligence on this site.

Secondly, in my first few posts, I said that it was good to be back as I belong in the fray. The malicious contact and VO calls are ones I have debated on this board for a longer time than you have been around. Welcome to the party.

Lastly, don't pat yourself on the back. I pretty much gave it away with my writing style and direct approach to the issue. They are dead giveaways compared to your powerful command of our mother tongue. You'll recall that I even chastised Carl for taking so long to welcome me back. Celebrating the fact that you think you "outed" me is akin to buying that blow up doll you covet - hollow and I imagine, utterly unsatisfying. You'll probably disagree, but that is expected.

Re: and,
 

Tee, I recall that you've said you've worked 3000 plus games in your life. I work 125 games a year and my assignor fines and/or fires umpires who show up late or fail to show up for game. Yet, at least once a year, I end up working one game or part of a game by myself if for no other reason than my partner got stuck in traffic or was in an accident. I've had two games in the last three years where my partner got injured and I had to finish the game myself. So my question is: How have you been so lucky that for 3000 games you've never had a partner fail to show? Never show up late? Never get injured? That seems to be a remarkable run of good luck. This year I had a double header by myself when my partner failed to show. The assignor fired him, but I still got to work those games myself. Yuk, two plate games in 90 degree heat.

Garth,

I can see it now, coaches that read that will start teaching their athletes to yell "Back" and then dive to the base. Unpires from norhern Indiana to southern California will award third base on a play that couldn't possibly witness.

The only saving grace is that some states are smart enough to use the clause on Page 1 of the rule book. Hopkins' alleged directive to that interpreter can be dismissed by any sensible association.

I'm now reminded why I despise umpiring High School baseball. The shallow minds that come up with these rules justify their very existence with gems like "tobacco like substance". Then even simpler minds enforce this for Big League Chew. The game deserves better than what that man has done. Thankfully, a few Baseball Committee members share my feelings and control associations.

We don't assign many solo games around here, but they happen more with the lower level. That is mostly rookie level baseball and the new guys get their share of bad things. It toughens them up and makes them better. When they do get to step up to better games, they are some of the best plate umpires we see. They know that they have to focus and then move. I worked a lot of solo games when I was coming up. It made me understand the game more and I didn't have to rely on someone else to learn ow to make a tough call.

I've read the exchanges between Carl Childress and WhatWuzThatBlue and the ones between BigUmp56 and WhatWuzThatBlue and can't figure out why this is going on. If you don't agree with what he is thinking don't change the topic. Be fair about it and admit that he answered those questions and made you look silly. BigUmp56 made a comment about rookie umpires and still insists that he is right even though many of us know it to be wrong. Our association doesn't dictate how many umpires it will provide, we supply what they'll pay for. It has nothing to do with being a man. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that to all of us that umpire. Those comments belong on McGriffs. I can't believe that you wrote those things.

"The other stuff is just blah, blah, blah...You'll never get it."


No, WWTB the other stuff you're reffering to is not just blah, blah, blah... It is a known fact that your arrogant condescending attitude is what got you banned the last time, and will eventually get you banned again. You define what an internet troll is. You wait to pounch on people with your negative rude comments, and then anxiously wait for them to reply so you can once again attempt to lord your superior self indulged intellect over them. You sit at a keyboard and fill yourself up with a sense of false bravado. You thrive on controversy, as if it was lifes blood to you.

Here are some thoughts on what an internet troll is. Lets just see how much of it applies to you.

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.


Is any of this hitting home yet? Lets talk about your need for affirmation.

Regular net users know how delightful it is when somebody responds to something they have written. It is a meeting of the minds, which is an intellectual thrill, but it is also an acknowledgement of one's value — and that can be a very satisfying emotional reward.

Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.

If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.

There's no need for you to reply WWTB. I'm done with you for now. You should remember though that I've never insulted you personally like you've insulted me. You are one classless individual, and all troll to be sure.

Tim.

Bob,
 

I have worked over 3,700 games and have never started or ended a game working as a one man band.

