It's that time of year again - LLWS

[Rcichon]

Watched all Regionals. Saw consistency at the plate in each game.

Santa never missed a call either. I visited one N.E. Regional, he was at 1st. Yep, he has a beard and a big belly. So what. He didn't miss a call that game either.

Only crap I saw was the 'softball strike mechanic'. Yuk.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Sorry to have upset you, Rich, but I don't know any decent umpire that calls a strike at the armpits. That includes the LLWS. If you want to define bull$hit, start with the LL definition of the strike zone.



Tim.

It gets called that way around here.

The zone would be way too small if you didn't - not very many kid pitchers could hit it.

The batters swing at the high pitfch anyway so you might as well call it a strike.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

He's called several pitches up in the zone that I thought were too high.
The LL strike zone is armpits to the top of the knees so you're going to see higher pitches called strikes.


I have seen several breaking balls that just touched any resemblence of a zone and had F2 reaching outside to catch that he called for a strike

Are you sure you typed what you meant? It touched the zone and you think it wasn't hittable and not a strike?

LL catchers tend to set up way too deep which makes it look worse if you're looking at where he caught it.

No that was not exactly what I meant. It was to be taken in context with the wide zone comment. The breaking balls were outside and tailed farther outside -didn't appear hittable.

Armpits I call in "little boy ball" - 9-10 year olds - You have to to get strikes called and "make them swing the bat." With 12 year olds that have made it through states, they can pitch better than most others, I don't think armpits is needed. High strikes (middle to top of the letters) I can agree with. I called games in the Dizzie Dean World Series and I did not give them the arm pit strike - they don't need it once they get to this level of play. As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn't give a 12 year old that strike anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting LL in anyway. This is strickly a comment based on one game and the PU in that game. His timing was very good, he had good position, his strike mechanic I didn't like and I thought his zone was too big. I have not insulted him or anyone else. I don't think this thread was even intended to insult LL.

About the mask thing - I was hoping someone could tell me why he did that. I saw it, but had stepped away from the TV, so I didn't know if something happened to his bucket or if he was just trying out a mask.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by lawump

This year's LLWS will be very, very interesting for me. We had a guy join our association (High school, American Legion, AAU...in otherwords a "big boy" association) five years ago or so. His only experience at that time was pretty much LL. He joined us with many of the "LL problems" we talk about on this board.

We trained him and worked with him and he has become a very, very good high school umpire, with a very good zone, good timing, good mechanics, etc. He has worked deep into the state HS playoffs.

Anyways, this umpire has never stopped working LL...despite working a full HS schedule. This year he was picked for the LLWS in Williamsport. I've teased him a little (not about being selected...but about using "good" mechanics while there!).

So, I hope he goes there and does a great job. Frankly, without even knowing anything about the other umpires selected to go to Williamsport...I am hoping he goes and stands out from the crowd (for all the right reasons!). And frankly, I think he will! I can't wait to watch him on a plate game. This ought to be fun.

We should compare notes, then. One of my regular college partners (like I mentioned above) is also working.

It's tough criticizing the strike zone if you never work on the small diamond. Catchers sit back further and some pitches look low that are definitely strikes. So, do you call those strikes or do you pass on them cause you know Internet umpires everywhere will make fun of them for calling "low" strikes?

It's likely I'll never have to worry about this. I have little desire to be on this stage, much preferring to work towards a Junior (Taylor, MI) and Senior (Bangor, ME) level World Series, played on the big diamond.

[socalblue1]

"About the mask thing - I was hoping someone could tell me why he did that. I saw it, but had stepped away from the TV, so I didn't know if something happened to his bucket or if he was just trying out a mask."

Likely the 'TV mask'. ESPN wires up a mask at each location (Used to be +POS SUL's).

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by socalblue1

"About the mask thing - I was hoping someone could tell me why he did that. I saw it, but had stepped away from the TV, so I didn't know if something happened to his bucket or if he was just trying out a mask."

Likely the 'TV mask'. ESPN wires up a mask at each location (Used to be +POS SUL's).

I think he had a malfunction. It looked like he went over to a dugout with his mask in-hand. I had the volume turned off because I was on the phone talking to a buddy about the game and then suddenly he appeared with the new mask and his HSM was back the next inning. That's the conclusion I came to.

Did you see the woman behind the plate during the Southern regional? The game was way too big for her. She called a foul tip on a foul ball with a runner coming to the plate and I think she closed her eyes on a pitch because the kid swung and she called it a ball. The big one (IMO) was when they made the kid go back after leaving early twice. His coach came and talked to her about it and she said (and I paraphrase) - He's leaving early coach. He did it in the game I had you guys earlier and I didn't call it. I'm like YIKES! Do you realize you are MIC'd?

