WindyWhoHa suggested I didn't know that a coach could be in the coaching box in a wheelchair. Of course, I did. Here was my short reply to WhoeverHeIs. I thought it should be a separate topic since the new subject might piques more interst than a rehash of who calls what and when.

To What's His Name:

I take extreme umbrage (no grin) to you suggesting I didn't know a coach could be in a wheelchair in the coaching box.

When such a coach was on my field, I made damned sure he kept both <i>feet</i> inside the box.

I wanted to be able to tell the court I kept him where he was supposed to be during live action. Luckily, he never had to wheel out of the way to make room for a fielder to glove a pop up or chase an errant throw, or the pitcher to back up third, or ....

If I had the power, I would relegate "physically disadvantaged coaches" (the ones I considered to be a danger by their presence on the field) to the dugout.

That may not please people connected with the ADA, but it would clearly make those at OSHA happy.

While we're discussing a handicapped or "physically disadvantaged" coach, I'd like to get some opinions on a situation that came up this last summer at the Cooperstown Dreams Park.

During one of the week long tournaments there, an umpire was calling games from a wheelchair. This brought rise to an issue that goes deeper than the sport of baseball in my opinion. The main questions were, can he do his job effectively, and even if he can, is he putting the players at a higher risk of injury.

I can certainly see the downside of allowing this, but I don't see how it could be stopped, or even if it should be stopped for that matter.

Any thought's?

Tim.

i remember when this was posted on the ABUA site, and i still feel the same about it. i dont think it should happen unless the guy can do every single thing that another able-bodied (i think that the term they use) umpire can do. if he can get from A into position at 2B on a base hit to the outfield then props to him, keep the uniform. if he has any trouble getting into position or getting out of the way, i think its time to hang it up.

it may not be the popular opinion, but this is a job that must be done the right way every time, no slack for anyone including the disabled. i think its great that the guy is staying active and wants to be a part of the action, but i think hes getting too close (unless of course he can do the job properly, then i take this back).

You actually started a thread to tell us that you know a rule? Isn't that what your BRD is? Somewhere, Brad has to be grimacing at this latest attempt at recovered vanity.

That's why you needed a separate thread to make yourself feel good. 'Attaboy, old feller, you done good...really good. (more of a chuckle than a grin).

Good Lord, anyone with a rule book or search engine could have taken the few hours you needed to pen that tripe. Of course you knew it...

Carl,

What are you saying? Don't you realize that everyone in the ADA and the ACLU will hunt you down like a "dawg"?

Well, they can hunt me down too. Wheelchairs, crutches and canes have no place on the field during play. I am also not too keen on artificial limbs on the baseball field. I am not against the handicapped but I don't want to see a player collide with a coach in a wheelchair!

By the way Windy, we umpires can be on the field with handicapped apparatus (per FED)! Now ain't that a kick in the butt!

You are clearly the most obnoxious prick on the internet baseball forums.

This question was on the 1996 state test. I have them all for the last 30 years. Before that, we used the NFHS test.
I had nothing to do with writing the state test though that won't be true starting in 2006.

The state key had one answer; I had another.

I asked only that umpires tell me which answer the thought was correct.

I noted you attempted no answer. Are you too big a coward to give us <i>your</i> call if such a situation happened?

Incidentally, the man who wrote test is Dotson Lewis. He lives in Corpus Christi, now that he's retired as executive director of the state officials organization.

Why not give him a call and the "tripe" on his test? Before we hired him out of retirement, he was an officer in the US army. Quite a guy this fellow: black belt in the old style of karate.

Big,
Were you at that week at CDP? If so, what bunk? I was in 32B. I saw the umpire in question work behind the plate and it was something to behold! He was a really good umpire. Good zone, great confidence, etc.

It was a joy to watch him work and by the way, he looked damn good out there too! Doing something most of us would just give up on, he was out there busting his *** and honestly, better dressed and looking more like an umpire than some umpires with all their mobility.

Sadly, I dont remember the gentleman's name but he will always have a special place in my umpiring life.

God bless him and all of his family.

No mirrors in the house, Carl?

What question do you want me to answer? Would I allow a coach in a wheelchair to do his job? Yes, the Fed rule book allows for it. If you are worried about a lawsuit, I wonder why you even take the field.