If I arrived at my game and no 2nd umpire arrived I would follow the process of my association and call our assigner. I would inform him of the problem and ask how long it would be until a subs arrived. If there was no sub I would cancel the game.

If my partner was injured during the game I would ask if there was anyone present that could umpire the bases. If there was no one I would suspend the game at that point and let the league decide what to do.

Pete,

I'm sorry if you took personnal offense to my comment. I would like to point out to you that I never said anything about a solo umpire not being a man. Please don't misrepresent my comments. I fully understand now that some of your associations may not have the man power to cover these games with all two man crews. I respect the fact that you need to work under the conditions agreed to by your association.

Just because I understand why you have to work games solo does not change the fact that I disagree with that policy. That's my perogative. Do you really feel that working games solo is a good thing? Accepted, maybe, but good? How do you expect your rookie umpires to learn the nuances of working the bases, if they're always behind the plate? Do you really think you're doing a service to the game by working solo?
What about working both ends of a run down? Balls out of play? Trouble catches deep in the outfield while trying to see the tag? Check swings? The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point I'm making.

Again, my comment about pick up games was in response to WWTB claiming to have seen games where farm equipment needed to be moved to get onto the field. I still think that was his way of diverting the subject and throwing out a bunch of bull in a weak attempt to prove a point.

Please don't tell me my opinions belong on McGriffs just because they conflict with your own. I've said nothing rude or profane on the subject. My opinions are just as good as yours.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 19th, 2005 at 07:43 PM]

You know much about trolling yet very little about umpring. Most of the things you come up with are the result of search engine use. I base my opinions on twenty five years of calling the game at all but the highest level. I believe you mentioned that you just started umpiring High School baseball recently.

The reason I was banned was because I chose to cross a line. I purposely ignored a private directive from Brad and paid the penalty. You have been wrong about so many things it is laughable. I have conducted myself with integrity since my return. If you feel that my tone is condescending then you have an inferiority issue.

Instead of writing rebuttals so quickly, take the time to proof them. Then ask someone who actually understands the game to check your facts. Even others are noticing your hypocrisy and need for attention. I come here to debate, teach and learn. When you have a real question about the game, post it. Otherwise, you are looking like many of those McGriffs guys you claim aren't you.

This started out as a great discussion about coming up with one book that could help all umpires. A few of you started talking about particular plays and then turned it personal. One of you made the accusation that rookies shouldn't work alone and that groups should have the jewels to demand otherwise. That sounds like something from McGriffs.

I know I will take heat for this but WWTB usually has some insight that helps me. If you have a personal axe to grind with him then you should do it elsewhere. This is an umpiring board and you have turned it into a zoo. I do not accept your apology when you say that you still mean it. I have a solo game next week. I guess I'm not worthy of your approval because I am taking a winter league game when most of the umpires around here are reffing basketball.

Re: Bob,
 

Tee:

The schools in your area must have a lot bigger baseball/travel budget than the ones in mine.

Brownsville Hanna plays Rio Grande City at Rio. That's 200 miles, round trip. Game starts at 7:30 pm, Tuesday night.

One umpire shows. The nearest umpire (actually) is 50 miles away in Mission. Even if one can be located quickly, that game wouldn't start until 9:00.

Options:

1. Cancel the game. Unacceptable. It would cost the Brownsville school district about $$300 (gas/driver) to bring the team back to Rio. There would be another meal (18 kids at $5.00 each).

2. Wait for the other umpire. Unacceptable. A game that starts at 9:00 a hundred miles from home (plus stop time for supper) puts the kiddos home around 2:30 - if all goes well at the game.

3. Coaches come and say: "Carl, will you start the game? You can call it behind the mound."

I'm calling that game. As I have.

Exigent circumstances require swift, decisive action.

"Play!"

WWTBlue,

I thought you told us you had over thirty-five years of umpiring (in your back pocket, as I recall), not twenty-five? Is that a misprint? What do you mean when you say Tim should "proof" his posts? Do you mean for spelling errors? If so, I have seen several in your latest posts, but chose not to be real picky. Spelling and neatness don't count against our grade here, Professor.

