Smittyisms
 

Okay, so what are they and why are they so hard for some umpires to let go of.


Tim.

I'll start with these two.

Screaming "Foul Ball!!!" on every foul, regardless of location.

Telling a new pitcher the number of outs and the location of the runners.

I have another one for you.

Telling the pitcher the situation is something I see often ("1 ball and 2 strikes with a runner on 1st and 3rd").

I think when guys are never taught about what to do, guys get attached to things they find a purpose for. There are guys that are convinced if they do not brush off the pitcher's plate or bases, they just cannot see the play.

Peace

I wonder about guys that scream "Foul Ball" at any time. "FOUL" is generally sufficient.

announcing the outs to everyone, including fans when they ask.

I had a 1B coach get upset because he claimed his runner couldn't tell if the pitcher was on the rubber or not because it was dirty. Validation for all those who insist on sweeping it off! :rolleyes:

I need to ask what I fear many will consider a stupid question:

What is the etymology of Smitty?

I bet money you will not find a single reference.
 

I have had coaches insist the same thing. If they want it swept off, then they need to do it themselves. That is not our job.

I have a challenge for you. Just show one reference (just one) where it says our job is to use a "plate brush" for sweeping off the plate? Just show one reference in any book that involves umpires on any level. I do not care which book, the NF, CCA, PBUC or any other book I cannot think of. When you find that reference, come back here and give the page and context of those statements.

Peace

the day a RUNNER cant figure out when Pitch gets on the RUBBER is the day he needs to QUIT! any RUNNER over 6 years OLD can tell that

Worked with a guy yesterday that started the backstop meeting with, "ok guys, this is your first and only warning: "No Arguing Judgement Calls......".

No lie.......:eek:

Or how about the guy that calls it the backstop meeting instead of plate conference.:D

I find the word "Smitty" like any perjorative term. It's an attempt to lower another person's public image in order to raise your own. Worse than "rat", these are our brothers in Blue you try to demean.

Like digging a hole then shoving a person into it, then proclaiming how "tall" you are. It's total BS.

As I have said before, using terms which degrade others only, in the end, degrades the user. :mad:

I totally agree with this. I detest seeing the term "smitty".

I prefer "weaker umpire". :)

This is directed more to ****ump56, who is on my ignore list, but shows up when someone quotes him:

Any "brother in blue" who has one year of experience 15 times, who hasn't bought a uniform since buying his first non-Elbeco, who has never attended a clinic, who believes all the rule myths -- why does THIS PERSON deserve any of my respect? I consider Smitty a well-placed pejorative.

:D Let me guess, it was the first inning and......:D

Not if he can't see the rubber.

Or doofus? :D

Steven, that's a painful memory. Having called the coaches to the backstop in my newbie year.:eek:

Brushing off the pitcher's rubber is most often for the umpire to be able to determine when he actually mounts the rubber. Perhaps the MiLB umps I see doing this, on much more pristine fields, are also untaught.

It's a degrading term used by those umpires who wish to make fun of brother sports officials, and by doing so believe it elevates themselves, a shallow word aimed at umpires who do not meet some moving target of "professionalism".

One thing is for certain. It labels the user of the term, usually an experienced umpire who ought to know better than to treat another Blue in such a despicable way, as a full time hypocrite.

There are at least 241 Smittyisms on this board as of this time.

Linkage

Fitty, consider yourself 'degraded', you 'dufus'......Just kidding, don't lose your sense of humor!!!!!

But where does the term come from? Was there some umpire named Smitty?

It's a slang term for anyone foolish or dumb.

greymule,

I am not 100% certain, but I believe the term was coined by Carl Childress in an article he wrote concerning umpires who exhibit traits now commonly associated with "Smitties".

JM

There isn't enuff bandwidth here to include all Smitty stuff.

Some cherce Smittyisms (all first-hand)

"STRIKE ON A SWING"

[Between innings, F2 needs to adjust mask before first pitch] "TIME!" (at Boeing decibel level)

"FOUL TIP!!!!"

"He gets the base he's goin' to, plus one."

"One base to all runners on throws from the infield."

[on obvious INT on batted ball by 1B coach] "No interference; he wuz tryin' to get out da way!"

"Why buy base pants?"

No comment neeeded: Base ump with ball bag including brush, eyeglass case, AND a small can of Off

[U3 goes out into LF for catch; R3 tags up from 3B and scores; defense appeals; U3 calls "SAFE". After the game, I asked U3 how he could possibly call a tag-up when he was fairly deep into the outfield]: "The ball was hit deep; he was gonna score anyway."

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is truly king.

Ace

"I have a challenge for you. Just show one reference (just one) where it says our job is to use a "plate brush" for sweeping off the plate?"
Peace

For #666:

The Boston Globe had a September 28, 2005 interview with MLB umpire crew of Joe West, Brian Gorman, Mike DiMuro and and Mark Carlson. One of the questions asked was "What's the correct position for brushing dirt off home plate?" (Page 1 of the article).