Are you asking if I make a coach keep both feet in the box? I believe I said that during my pregame, I tell them to stay where they belong unless they want to talk with me. That means to stay in the dugout or the coaching box and not delay the game. Rarely have I had to put my hand up and tell a coach to get back to where he belongs. I thought I was clear.

I loved the Lewis biography. He sounds like an interesting fellow. At your age living vicariously is just sad. I still don't know what he has to do with you not knowing about a simple Fed rule, but I digress. How could I attribute the word 'tripe' to him, when you were the one that wrote that ridiculous response? I didn't even know the man existed until you brought him into the mess and tried to pass the buck.

It's okay, you didn't know about the difference in baseball size for Fed apparently either. See what it is like when people put words in your mouth.

[Edited by WhatWuzThatBlue on Nov 28th, 2005 at 08:46 PM]

Carl,

I knew you knew. This was a hot topic back in 2001 when the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA could not deny Casey Martin the use of a cart on the course.

It was debated over and over on the public Forums and UT.

Is the correct answer B or C? Rational for your answer would be helpful.

Oz, does that include that seeing-eye dog you've been using? :D

No, BT I wasn't there. The subject came up earlier this year on two other forums. This thread just reminded me of it.

It's nice to hear the skinny straight from the horses mouth though. I'm glad to hear you felt he was a competent official in spite of his limitations.

Tim.

The batter pops up foul directly toward the screen. F2 turns his back to the plate and goes for the ball, which is drifting to his left, just inches from the screen. I'd be interested in seeing U1 cover that play from a wheelchair.

Of course, in a two- or three-man crew he could never call plays at third except via long distance. In a 4-man crew if the third-base umpire goes out, do the umpires rotate counter-clockwise? If so, that means U2 will have plays at first <i>and</i> second.

An umpire with a prosthesis can do the job. I know: I've worked with one.

The FED, as CYA, allow umpires using "mobility devices" to work. The mind boggles!

I'm sorry, but a guy in a wheelchair just can't do what an umpire must do.

We all <i>know</i> that. Judges who never umpired may not.

Thank goodness we have only a few self-centered individuals who think their gratification is more important than the players or the integrity of the game.

B or C... what? Are you referring to a nine year old test from Texas and want to know what I would answer? Does anyone else have that test in front of them, or just the King of Charades?

Give me the question and I will be happy to comply. You probably won't like the answer or will make up some crap about how you argued that same point but we're both wrong. At least I have the stones to answer your questions.

I still don't believe you had a clue about what led to this discussion. You've provided another non sequitor to bail your behind out of the drowning pool. We are now discussing whether or not an umpire should be allowed to call the game from a wheel chair? This had nothing to do with whether or not a coach could be in the box in a wheel chair.

You really can't be this daft, but you are making it appear so.

WhatWuzThatBlue,

Yes, he is asking "B" or "C" about the 1996 Texas exam question that everyone else has been answering. It is located on the Obstruction or Interference thread. The only post you made on that thread was to actually agree with Carl about a point he had made. You never really answered the question as to what your opinion was.

I'm pretty sure you know what Carl meant by the question. So instead of a big, long tirade on how daft you believe him to be, why not just answer the question in the other thread and be done with it?

Yup! I have him urinate on the coach's legs when they come out to argue a call. :D

My God, that's what this is about? I posted something on another thread and the query ends up here? So much for tangental thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a question from the 1996 Texas state umpires' exam.

The runner from second is advancing on a hit when he is obstructed by the third baseman. The runner then trips over the third base and, as he rises, is pushed toward home by the head coach. The umpire will rule:


A. The obstruction balances out the interference. Let the play stand.
B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.
C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.
D. Call the runner out and kill play immediately.

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

You said that you don't use the NFHS test, and the NCAA and Pros aren't testing Texans like this, so I'll assume that Fed rules apply.

I go with C. His obstruction protection is terminated when he voluntarily passes the base he would have been awarded. As he had not reached third, my award would have been just that base. Nowhere did I read that the obsruction caused him to trip over the base. Since Carl has a problem with me saying probably and I didn't actually see the play, I'll go with my instincts that the obstruction was not related to him tripping. He was greedy and jeopardized his safety by trying to advance. The coach affected the outcome of this play. I would not ignore the assistance any more than I would ignore the obstruction. Wait until playing action ceases and call 'Time'. Call the runner out for interference and take a deep breath. The coach that will be yelling is the same one who caused the out, so his interest is vested. I usually let them vent for a while, when the steam rises it gets cooler.