Pete,
 

Please join the list with WCB and yrs trly as the three most pompous posters on this site.

T

Pete,

I will gladly discuss this away from the board with both you and Windy. All you'll need to do is accept e-mails from this forum. Others who have not wanted to join in the fray have contacted me away from the board. Why don't you do the same. Just click on my mail button at the end of this post.

I've never said that you're wrong for working solo, or that umpires that work solo are sub par. I guess I'm just lucky that my association had the jewels to insist that our schools pay for two man crews. If you feel that you can do a better job by yourself in a game, then more power to you. Let me point out to you that my comments regarded rookie umpires working solo. Unless you're a rookie, or an assignor who assigns rookies to work solo, the comment shouldn't bother you. The first thing you said in the first post you made in this thread was that you don't assign many solo games in your association. That implies that your association assigns at least a two man whenever possible, because it's the best thing to do. So, solo games would be a last resort. Maybe it's you who needs to go back and read what you posted previously.

Let me retract my apology to you, as it seems you're not being objective enough to know that working solo as opposed to working a two man is not the best thing to do.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 20th, 2005 at 01:05 AM]

Tim,
Did you just accuse me of being pompous? All I did was point out that the same guys that argue with WWTB or WCB are at it again. They don't even read what they are saying. You have to admit that WWTB or WCB answered every question while they constantly changed the subject. Maybe they are just trying to bait him but it doesn't look like it is working. If you did not accuse me of being pompous I apologize. I'm new here and just thought I'd point out the obvious.

Okay Pete,

Since I started this thread, I can address this, I think.

First, we determined about 4 pages back, that coming up with all the interps in one book was not going to happen any time soon. The subject then changed to pretty much....anything goes. I don't mind. It's my thread. I can end it at any time. Or the moderator will take care of it if it looks like it's out of control. This site is nothing like the cesspool of crud that is the one you continue to mention. That place does not need advertisement from this board.

Second, WWTB enjoys arguing back and forth, as do many others here. He has a way of irritating some of us. We all have thoughts and opinions about the game, and we all can learn from each other. Sometimes WW comes off in his writing as sounding condescending and trite. BigUmp and I are not the only ones who notice this. So, we all need to play nicely together in the sandbox, and learn to respect each other.

By the way, BigUmp isn't the only one who doesn't like the idea of working solo. Mr. Tee dislikes the idea even more, yet I haven't heard you mention it to him yet.

Okay, I'll admit that several of you are making the rest of us irritated with your comments about working solo being beneath you or a place that rookies should never go. I would rather see a rookie cut his teeth in the lower levels than make mistakes in games that mean much more.

Your comment about playing nice only counts if you do the same. Big Ump and you are constantly taking shots because he can write better than you. I don't find his way of writing to be condescending but maybe because I have a law degree and teach for a living. I'm used to people speaking and writing well. I'm not taking sides here but it seems that you are being hypocritical if you think that I mention the other site more than Big Ump. He is always putting it down. Is that condescending and feeling superior?

Hehehehe,
 

"I don't find his way of writing to be condescending but maybe because I have a law degree and teach for a living."

Thanks for proving my point Pete.

~SIGH~ Somethings come too easily.

Tee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pete in AZ

Quote:

Okay, I'll admit that several of you are making the rest of us irritated with your comments about working solo being beneath you or a place that rookies should never go. Your comment about playing nice only counts if you do the same. Big Ump and you are constantly taking shots because he can write better than you. I don't find his way of writing to be condescending but maybe because I have a law degree and teach for a living. I'm used to people speaking and writing well.

Pete,

Tee and BigUmp are the only ones who mentioned solo games. Nobody said solo games were beneath them. I, like you, disagree that solo games are not for rookies. I am into my 20th season, and still work some one-man-band. "Harvey" is often my partner. It pays more bucks, so I say "hey, why not?" If you read my posts, you know that. Why do people's opinions irritate you? Are you that easily bothered by comments? This is a forum, and ideas are freely expressed. Should we stop because something irritates you.?