On Page 6 of that same article, Joe replies, "The correct position for brushing the dirt off home plate is facing the catcher, bending your back side to the pitcher, as a matter of courtesy to the fans."

By inference, we should be able to reason that MLB umpires receive those instructions somewhere in their training. Yes?

There are also many amateur umpire associations that have those same instructions actually written into their training manuals and guidelines for their umpires.

Jerry

Coach, I believe you are correct. Mr. Childress also "introduces" the expression in his 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game.

Mr.Childress also condones calling a play at a base the way it looks obvious to everybody else, even if it is the wrong call.

Just because Carl says it doesn't mean it is a good idea. ;)

Which makes me think of the saying:

It takes one to know one! ;)

I saw a base umpire signal time by using the signal for a technical foul in basketball.

Was it the same guy who said the ground can't cause a fumble when a fielder dropped the ball after diving for it?


Tim.

Yes, its called "Umpire School". There used to be three...now there are two. They are in FLA.

What the hell does he know about calling the bases? He always has the plate.

BTW, I found the second sentence of your quote elsewhere. It was in a combo dictionary/thesaurus as an example of "understatement."

(In our association, he'd have the bases at something approximating 50%, or he'd be a different kind of umpire--unemployed.)

I agree, EVERTHING Carl has said should not be held gospel but one thing for sure his contribution to basball officiating ranks at the top. Controversial or not.

As I once told a rookie getting ready to work a game with a very very good umpire, "You should be lucky if he lets you hold his indicator while he ties his shoes."

No, he claimed it was a catch because the outfielder held it for 2 steps.

:confused: Was that both feet down BEFORE he crossed the foul line? Or is it DBT? :D

Huh?
 

56,

Please give us more details, like when and where did you see this?

I have worked with hundreds of college umpires, professional umpires, and ex-professional umpires. I have seen people kick dirt off covered bases with a foot, I have never seen an umpire of that caliber brush or clean off a pitcher's plate, or brush off a base.

I admit I did clean off a pitcher's plate once, with my foot, after a pitcher asked me to. It was a 14 yr. old kid game. I beg forgiveness......

I have seen tons of less-experienced umpires and "sm*****s" brush off pitcher's plates and bases. Some of them are SB guys, they can be excused for being from the DARK SIDE.

I'll bite on this one. Bases used in a recent game were popup bases unlike any other I've seen. It was like a Lego into the ground, a bunch of holes on the bases that snapped into a plate that was put in the ground with a bunch of dots on it.

Base came off, dirt covered the plate that was in the ground, and I had the SS and 2B use their fingers to get all the dirt out in between all these bumps that were about 1/2 inch high. They still couldn't get the base in after about 2-3 minutes.

The PU called out "need the brush", to which I beckoned him over, he brushed off the plate that was in the ground, removing all the dirt, and the fielder reattached the base.

Does that make me smitty? :D

If those are the bases I'm familiar with they don't snap into place. The base sits on tip of the nubs.

If those are the bases I'm familiar with they don't snap into place. The base sits on top of the nubs.

They may "sit" but the definately have an exact location where they need to be, and when they are secure, there is a bit of noise that lets you know its on correctly.

You have that a bit wrong. The call that's obvious to everyone is the *right* call. The call can't be, "wrong," if it's obvious to everyone. It might not be exactly what you think you saw, but it's most certainly the *right* call.

And why praytell would you make a call contrary to what you saw?
That indeed would be a smittyism

Quiz:

R2 stealing third, F2 fires down. F5 receives ball before R2 begins head first slide. F5 lays glove down six inches on 2nd base side of the bag. Everyone, including his coach see R2 slides into the tag clearly before the bag, but you, and only you, think that you saw his right hand touch the bag a micro-second before his left hand touched the glove.

Your call?

Thanks for putting this so succinctly. this should be a sticky.............

I have to admit, I'd call the runner safe in this situation if I'm picturing the play correctly. It's a great baseball play to slide to the back of the base to avoid the tag.

Just cause it made you sticky doesn't mean it should be made a sticky.

In situations like the one you describe Garth, where I THINK I saw the foot hit the bag first, I'm calling the kid out anyway. When the tag is there, I have to KNOW that the kid was safe. In this situation, the runner is OUT until otherwise proven, 100%, to be safe.

In Garth's situation, I'm calling that runner safe. That happens a lot as the skill level of the players increases. The ball beating the runner means that F2 did his job, now the player making the tag has to do his, and the runners job is to find the open lane to the base while avoiding the tag.

I have called plays like this, and it causes much commotion on the defensive side. The coach always claims there was NO WAY that runner could be safe, and I explain the tag was missed, plain and simple.

I've been a "smitty" myself! I held my indicator (not clicker) in my right hand and wore a white shirt under my blue. I work damn hard to get better and get it right. It takes a bigger man to pull the guy aside, like many did for me, and tell them the correct way to do things!