There, my cards are on the table and I'm waiting to see the flop. I didn't really think this was a trick as much as fly sh*t in the pepper. I would suggest that the NFHS test might have been a better tool if this was a prime example.

Vested interests? By God am I on an umpire forum or back in a first year law school class? :)

I'm not sure, but good luck with the Bar. They say the first two years are a walk in the park compared to the last. From what I've noticed, this Forum is not keen on lawyers; just ask Pete and cb.

I'm sorry if the adult language puzzled you. In a couple of years, you'll be able to write well too. (Yes, SDS and Tim, that was intended.)

I learned something new by reading this thread

Whatever content filters you guys use allows prick, but does not allow ****, *******, *** or *****.

Interesting.

That's because, as George Carlin says, those are "two-way" words. Example:

You can prick your finger, but you can't finger....

Thanks for the clarification.

Now I'll teach you something: if your friend Dotson Lewis truly has a black belt in a martial art he would sooner die than use it to defend himself in a verbal sparring match about baseball rules.

I understand: karate is a defensive martial art. But Dotson is also a hot-tempered little p....

Maybe he's a little prick because he's compensating for his little prick?

Anyways, the adults that attain a black belt generally lose whatever inadequacies they bring to the game, along with the major symptom of hot-headedness.

Not always though. The remainders are called *** holes.

edit to say:

But I doubt he's truly an *** hole. You're merely painting him that way, imo. Wonder why that is?

Oh, I see. I didn't catch your tone. Stupid of me.

You wrote: "You're merely painting him that way, imo. Wonder why that is?"

Since you don't know him and had probably never heard of him, imo, wonder why that's any of your business.

Maybe it's not any of my business.

Just curious that you would use this other person's standing as a retired Army officer & holder of a black belt to imply a physical threat to a fellow poster. On the other hand I do read what you post here and you represent this e'zine as editor....so maybe I'm entitled to my idle curiosity.

In any event I still don't believe a retired Army officer and holder of a black belt would be a certified *** hole, call me naive. But as you say...it's none of my business.

Maybe.

Dan,

I was in the Army many moons ago, and I am 100% sure that there are many retired officers who are certified *** holes. They sure were when they were active duty. I'm fairly certain that black belts are not immune from that distinction either.

Oh, I'm not saying officers are immune from being *** holes. Not at all. And there are black belts that are *** holes I am sure, I just don't know any personally (yes, I do know more than my fair share). But I am willing to give Carl's friend the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not a lapdog who attacks on Carl's command. Contrary to what Carl very strongly implied. That's all I'm saying.

You weren't the only one that thought he was none too subtle with that tidbit. I laughed it off like most of his attempts to discourage, dissuade or dodge. [Hey 3 Ds...that means you can still play football for Miami!]

Who cares who authored the test [or that he didn't structure it in a Carl approved fashion]? That question and answers were similar to what you see a couple times a year on a Fed test and at least once on the annual NCAA examination. It's frustrating but that's umpiring.

How long before we see an 1,800 word article on this exercise in futility? Third world plays don't ruin careers. Most veterans have had a head scratcher or two. Second guessing the guy making the call is part of our nature. We've done it with the WS, CWS, LLWS and local rec games. You can spend a lifetime preparing for one of these but that is a waste of time. Worry about the bread and butter calls - those make and break careers!

Hooray,
 

For WCB . . . a guy who "gets it." Finally.

TWPs are a huge waste of bad width and association time.

If an umpire concentrates on fair/foul, ball/strike and safe/out their umpire career will rocket past all those poor souls who actually worry about the answer of any TWP.

Hooray WCB, maybe this site will leave the personal battle fields betwix two posters, the wasteful time of Little League issues and get back to discussions that actually improve umpires that work games of players of shaving age.

Re: Hooray,
 

I agree up to a point, Tim. TWPs that never happen are a waste of bandwidth. However, TWPs that happen now and then are bad news for the unprepared umpire. Just ask Doug Eddings. At his level, it's assumed that he can handle the routine stuff like balls and strikes or safes and outs. It's the once a year situation that got him in trouble. Those kinds of TWPs are well worth discussing.

Oh, BTW, I strongly agree that LL situations are a waste of bandwidth.