I do play nice. You have to really piss me off before I say anything derogatory. Go back and read my posts. I never fire the first shot across the bow. As far as WWTB writing better than me, puhleeeeeeze. You need to step away from the crack pipe, dude. Yeah, I guess that your law degree would keep you from knowing condescending when you see it. I went to college too, so your degree impresses me little. I am happy for you, but that's all.

Steve (did you hear that, Tim? We is juz a cupple a dum hicks that don no nuthin! Weez e-litert!)

<b>"I don't find his way of writing to be condescending but maybe because I have a law degree and teach for a living."</b>

Wow. It's amazing how little an advanced education provides sometimes.

First: the sentence structure. Eighth grade level at best.

Secondly, consider the pure irony, and yes I am using the word correctly, not to mention the conceit of writing a condescending sentence to explain why you don't find something condescending.

Their independence will be tested severely when this becomes a POE, nation-wide. Granted, there are some rules states may opt out of with no penalty. But there are others that come with a price. Washington is paying that price in basketball. We lost our seat at the table at FED (for basketball) for as long as we continue to not be in compliance.

Re: Bob,
 

In my current residence (WI), no high school game can begin with less than 2 umpires. One doesn't show up, we don't play.

--Rich

Re: Re: Bob,
 

In many areas, including mine, it has become a "safety" issue. That was the reason given for even subvarsity games to require two umpires.

But even better, AAA legion is three man.

It never ceases to amaze me. You took one sentence out of context, just like you did to WWTB. I said that I didn't find his way of writing to be condescending because I teach and have a law degree. I am surrounded by people who try to impress each other all day. I teach pre-law and enjoy not having to hear and see preening attorneys before the bench. I never said that I was smarter or more literate. I simply pointed out that his style doesn't bother me - Tim C. and Garth's do. It is nice to know that your strength is in putting people down rather than adding to the conversation. WWTB's famous verbal obstruction call post was a couple of weeks ago yet Garth never added his opinion. Even though he now says he disagrees with the Fed ruling; where was your post to say what you thought back then? It is so much easier to sit on the side and put others down when they make a stand. I tried to be diplomatic but I now see why some people find the bot of you to be arrogant. You put down others for picking on grammatical errors, then do it yourselves. I'll borrow a line you seem fond of. "~sigh ~"

Pete:

I think you misread Garth's post. Here's what he said, speaking of himself in the third person: "He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved."

More importantly, it would be helpful if you'll quote a line or two of the person to whom you are replying. That way, we can figure out who's about to get trounced.

As it were.

Hehehehe,
 

Poor Pete:

"Okay, I'll admit that several of you are making the rest of us irritated with your comments about working solo being beneath you or a place that rookies should never go."

OK, another side of being pompous is to make statements using the royal "us" or "we". I don't think you have actually caught the feelings of the "other posters" in the thread and I am darn sure none of them have given you the approval to state their feelings for them.

---------------------

"I teach pre-law . . . "

We know, we know and if you keep telling us it becomes a WOBW.

---------------------

" . . . because I am taking a winter league game when most of the umpires around here are reffing basketball."

AGAIN, now your pomposity shows through as being a geographical area snob.

Pete, you take things waaaay too seriously.

Especially yourself.

Love and Kisses,

Tee

PS:

Pete, we know from previous points that you agree with WCB on the "FED verbel obstruction" so you are rather transparent in some of your points.

<i> Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve </i>

<b> have been reading old archived discussions about incorporating PBUC, Jaska/Roder, and Jim Evans interpretations into the OBR book in the future.

My question is.....WHEN? </b>

For the majority of us amateur umpires it really doesn't matter what MLB does, because we do not use PURE OBR rules anyway.

In addition, the OBR rule-book is boring. When I first started umpiring I did not think I would be umpiring for long because I fell asleep during the rules portion. The instructor put in a tape, turned off the lights and the next thing I knew someone was waking me up.