If I "think" I saw the runner in GarthB's play touch the base a microsecond before the tag, I'd call him out. If I "know" I did, safe is the call.


quiz II:

R1, one out. Batter singles to right center, R1 touches 2nd and heads for third, F8's throw goes there too. On the throw, B/R heads for 2nd.

F8's throw beats the head-first sliding runner by a narrow margin, and F5 lays down a tag on R1, then throws to 2nd in an attempt to get B/R advancing there. Everyone in the park "saw" F5 tag R1--everyone but you, the PU, who had a perfect angle and who saw him tag the dirt inches in front of R1's hand, then throw to 2nd before R1 could slide into the tag.

Your call?

Micro-second my 8ss. I have an easy OUT call. I am not going to let the right half overule the left half.

I do alot of softball. I guess thats why im a smitty.

I just think you're a sports official. :D

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by fitump56
I find the word "Smitty" like any perjorative term. It's an attempt to lower another person's public image in order to raise your own. Worse than "rat", these are our brothers in Blue you try to demean.

Like digging a hole then shoving a person into it, then proclaiming how "tall" you are. It's total BS.

As I have said before, using terms which degrade others only, in the end, degrades the user. :mad:

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

When "Smitty" is used in fun, that's one thing Bob, but this forum is chock full of the use of that term in a direct attempt to insult. :mad:

Originally Posted by fitump56
It's a degrading term used by those who wish to make fun of other sports officials, and by doing so believe it elevates themselves, umpires who do not meet some moving target of "professionalism". In short, it's one thing for certain.

It labels the user of the term, usually an experienced umpire who ought to know better than to treat another Blue in such a despicable way, as a full time hypocrite.

Small bow back to you, Ray.:)

Because the *right* call is the call obvious to everyone. If the whole world sees an out, by golly it's an out. What kind of an umpire would say that it wasn't? Our very jobs are to ensure that one team does not gain an unfair advantage not intended by the rules. It isn't about microscoping and minutiae.

It's not a Smittyism, it's advanced umpiring. It's how such concepts like the phantom tag play and the neighborhood play came to be -- two techniques we see employed by the big boys in MLB on a daily basis.

A few years back there was a rookie working the plate in a MLB game. I can only remember that the Boston Red Sox were on defense. The bases were loaded with one out. There was a sharp grounder to the shortstop. He threw to the catcher in plenty of time to get the runner from third on the force. R3 was out by 6 steps. To the whole world's surprise, the rookie called the runner safe.

It took a look at the replays from two different camera angles before it could be ascertained that the catcher's toes were on the dirt in front of the plate, and just before he caught the throw his heel came up off the plate.

It was a very bad call, and it cost the rookie his job in The Show. He went back to AAA and hasn't filled in since. The reason is simple -- he had obviously not developed the instinct required to make the call that's obvious to everyone, nor had he developed the judgment on exactly when to use it.

If you don't like these concepts, that's okay. A lot of amateur umpires are taken aback when they first learn of them. Some never get it. But you'd be wise to understand them and try incorporating them over time.

When the world sees a color and calls it brown, don't be an overbearing oaf and insist it's burnt sienna. Agree with the world and say it's brown. It's their reality that matters, not yours.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read --on any umpgroup. Huzzahs, JP.

Ace

The rules say something about the runner having to be tagged in order to be called out. I know I'm a smitty, but I'm pretty sure on this one.
Stay with me on this, if the rule says he has to be tagged, defensive player misses the tag, you signal out even though you saw the missed tag, who just gained an advantage not intended by rule?

Guess what? The big boys have changed.
2 plays this past weekend cubs/astros.
2 straight steal attempts ball clearly beats runner, both "obvious" outs, both were called safe. It took slow mo and 2 camera angles to prove ump right.

If a heel comes off at first base is that an out as well? That would eliminate most discussion about going to your P for help. Or since the public can see the pulled foot on a raised base much easier we call that correcly, we only give the defense an advantage if the correct call is concealed from the public.

The trend seems to be going the direction of getting the call right. I'd say umpires would be better off being honest instead of trying to develop a knack for lying.

I respectfully disagree.
Umpires, like politicians, that rule by popular opinion rather than good judgement are cowards.

And all this time I thought I was the one hired to be the impartial arbiter, instead I'm nothing more than a tool of popular opinion.

Exactly, my call, not anyone elses, not the folks in the gandstand, not the coaches and not F5.
SAFE
If you are implying that you would call out, would that be too placate the spectators or the def coach?

You have finally said something I agree with.

Great Jim

EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY

Some day it will all come to you, and you will understand why erasers are on pencils, there is a delete key on your keyboard, factors of safety are used in engineering calculations and baseball will NEVER, be played perfectly or officiated perfectly, as long as humans are part of it.