Eddings,
 

Well Eddings's play was not a TWP by any means. It was poor mechanics and an example of what happens when a umpire group tries to distract people from what really happened.

TWPs and "what ifs" are a WOBW.

Of course that is only my opinion. Give me a TWP play anytime over some over dramatic, bleeding heart, pity me type articles.

T

I can think of a few dozen articles that would fit your criteria, as well. By the way, 'Finally.' is not only inapproporiate as a response, but shows me that you truly don't know much about what I've written. I've oft said that this is a very simple game, done in by too much thinking. See the ball, make the call - get it right! That credo has served me well for a very long time. TWP are great snowy day fillers and great for sparking the fire we need each late Winter as we dust off the gear. Beyond that, if they don't waste a whole lot of time at pro school teaching it, why should we spend more trying to master them?

The best advice I've reeived over the years:

Coaches only care about the next umpire crew. (Once they see you, they just want to know that the next game will be played too.)

Sticks and stones...

Wear a cup.

Six calls...that's all there really are when you break it down. The balks and headaches all sort themselves out as you move along.

Image isn't everything, buy good gear and make sure it fits.

The biggest complaint a coach has is that you're late. Don't worry, he hates your calls too.

Relax...you are wearing polyester and universally referred to as a large fairytale ox.

Life is pretty easy when the snow starts to fall.

WCB
 

Please accept my apology for poor writing skills.

My comment "finally", while not parenthetical, was meant that "someone" got the picture . . . NOT that you finally got something.

Again, you said once most people can figure me out after reading what I meant . . . this time I even confused you.

Now I can sit back on watch some of the fine posters on this site post wasteful information.

Sorry Windy,

Tee

Please allow me to waste a little bandwidth here. Will someone tell me exactly what we are supposed to post on this site?

You guys have something to say about every thread. Third World Plays, bleeding heart articles, "what ifs", any mechanics question which was discussed previously (even though many people are new to the site and there is no search funtion), and any other subject deemed taboo by the lords of the web site.

I think people are just trying to post things that they feel are interesting, and hoping to instill that interest in others. One needs not particpate in any thread that does not interest them.

Post whatever you'd like. It's a free site.

But forgive some of us dinosaurs our occasional grumbles of disappointment. You see, a long time ago when the earth was flat and McGripes and Sleazeteamz turned into little league sites, someone actually asked some of us to come to this site, post and help establish the forum. One of the selling points was that it would not be a Sleazeteamz or little league type forum. "Besides," it was thought, "the 60' guys already have three sites, umpire.dork, McGripes, and Sleazeteamz to go to. Maybe just this one site can be for non 60' umpires."

We responded and for some time this site was free of "are the hands part of the bat" and "poof rule" debates. Then gradually, over the past two years or so, the overflow from other sites settled in and more and more space is being taken by little league type posts and even non-little league threads get involved with little league philosphies.

"But you don't have to read those threads", you say. Well, yes, we do have to read some of them to find out what they are. And then there's the others that start out as normal threads and get turned to little league thread. We don't know that's going to happen until we read them.

Is it a big deal to waste five or ten minutes a day reading crap? Not really. But some of us remain, never the less, disappointed that the one internet forum that was free of little league banter is no longer so blessed.

True, it's a bit silly to pine over such things, but if were unemotional types, we wouldn't be baseball fans, would we?

So, post away. Anything you'd like will be just fine. We'll try to keep our wimpering to a minimum, like I do when I see another condo development replace a pine and fir forest on the hillside.

(NB: I use "little league", without caps, as a generic term.)

[Edited by GarthB on Nov 30th, 2005 at 08:13 PM]

Nevertheless, we're not the ones that say you have to respond to every thread. If a LL question offends your sensibilities, then take a step back and remember that the world is not all about you.





The first two words are there for a reason. Please don't tell me they were typos and not poor grammar. Maybe JR can post his cute cartoon now.

He who lives by the sword, dies when shot by those who use guns.


POTD

Of course, you meant to say, "we're not the ones <b>who</b> say you have to respond to every thread."

Good night.

Nice catch...

I just don't understand why you can't admit when you do the same.

Hey, in my racket when the snow falls I've got to add another 1 hour drive time, each way.

But I agree with the rest of your post: 99% of all calls call themselves. But sometimes the difference between a hereo & a goat is knowing how to handle that remaining ugly 1%.