IMO, the majority of us learn through examples and that's what the reference materials do for us. They EXPLAIN the rules using examples.

Also, even if MLB does in fact re-write the rule-book it still has to go through the players association. MLB is a DIFFERENT game. Case and point:

About 5 yrs ago or there abouts, MLB issued a memo to the umpires to start calling more balks because they felt F1's were getting away with too much. In the forst 6 months of that year more balks were called then in the previous year.
The players association got involved and basically said "this is OUR game and go back to the old way of calling things" if you want to umpire in OUR league.

In summary, for the majority of us, the MLB rule book is a moot point. For me personally Papa C's book is a great source because I call ball using more than one rule code.

Most leagues even Legion uses a FPSR and a No Malicious Contact rule. No matter what MLB does I do not think they will adopt SAFETY rules which most of us are used to.

The interpretations that matter most are what the NCAA writes and the FED writes because those rule codes are what we as amateurs deal with on a daily bases.

The problem is in leagues that "borrow" the OBR rule-book and try and apply it to the amateur game. It's like oil and water - they do not mix.

The materials that you quoted are reference materials that explain the rules. No matter what is written there will always be some "grey areas" that we rely on expert opinions.

Pete Booth

Pete,

I feel the same way about Fed rules. Boring, and other than the safety rules, nutty. Some of the rules seem like the committee was on acid when they came up with them.

Nearly every amateur league out here uses the OBR. They modify one playing rule, the "no malicious contact" rule.
They never mention a FPSR. Pony Baseball, which has been around since 1953, has always used "The Sporting News Rules" since its inception. Of course, the parts of the rules concerning professional baseball only, are not enforced. Nobody enforces the fraternization rule, or Rule 1.16, or any other rule designed for the pros. They modify the technical rules to fit the age groups, and their amateur status.

We work the CIF High School season from March through the end of May, with the playoffs spilling into the first week of June. After that, we work exclusively OBR for the rest of the year, except for any Coaches Winter or Summer League high school games, for which, of course, we use Fed rules. We often have a group of kids in a Coaches League game on Tuesday, and have the same kids in a Colt or Palomino game on Thursday. They have to know the rule differences too. Many times it gets confusing to the players and coaches. I've had to explain why the ball was still alive on a balk after a base hit, or why the pitcher couldn't go to his mouth on the rubber. It goes with the territory.

But we don't choose the rules these leagues use. The leagues choose which rules to play by, and we just have to deal with it.

The second and third paragraphs of the Foreword of the OBR states:

"We recognize that many amateur and non-professional organizations play their games under professional rules, and we are happy to make our rules available as widely as possible. It is well to remember that specifications as to fields, equipment, etc. may be modified to meet the needs of each group.

Money fines, long-term suspensions and similar penalties imposed by this code are not practical for amateur groups, but officers and umpires of such organizations should insist on strict observance of all rules governing the playing of the game."

Other than the "slide or avoid" rule, we do.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Nov 20th, 2005 at 11:40 AM]

I object your honor. Learned supposed counselor is misprepresenting the facts.

Fact: I never said I disagree with the FED ruling. If the alleged attorney for the dense would be willing to supply testimony to the contrary, I should love to hear it.

Pete: Don't I wish you were right!

In fact, the rule change occurred in 1988 and was in place for one year until the player's union voted it down.

The rule was "complete and discernible balk," and the umpires called, as you indicated, twice as many balks.

But at my age, I cetainly wish 1988 was "about five years ago."

So, you really <i>don't</i> read my posts! (grin)

Four posts above I wrote: Pete: I think you misread Garth's post. Here's what he said, speaking of himself in the third person: "He has stayed out of this mess not because he diagrees with Mr. Hopkins or the rule, but because he recognizes the futility in affecting the opinion of any of the parties involved."

I liked <i>Alibi Ike</i>, too. And I almost saw it in its first season. I did not know Joe E. Brown played minor league ball.

Uh, Carl....who are you talking to?

Carl, you did mean to say "complete and discernable stop," am I correct?

Well, now that I think about it....