But, until then, keep pounding your head on the wall, us old guys DON'T KNOW NUTTING.

Jim,

I agree with almost everything your saying. In fact, that was exactly how it was taught to me at umpire school in 1997.

However, I will add this: MLB has changed. I have heard direct from a horse's mouth (one of my old mentors who is in MLB). Over dinner he bluntly told me that MLB had changed and had changed very quickly.

With the proliferation of TV cameras (EVERY game (especially now that Montreal is out of the league) has multiple cameras AND the stadiums have tv monitors located throughout the stadium), MLB umpires today ONLY care about getting the play right. And "right" now means: what everyone will see WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE REPLAY on tv.

While the "neighborhood" play at second base on the front end of a double-play is still there (because everybody wants to prevent injuries)...the old addage "if the ball beats the runner, call him out" has died. The MLB boys now CARE (a lot) that the tag is actually applied before the runner hits the base. WHY? Because they will be crucified on TV (during the game and during Sportscenter) if they get it wrong.

Announcers don't get the "unwritten" rules. If you call a guy "out" during Game 7 of the a post-season series because the ball beat the runner and everyone thought he was out....but replays show the tag wasn't actually applied: then the umpire is going to be crucified for a long, long time.

Calling balls and strikes in MLB is now different than calling balls and strikes in AAA or below. Ques-Tec doesn't care how the catcher "receives" the ball, and neither do the MLB higher-ups. Calling plays on the bases has similarly changed.

As my mentor stated, "its a matter of self-preservation."

Even IR isn't conclusive some-times. For the most part the initial IR tells us nothing. It's not until the networks use the SUPER-SLO MO camera angles and even then it's hard to tell some-times.

Personally I think the game has changed for the worse. This getting the call right business is way over-hyped and IMO is ruining the game.

Umpires are going to make mistakes. In addtion, subscribing to Jim's theory adds more consistency to the game meaning it's called the EXACT same way for both teams.

I am not in the major leagues but I have a math theory that works for me.

Good Quality throw beats the runner by several steps + Tag where it is supposed to be = OUT whether its yesterday, today or tomorrow. It's the same for both teams so no-one is gaining an advantage.


NOTE: We are not talking about Bang bang or coin flip type plays.

As with most of these type discussions to each his own.


Pete Booth

Pete,

Let me say first, that I agree with your "math theory" (LOL)...as I stated above: that is how I was taught at umpire school.

I agree that IR isn't always conclusive...but many times it is. As a result (as you acknowledged) that is why MLB umps have changed (in a lot of ways). That's all I was stating.

It depends on the slide.

Here's two consecutive plays from a game a couple of years ago; I was BU.

R1 stealing. Throw in plenty of time, tag in front of the base (toward first). R1 head first slide. Shows the left hand, then takes it away at the same time as he reaches for the outside of the base with the right hand. Call: Safe. Some defenders saw the move; some didn't. I don't recall what the spectators saw. ;)

A couple of pitches later, now R2 steals third. Same throw, same tag, different slide. R2 goes straight into the base. Call: Out. R2 gets up and trots to his position, but says to me: "He never tagged me. My hads went on either side of the glove. Still, I went straight in, so that was a good call."

One of the posters on the basketball side says, "Don't be a plumber." That is, don't go looking for ****.

I interpret that as look at what you need to look at. If the throw is there, the tag is there and the slide is "normal", I've seen all I need to see (that's the second play above). If something is different, I look harder (that's the first play above).

Same thing on the "neighborhood play" -- if everyone does what they're supposed to be doing, I've seen enough -- I don't look for the miss. If something is amiss, then I look to see what really happened.

shrug. works for me (for now).

R1 at 1B trots to second base on a ball hit to F8, who misplays the ball. Third base coach emphatically signals R1 to third when he sees the misplay.
R1 picks him up late. Ball beats him by ten feet, lazy slide, tag, he's out!

R1 pops up and says, "he missed the tag!" Third base coach, "shut your mouth, the ball beat you and wouldn't have if you were hustling. Get your *ss of the field and sit!"

I can only say WOW to some of these posts! :(

Great perception
 

Exactly the way I've called it for years. The good umpires know the difference, the "not so good umpires" will continue to make a guess about the call.

MLB has changed some, but in reality not much. The only reason we see more "changed calls' is that just about all of the games are on TV now where before only the big market teams were on each night and the Braves.

I'm sure as we get older though it is going to change more and more. I don't know IMO if that is going to be a good thing though ...

Thansk
David

I started umpiring 21 years ago. Certainly, I umpired a long time in the "old skool" way.

So now the NCAA has this "Get the call right" concept going on. Great!

Here is what I have found.

Most coaches don't abuse this at all. If I seek help from my partner and the call goes against the coach who asked, they usually accept it and often will thank me for asking.

