What makes one a Major League Umpire jock sniffer, Steve? According to you, you have "met and spoken" with a number of major league umpires. Probably far more than me. You refer to the MLB umpires from your region more than anyone else I've seen post. You drop more names of pros you've worked with than anbody on the internet.

Does that fact that I attended an eight day Evans Classic make me a MLB jock sniffer? Maybe because we became friends and stayed in contact does it, huh? Could it be because I have the JEA? What is it, Steve?

If you really mean to attack the jock sniffer, Steve, then why do you aim your barbs at Jim? That makes no sense. You say you have nothing against him, but you insult him constantly. If you really mean to aim your insults at the "jock sniffers", then here, take a shot at me. Free. Go ahead. You seem to need to, have at it. After all, I respect Jim, admire Jim and count him as a friend. Let me have it. I must be freaking jock sniffer.

Oh, and as for your comment: "I never thought I could be a soldier, but after boot camp and AIT, I became a good one. A little training and experience go a long way in life, and baseball is no different." Carried to it's natural conclusion, then if you went to music school, you could have been a top concert pianist. If you went to art school, you could have become a great sculptor. What nonsense. It takes more than training and education. It takes skill and ability refined to a very high degree. The same thing applies to umpiring. Very few of those who attend pro school and receive training make it to the Majors. But you insist you'd be one, because, what the hell, "baseball is no different." It is to laugh. You are to an MLB umpire what a bar room piano player is to Van Cliburn. But don't feel bad. We all are. It's just that most of us know it, admit and can live without denying it.

Gentlemen,

While I find the "sidebar" regarding Jim Evans' authority as interesting as Garth seemed to find my recent "Constitutional excursion" on another thread, my mind is pretty much made up on that question, and I have no interest in wasting my time trying to otherwise convince anyone who doesn't already understand that Mr. Evans has most likely forgotten more about the rules than most of us will ever know. (Never met the man. My loss, not his.)

However, I did find Garth and Dave H.'s discussion on the concept of "delayed dead ball" of interest. Here is how I think of it.

Under the OBR rules, a delayed dead ball is a "useful fiction". Under the rules, the ball is either live or dead during a game. Some of the rules dictate that certain events MAY eventually result in the ball becoming dead, depending on what happens following the event (balks, Type B Obstruction, and Catcher's Interference come to mind). In some cases, the ball subsequently becomes dead because of the COMBINATION of the initial event and the subsequent action. In other cases, the ball does NOT become dead because the following action results in the initial infraction being "disregarded" - as if it had never happened.

I have found that when first explaining something to someone, it is sometimes a better teaching technique to say something that may be "technically" false (e.g., "the ball is "delayed dead" in the following cases...") in order to help the neophyte grasp a basic concept or principle, rather than trying to introduce all the subtle nuances and exceptions when first explaining a concept or principle. Once the basic concept has been understood, it is easier for the learner to understand the unusual exceptions and, perhaps, more technically precise way of expressing the concept.

Likewise, as one learns more about a concept, his understanding and expression of the concept may evolve to a more correct or sophisticated way of thinking or talking about it. It doesn't mean the the earlier understanding was wrong, per se, but possibly not as correct or complete. Personally, I would doubt that Jim Evans' study or understanding of the rules ceased to develop with the publication of the JEA.

Then again, maybe this is all just some pointless blathering by a clueless coach.

JM

Many that attend music or art schools do not go on to huge careers as musicians or artists. But some do. Those who have the talent do. So what, very few who attend umpire school have what it takes. Several out of each class at least get a shot. Perhaps I should have said "talent, training and experience." I left out the talent part. My bad.

I don't really think I'm insulting Jim Evans by referring to him as "Reverend" or "The Wizard," damn, I'm just having some fun. You and some others worship the ground he walks on, and that's okay. And I don't refer to MLB umpires from my region, as in I geographically live near them. I refer to MLB umpires who are members of the same association that I was a member of for 20 years. One of them, Mike Winters, is an instructor in that group, and I have umpired with the other two. If there are MLB umpires who you have worked with, I would be interested in hearing about it. I certainly wouldn't put you down for talking about it. What in the world is wrong with being proud of your past accomplishments? I can't list World Series appearances or MLB All-Star games officiated, so I have to go with what I've got.

And your Van Cliburn analogy is flawed. I'm more like Billy Joel is to Elton John.:)

Steve,

So, if I understand your essential point correctly, you are saying that you are a pretty good and entertaining, rather than exceptionally proficient, umpire who is NOT gay? ;)

John

Finally, a coach that gets it!:D

If only you did.

Experience show that those who really have what it takes: talent, skill, dedication, drive, training, education, to become the best of what they do, indeed, become the best of what they do.

It's a hard fact for some middle age men to accept, but true never the less. From what you post and from what I hear from your San Diego brethern, you had as much a chance to become a major league umpire as I do to ever convince you that you didn't.

I doubt seriously that you have ever talked with anyone who knew me or my umpiring skills back when I first started umpiring in 1986. You may know some people who have known me recently, in my present, middle-aged condition, but even they could not honestly say that I am not a very good umpire. I would love to hear who these so-called "brethren" are. Don't believe everything you hear, as some people's opinions of themselves might also be overinflated.

Sheesh! All this jibberish on "delayed dead ball" and all. :rolleyes:

I use this phrase without hesitation because I view it as an umpiring term designed to enable people to better understand a situation. In this thread's original scenario of R3 being in a rundown and being obstructed in said rundown, I see no problem with explaining to a young umpire, a coach, or anyone else who wishes to understand this play that the ball here is dead immediately (Type A in OBR) and not a "delayed dead ball." Similarly, on a balk situation under OBR, I see no problem with explaining that the ball isn't always immediately dead, that it can be considered a "delayed dead ball." Using this philosophy isn't going to result in some kind of a protest or even the incorrect call; rather, it permits one to better comprehend what the eventual outcome of the play and call should be.

Truthfully, I think Jim's comments about "delayed dead ball" are the semantics of this whole argument. I, too, consider Jim a friend, and have worked with him and his staff before, but if he and I got into a discussion on this, I'm willing to bet he'd also have no problem with how this "delayed dead ball" term is used, at least in a conceptual manner.