Bunt hits batter!!!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If the BU sees the B/R get hit with the a batted ball he should call "time". You'd have a lot of explaining to do if he called "foul" as you were declaring the B/R out for being hit with a fair ball.

This is all overrated. If I call "foul" from the bases, plate umpire steps up and says, "no, no, no, he was out of the box, he's out" there's really precious little to explain, really.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

there's really precious little to explain, really.

Even less when it's done correctly.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Even less when it's done correctly.

That wasn't my point.

Name one coach (that isn't a complete rat or a moron) that's going to come out and say: "No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL instead of TIME."

It ain't no big deal. The base guy should keep his mouth shut until he's sure the plate guy isn't killing it anyway.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

That wasn't my point.

Name one coach (that isn't a complete rat or a moron) that's going to come out and say: "No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL instead of TIME."

It ain't no big deal. The base guy should keep his mouth shut until he's sure the plate guy isn't killing it anyway.

What will happen is a coach will say ""No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL." And, after a bit, someone gets ejected.

Sorry. I haven't yet gotten to the stage where I can advocate an incorrect mechanic because "there's precious little" to explain to fix it. I find doing it correctly reduces explanations and minimizes the risk of error.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

This is all overrated. If I call "foul" from the bases, plate umpire steps up and says, "no, no, no, he was out of the box, he's out" there's really precious little to explain, really.

Except, if you're playing FED rules once it's called Foul it remains Foul. Whoops.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

What will happen is a coach will say ""No, no, no, you can't call him out -- the guy out there said FOUL." And, after a bit, someone gets ejected.

Sorry. I haven't yet gotten to the stage where I can advocate an incorrect mechanic because "there's precious little" to explain to fix it. I find doing it correctly reduces explanations and minimizes the risk of error.

Any coach that does that is a moron that deserves to get run. I've never seen it happen, either. It's one of those little warnings we like to give to umpires to rally behind the correct mechanic, but it's really a non-issue.

I've stopped acting like umpiring is as serious as brain surgery. I'd have no problem calling batter interference in any level ball even if my base umpire partner called out "foul." Of course, I do just about everything by the book, so maybe I'm the wrong person to say, "Hey, lighten up" to anyone.

(Hell, I saw Ed Montague give two fists for a full count on Monday while wearing a penis hat. We amatoores would have a great time with a local Jim-Bob doing that.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Except, if you're playing FED rules once it's called Foul it remains Foul. Whoops.

It does not. It remains DEAD. It can't go from FOUL to FAIR once called foul. But I can sure turn it into an out, especially since the ball is still dead.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Any coach that does that is a moron that deserves to get run. I've never seen it happen, either. It's one of those little warnings we like to give to umpires to rally behind the correct mechanic, but it's really a non-issue.

I've stopped acting like umpiring is as serious as brain surgery. I'd have no problem calling batter interference in any level ball even if my base umpire partner called out "foul." Of course, I do just about everything by the book, so maybe I'm the wrong person to say, "Hey, lighten up" to anyone.

(Hell, I saw Ed Montague give two fists for a full count on Monday while wearing a penis hat. We amatoores would have a great time with a local Jim-Bob doing that.)

To each his own. Maybe it's the teacher in me, maybe it's the evaluator in me, but I'm not ready to get sloppy when working with others on mechanics. One doesn't raise the bar by lowering expectations.

It doesn't matter to me how you umpire, Rich. I'll still work as I was trained, and train and evaluate others as correctly as I can. Again, I find working correctly results in fewer problems. I don't like problems.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by FTVMartin

I say he is in the box until he is completly out of the box. Foul Ball.

Correct.

I believe that Wayne was mistaking the bunted ball coming up and hitting the batter while one foot was out of the box, with hitting the ball with one foot outside the box, which would be an out if it was obvious enough to call. It is the only explanation that makes any sense other than he just didn't know the rule.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It does not. It remains DEAD. It can't go from FOUL to FAIR once called foul. But I can sure turn it into an out, especially since the ball is still dead.

Rich, it's not worth the argument. Do as you wish.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Correct.

Reference, please. I'm not doubting you, but it's contrary to how I read the FED case play.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Rich, it's not worth the argument. Do as you wish.

I guess your signature applies to me, then.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

To each his own. Maybe it's the teacher in me, maybe it's the evaluator in me, but I'm not ready to get sloppy when working with others on mechanics. One doesn't raise the bar by lowering expectations.

It doesn't matter to me how you umpire, Rich. I'll still work as I was trained, and train and evaluate others as correctly as I can. Again, I find working correctly results in fewer problems. I don't like problems.

Correct is in the eye of the beholder, Garth. I'm more interested in how the umpires handle situations like this rather than whether the base umpire says "FOUL" or "TIME." The right way to handle this is for the base umpire to hesitate and give the plate umpire a chance to make this call himself.

Of course, I see a LOT of umpires come up with a call as soon as the ball hits the batter. Who cares if the call is FOUL or TIME when there shouldn't be one in the first place?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Correct is in the eye of the beholder, Garth. I'm more interested in how the umpires handle situations like this rather than whether the base umpire says "FOUL" or "TIME." The right way to handle this is for the base umpire to hesitate and give the plate umpire a chance to make this call himself.

Of course, I see a LOT of umpires come up with a call as soon as the ball hits the batter. Who cares if the call is FOUL or TIME when there shouldn't be one in the first place?

It's a package, Rich. If one can perform part of it correctly, they can perform all of it correctly.

This difference, I believe, is partly due to the different ways Washington and Wisconsin handle officiating. Here, I am part of an association responsible for both myself and those I train. We work with different partners at all levels, including college. Uniformity and predicability are important when working in this manner. The best way to attain that, I believe, is consistent training and performance of uniform mechanics.

It's my understanding that in Wisconsin you do not belong to an association and can work with the same crew, or at least a minimum number of different partners, for an entire season. You contact schools directly and market yourself rather than an association. You are far more independent and enjoy the benefits of that. I believe there are negatives as well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It's a package, Rich. If one can perform part of it correctly, they can perform all of it correctly.

This difference, I believe, is partly due to the different ways Washington and Wisconsin handle officiating. Here, I am part of an association responsible for both myself and those I train. We work with different partners at all levels, including college. Uniformity and predicability are important when working in this manner. The best way to attain that, I believe, is consistent training and performance of uniform mechanics.

It's my understanding that in Wisconsin you do not belong to an association and can work with the same crew, or at least a minimum number of different partners, for an entire season. You contact schools directly and market yourself rather than an association. You are far more independent and enjoy the benefits of that. I believe there are negatives as well.

The benefits TO ME are:

I work with college level umpires every time I walk on the field. Not only are they top umpires, they are my friends. They have my back and we have a great time umpiring together. Then we have dinner and a beer or six afterwards.

The negative FOR ME is:

(Crickets chirping)

As far as the state of umpiring in Wisconsin or the quality of the umpires schools get in games when I don't work or the quality of other umpires, I have to be honest and say I don't really give a damn.