I have found too that many coaches are a LOT more accepting of the calls that seem to be "obvious" the wrong way (like it seemed like an obvious tag, except the fielder did not actually put the tag on). Some coaches I have talked to about this say "It is a good learning experience for the players".

MANY coaches I have talked to like that I don't call the runner out on the "neighborhood play" , and admit that they like that I call what I see, even if it goes against them.

One thing I have noticed about umpires. If it is for a strike or an out, you guys that subscribe to the "call the obvious ones the way everybody else sees it" are all for it. But when it concerns a ball or safe, you typically use the "we are out here for outs", and some even go as far as to say silly stuff like "Yeah, I missed it, but I missed it for an out!" complete with the wink.

Horsecrap!!! All of it is horsecrap umpiring.

I have moved on up the levels just fine calling THE GAME THAT I SEE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. Coaches, players, evaluators NEVER question my integrity, and players are usually quick to agree with my RIGHT call even though it went against them. They KNOW it will go both ways.

I do not find it that hard to call a consistent game just calling what I see. Are there arguements? Sure! But I don't have any more of them than the next guy.

If you think the neighborhood call, or the "ball beat the runner" call is a good idea, I first thought is you have become a dinasour in umpiring. It may still be "working" for you, but, you are losing the respect from players and coaches. Maybe you don't care about that. This would suggest you are on the downhill side of your "career" in umpiring.

Any of you "newer" guys that care to move up, consider your integrity before you subscribe to some of this old school thinking about umpiring.

Myself, I am proud to call a fair game, and have been rewarded for my hard work and integrity.

I think you missed the point, but this part fits the thread well since this is definitely "Smitty" at his best.

Thanks
David

Umpires don't need math equations or the color-spectrum comparisons to make the call on tag plays. Just call what you see.

In the quiz II I presented earlier:

F8's throw beats the head-first sliding runner by a narrow margin, and F5 lays down a tag on R1, then throws to 2nd in an attempt to get B/R advancing there. Everyone in the park "saw" F5 tag R1--everyone but you, the PU, who had a perfect angle and who saw him tag the dirt inches in front of R1's hand, then throw to 2nd before R1 could slide into the tag.

what happened afterward made my violently argued "safe" call look even better--F5 nailed the B/R on a bang-bang play.

Now, if he had completed his tag of R1, he would not have been able to retire the B/R. The defense had enough time to get one runner, but not both, and that's how it got called by the crew. However, when you're making the call at third, you don't have a crystal ball to tell what's about to happen at 2nd. Call what you see.

Mueller, the R3 in Porter's post is out my field. Likewise, if F3 lifts his heel when he leans into a throw that beats B/R by a step or more, "he's out." Among players who drive, everyone wants and expects that call. The coaches of ten-year-olds argue that call.

I'm nowhere near as lenient on the neighborhood play as I used to be. The FPSR has removed the justification for that.

Tag plays are different than force plays or plays at 1st. If I KNOW your tag was missed or late (that is, I SAW it, not THOUGHT I saw it), safe is the right call, as well as the correct call. I don't care what Susue saw from the front row.

Call what you see.

I don't think I have missed any point.

What we have is a lot of umpires who will call things the way it is obvious for everybody else so as to avoid conflict. In the old days: No conflict = Excellent job. :rolleyes:

Call me a "smitty" (as I do NCAA games ;) ) but if a tag is not applied, I don't care if the fielder was holding onto the ball at third since the runner took off from first, he is SAFE! If you are not standing on a bag with the ball in possession on a force play, the runner is SAFE! If you miss touching a bag by 1/2 inch and it is appealed properly, you are OUT! Etc...

I was working with a young guy who I mentor earlier this year on his strike zone. He went on and on about how he has to call this big strike zone to "keep the game moving". I listened and listened. I then asked "How long is your average game". He replied that most of them go the whole time limit. :eek:

I then asked him to start calling the "real" strike zone. He did. Game over in 1:50. One of the quickest games he had in this league. :)

He also discovered that the batters still swing the bat, and often swing it more when you force the pitcher to throw STRIKES IN THE ZONE!!!

I could go on and on. The point is, call the game that is really there and you gain respect. I do not have to explain any philosophy to an arguing coach this way and only need to keep track of what I actually seen! It sure is a lot easier to explain what just happened than to explain why I feel that since the rest of the world seen it as an out it is an out today. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you something then, Rei. Lets say you have R2 sliding feet first straight into third on a steal where the ball beat him by at least a step. Are looking for F5 to keep his glove down in front of the bag to actually make contact with the runner's foot, or are you going to allow him to make a swipe tag that's close enough for everyone to believe he applied the tag............


Tim.

BigUmp56. I have a LOT of things to keep track of on the diamond during a game. I am going to see a LOT of plays throughout the year. There are going to be a LOT of "what if" scenarios.

The one thing that is going to be consistent is that I am going to call what I see. If a see a tag, or BELIEVE I just seen a tag, runner out. If I don't see a tag, or don't believe there was a tag, runner is SAFE.

It is as simple as that. I am not out there to make decisions based upon others perceptions. I am out there to call what I see.

There is NO PLACE in the rule book that says I must adjust my decisions on a tag attempt to assure the safety of the fielder applying the tag. That seems to be the main reason given for the "phantom tag" with a runner sliding in. A fielder who is well coached knows that he can move his lazy butt up the base line a bit and tag the runner on the leg if he is worried about a cleat in the hand. :rolleyes:

I played baseball. I never once expected a tag attempt I made that was not actually a tag to go my way. NEVER. Most players accept this. Time and time again in college games where I see a lot more unsuccessful tags the fielder does his little "sell job" about not believing I didn't see the tag, but usually admits the next inning that he didn't actually put on a tag and sort of grins about the whole thing. What keeps his coach off my butt is that he usually tells the coach that he didn't apply the tag. Sometimes a teammate who has a great angle give the little signal to the coach that I actually got it right which avoids a big blow up.

On and on. I have mostly good experiences with just calling what I see (certainly, I am not going to suggest that I always see it right though! :D ). I have fewer arguements now about calls than I did when I was trying to "umpire by popular perception" of the play on the field. :) I can now sell my calls with conviction, and any coach who has had me twice knows that I am going to call what I see, both ways, consistently.

Also, I spell my username "rei", not "Rei". I will extend that same attention to detail while writing your username in a post. ;)

There is a difference then in how my association want's this called as compared to yours. We've always taught that our umpires should call the phantom tag to protect the fielder from being spiked in the hand or arm if the runner slides directly into the bag effectively giving himself up. If the runner does anything unusual like a hook slide for instance, we teach to look for the tag to be applied.


Tim.

I apologize?


Tim.

I agree with you "rei" only to a point. Of course I want to see an actual tag, but working 2 man and sometimes 3 man mechanics, we are not always on top of the play to make a call. I am going to call most things with what likely happen. So if a throw clearly beats a runner and the runner slides directly into the bag, I am not going to nitpick that call. I will call what likely happen. Many times what likely happen is not always easy to determine when players do goofy things. I will also see I do not buy the safety issue that many buy into. I just know that when dirt is flying and the angle is bad, I am going to get outs when I can. But if a throw is bad and a slide is to avoid a tag, then I call completely what I see or what I think happen.

Peace

:D I remember once doing a HS game where I was the PU and I was trailing the BR and the throw drew F3 into foul territory. As F3 came back to tag the BR, F1 blocked the view of BU I could not see the tag. I ruled the BR safe. The DC came out screaming about "How could I miss that tag!" I held up my hand and told the coach, "Your pitcher blocked my partner, it was a bad throw, I was trailing the runner and if you come out of that dugout again yelling at me today I will run you and at least one other person!" He stopped, accepted my explanation and asked me if I missed the tag. I stated yes I did not get the angle, but that does not excuse your behavior. The coach excused himself and went back to the dugout.:eek:

Last night in the Padres/Mets game, there was a play in which the ball was hit to F3 down the line and close to the outfield grass, and Il Duke Hernandez (or whatever his name is - F1 for Mets) covered first base. He was fed a perfect strike, yet Hernandez never came close to touching the base.

I rewound and played it over and over on my DVR just to be sure. He jumped completely over the base, not coming remotely close to the base. He then turned to run off the field along with his teammates, as this was the "third out." The umpire, using his delayed timing, waited until everyone was leaving the field to make the "out" call, like it was routine. Nobody argued, nobody complained, as the runner was beaten to the bag by 3 steps. The BR and first base coach for the Padres were talking after the play, but I don't know what they were talking about.

I guess this is another "neighborhood play" when the play isn't close at the base.

YGTBSM! You actually threatened to dump another person based on the actions of one coach?

How would you have decided which person you'd run for not doing anything wrong?

Just unbelievable..............


Tim.

WOW, "charlie" is named WELL-- now you talk about making NIEGHBORHOOD calls and THIS guy wants to RUN PLAYERS who arent EVEN INVOLVED. WIERD.

Hey LARRY. . .it's NEIGHBORHOOD and WEIRD. Just for your INFORMATION!!!:)

rei,

I believe that 99.99% of officials go out there to do the best job they can with the tools they have. But I believe you are discussing specifics about calling the obvious, when most of us are talking in general.

It doesn't sound like your a nitpicker but if that is what you do, fine.

Any good college ball or semi-pro ball I did, you were expected to hustle and be in position, look professional, act professional and call the game "as expected" by the players and coaches. If there was no tag, you were also expected to make the right call.

I never worked MLB (somehow they missed my name), so I can not relate to what they do, nor do I officiate to expected standards (except those mentioned above) set by others in the Association either, as far as making the "expected call."

I believe we are talking about the "ordinary" here and not the "unusual."

However if you feel as though your job is to call the "unusual", ALL the time, (and I don't think you are), then all I have to say is remember, very ,very, very, very few people come to watch you umpire.

But if the shoe fits and it works for you, have a nice day.

"ordinary"? "unusual".

Holy cow! This is baseball we are talking here. There is ONLY "ordinary" and "unsual" things that happen! LOL

What I am saying is this. When I don't see a tag, I am calling safe, no matter WHAT it may look like. If a runner misses a bag and it is appealed, I will call the runner out. Etc...

If anybody cares to notice, I did say "if I believe I did/did not see" a tag, missed bag, etc... Of course I am out there just doing the best job I can. I know for certain that I will not get every call right, and that sometimes what I think I saw is not exactly what happened. That is why it is called a judgement call.

But to think I saw something and make a call contrary to that because of what I think everybody else saw? Never gonna happen here!

From another 21-or-so year guy: I couldn't have written it any better. Where I work college ball (only D-3 in my area) I call it exactly how I see it. I did call the runner safe for sliding into the back of the base last year and when the coach came out, that's exactly what I told him. I called a big missed tag in a D3 conference tourney this year and I expected to take grief for it, and the coach didn't even move out of his seat except to get on his fielder for sloppy play. Ten years ago, I would've called the runner out without a thought.

Now, do I go looking for a RCH's distance between the glove and the body? No. But the defense has got to do its job. Things have changed and the NCAA's "get it right" mentality along with the change in the show is responsible.

Hmm,
 

I will freely attest to how rei calls games.

I worked an early spring high school game with him as my BU.

There was a play at third when the ball beat the runner by at least 15' . . . I am serious with that measurement.

rei had perfect timing and made a "safe" call . . . the defensive side went off.

The runner at third just happened to be F2 when he came out to catch the next inning.

I simply asked: "What happened down there on your slide."

F2: "He never tagged me -- then he lied to his coach and said he did -- I thought I would have been called out."

Regards,

IMO, the aforementioned is what is "getting lost in the translation"

The EXPECTED call IMO delas with plays in which the runner is out by a GOOD MARGIN not a narrow or close margin.

We are talking about plays in which the throw is "right-on" tag where it is supposed to be and the runner is out by some 3-4 steps not a Narrow margin. Whenever the play is close I think even the "old school" way is call what you see.

IMO, I think that is what is getting lost in this discussion.

Pete Booth

Horsedung!!! If the runner is "alleged" to be out for a "long margin", I probably have not made a call yet if the fielder has not stepped on the bag. At some point, everybody realizes that I have NOT made a call yet, and am still looking at the bag.

There is no way I am making an out call just because the first basemen is running towards the dugout. A WELL COACHED first basemen will be looking at me to make sure I have made the out call before he heads to the dugout. It has happened many times, and every time the well coached fielder steps on the bag (thus making it a MUCH closer play now!) for the out.

There is no argument anybody can propose to me that will make me call a runner out when he is safe just because he "looks out" to everybody else.

Tim, did I mention to you after the game that the shortstop agreed with my call? :)

Rich:

I don't believe you read the situation carefully. Jenkins and Publius did. No telling about DM.

Do you realize you've made these comments to an employee of Major League Baseball? I watch games for a living. It's my job to pay attention to every pitch. It's my job to work closely with broadcast teams. It's my job to scrutinize every pitch and compare each location around the strike zone to what the PU is calling.

All I can say is the proof of what you say cannot be found in the pudding. MLU's are still calling individual strike zones. They're still rewarding pitchers. Phantom tags and neighborhood plays are still being called regularly. I know because I see it everyday.

And broadcasters have various ways of dealing with it in replays. Some of them don't mention a neighborhood or phantom tag play even when it's obvious in replays. Others, particularly former players, will sometimes mention the unwritten rules. I've yet to hear a broadcaster belly-ache over and scrutinize neighborhood play or phantom tag play. It's become an accepted part of the game.

Umpiring the game has indeed changed in the last few years, however. It just hasn't changed in regards to phantom tags, neighborhood plays, and strike zone management. Instead, crews these days are much more willing to meet and overturn a decision than they used to be in years past -- and even then, only under certain circumstances.

Ques-Tec has been useless because it's installed in so few ballparks. In some of those ballparks where it's installed it no longer works, so it's used in even fewer ballparks than originally planned. There are sweeping changes in the works that may very likely change all of that, but not until the Ques-Tec contract runs out at the end of this season.

But all of this is really beside the point, isn't it? None of us umpire games with multiple camera angles and super slow-mo instant replays, do we? So the old MLU techniques should still work well for us. Right?

You have missed the point because it's not at all about avoiding conflict, although admittedly that is a desirable by-product. It's about not being bigger than the game. It's about whose reality of events matters most. The game belongs to the participants -- even the spectators -- but not the umpires. It isn't our game. Instead, we're placed in charge of THEIR game. It is their world and their reality of events that we should be calling.

We don't see everything, and we shouldn't always call the game as though we do. That's how umpires get the reputation of being arrogant egoists. Rulebook lawyers, microscoping, and minutiae have no place in a well-called baseball game. There is a pro school saying that goes like this -- "Don't let that crap ruin a perfectly good game of baseball."

I admit it's a fine line and a difficult concept. It takes many years to develop it properly. It is indeed an advanced umpiring technique. But it is real and it is valid and it can often be a career maker or breaker.

THANKS mr steve :)

I can flyspeck it if you want--a margin to me is measured in time, not in feet or steps. The throw beat the sliding runner by three feet, which sounds like a wide margin in print but is less than a second in real time. F5 gloved the perfect throw a foot off the ground, slapped the dirt in front of the sliding R1, and came up throwing. I'm sure it looked to all the world that R1 was out.

I ADMIT that i dont see alot of RELEVENCE in umpiring TECHNQUES that work well for TV GAMES when 99.5% of ALL of us will NEVER call a game with INSTANT REPLAY. Its not that those TIPS arent VALID but do they REALLY apply to US?

You should go ref soccer. If I had a nickle for ever time I have heard soccer refs talk about "letting the players dictate what kind of game it will be today", and then watched a player leave the field with a season ending injury from a hard foul from behind that didn't get ANY card! Yeah, the game is for everybody but the guy that got screwed! ;)

First off, there are TWO TEAMS. So, who's reality are we talking about here? The reality of the player who has hustled to get to second and beat a poor tag by a fielder, who was cheated on his rightful base because you want the game to be for................who now?

I don't get it. Simply, we are there to call the game. You can put anything else into it that you want, but the fact it, your job is to call what you see, not make stuff up for the fans/coaches/people on the bench.

I had a game last week. Visiting team right handed pitcher (team has 1st base side dugout) is coming set. I am in C (runner on second only) His elbows stop but his hands keep moving. They never stop. NOT ONE PERSON on his bench, no anybody on the first base line fan area can see that his hands keep moving. To all of those people, he came set.

Of course I balk him. I balked him 4 freakin' times! Coach was ejected on the 4th balk because of the argument that ensued. His "big" comment of the day is "Let them play".

Let who play? The pitcher gaining the advantage that nobody but me and the baserunner can see doing it? Or should I call a fair game and balk him because he DID gain an advantage on that runner at second base?

I can tell you one thing. This kid finally stopped balking, and guess what? 3 runners successfully stole on him TO THIRD BASE!!!

I could come up with scenarios all day long of plays like this. Plays that appear to be one way but are really something else.

Now somebody is going to come along and say "But this is an exception to what we are talking about". :rolleyes:

I didn't start to gain respect and move up until I started calling the game as I see it. Of course, about that same time, I started getting great positions, learned to hustle, learned to "look" attentive to the action, etc...

It was liberating to finally just start calling the game as it is. Far less arguments, and FAR more respect from players/coaches. Yes, still the occasional ejection like what was described above, but I was ejecting coaches before when I was making the wrong call. At least I can look a coach in the eye now and simply state what I saw. That usually makes the argument MUCH shorter! They are watching you. If you can't look them in the eye, and state with 100% what you saw, they will eat you alive.

So, maybe calling all this phantom stuff works for the guy that doesn't have the same respect and who isn't working hard to get good positions and get set to make the call where they can sell their "usual" call to everybody. Sounds like this is more of a hustle/mechanics/knowledge problem rather than a philosophy eh? ;)

Are you an employee or an independent contracter? --- Just joking :)

I can't argue with you have stated (in this thread and others) in terms of what you have seen operating Pitch tracking devices. I do not have the resources to compile stats or otherwise.

However, I stand by what I was told over dinner by my "mentor". Nothing more nothing less. I don't believe him in the least to be a liar. I believe him when he tells me that he (and his brotheren) require an actual tag to be applied in order to call an "out". (I stated in my prior post that the phantom force at second on the front end of a double play is alive and well.) I believe him when he talked about the desire not to be crucified by a non-understanding media. Of course, human error, by umpires, is still alive and well.

Also, I disagree that strike zone management hasn't changed. I spent time on the phone yesterday afternoon with a AAA reserve umpire talking to him about a recent MLB plate job he had. I can assure you he enters a Ques-Tec game with a much different mentality than the one he had when he and I were in the low minors together...or even a AAA game. We have talked several times since he did his first Ques-tec game in the Arizona Fall League about how he has had to relearn (or adjust) his strike zone.

Again, you have numbers. I only have conversations with mentors and friends.

Maybe some umpires believe they are changing...but do the numbers show otherwise? Again, I don't have the time or resources to do a study. I can only state as fact what was TOLD to me.

I don't know how many MLB umps you know...it could be more than me! But I stand by these conversations.

In the long run, does this matter to us mere amateurs...not yet. As I stated above...I agree with what you were posting.