I just thought she was prepared for the game.

[Publius]

I'm curious: If meritorious performance isn't the main reason for selection, why do umpires act like it's a feather in their caps when they're chosen?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm curious: If meritorious performance isn't the main reason for selection, why do umpires act like it's a feather in their caps when they're chosen?

How could umpires for tournaments like this POSSIBLY be chosen on umpiring ability when the selection is made without ever seeing the umpire? And if you think Williamsport (or even the regions) can see every umpire that applies, you're delusional.

Large number of applications, small number of selections -- to answer your question. And once I was selected for a regional, it was all about showing that my umpiring was worthy of my selection.

[Rcichon]

IE; Regional Assignors and Directors feel that assigning Regional games is a reward to volunteer Umpires.

Rich is correct, most appointments are made without ever seeing the Umpire perform. Decision is based mostly on:

1) what you put in your resume
2) any input from people they trust that have seen your work
3) need vs experience volume [the greater your volume of experience, the more appealing you become thus the need for your attendance is increased - or something like that -].

In the words of one Regional Assignor: [paraphrase] a Regional assignment is mostly made without ever seeing the applicant work. It comes down to what you put in your resume.

I would prefer at least a video of an applicant working each position along with the resume. References are hit or miss, unless I know the reference personally.

[PeteBooth]

IMO, there needs to be some reward for Volunteer umpires no matter how good or bad if the Philosohpy "LL is for Volunteers" truly applies. There are many many Regular season games to cover before the Regionals even begin.

If you have volunteers that have been doing many games all year long and then all of a sudden "bring in the heavy-weighs" come Tournament time how do you expect any LL organization to continue to recruit Volunteer Umpires.

IMO, it's TV that is the problem. In the past the only game shown on TV was the final game. Then ESPN came along and started televising the Regional Finals. Now they televise for the most part all the Regional games.

Unfortunately LL has "sold out to the almighty dollar" and they will always have umpires available for the regionals / LLWS. They couldn't give a rat's you know what about the regular season.


Pete Booth

[Rich]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, there needs to be some reward for Volunteer umpires no matter how good or bad if the Philosohpy "LL is for Volunteers" truly applies. There are many many Regular season games to cover before the Regionals even begin.

If you have volunteers that have been doing many games all year long and then all of a sudden "bring in the heavy-weighs" come Tournament time how do you expect any LL organization to continue to recruit Volunteer Umpires.

IMO, it's TV that is the problem. In the past the only game shown on TV was the final game. Then ESPN came along and started televising the Regional Finals. Now they televise for the most part all the Regional games.

Unfortunately LL has "sold out to the almighty dollar" and they will always have umpires available for the regionals / LLWS. They couldn't give a rat's you know what about the regular season.


Pete Booth

Pete,

While this would be admirable, it simply isn't practical for most Little Leagues to go in this direction.

In my district, we have local league umpires and district umpires. In order to work the tournaments, you must be chosen to be on the district staff. It's called quality control -- our district UIC is an experienced HS/college umpire and we don't put anyone on the field that would embarrass us (or the umpire would embarrass himself).

I volunteer. Not for a lot of league play -- that's where younger and less experienced umpires cut their teeth -- but I volunteer come tournament time. I don't consider it skimming the gravy off the top, either. Those games aren't always good and those kids in the tourneys deserve a decent level of officiating.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

We should compare notes, then. One of my regular college partners (like I mentioned above) is also working.

It's tough criticizing the strike zone if you never work on the small diamond. Catchers sit back further and some pitches look low that are definitely strikes. So, do you call those strikes or do you pass on them cause you know Internet umpires everywhere will make fun of them for calling "low" strikes?

It's likely I'll never have to worry about this. I have little desire to be on this stage, much preferring to work towards a Junior (Taylor, MI) and Senior (Bangor, ME) level World Series, played on the big diamond.

We should compare notes...I'll never have to worry, either. I haven't worked on a 60-foot field since I was 15 years old.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, there needs to be some reward for Volunteer umpires no matter how good or bad if the Philosohpy "LL is for Volunteers" truly applies.

Pete Booth

I hear this argument about all post season play opportunities. Horse pucky!

Post season has the best teams, the best players, the best coaches. They didn't get to post season becuase they played the most games or had perfect attendance or were really nice guys. They earned their way there by their performance on the field. They deserve umpires who did likewise.

If you need to reward somebody for covering games, give him a gift certificate for dinner, a good citizenship award, or buy him a watch.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I hear this argument about all post season play opportunities. Horse pucky!

Post season has the best teams, the best players, the best coaches. They didn't get to post season becuase they played the most games or had perfect attendance or were really nice guys. They earned their way there by their performance on the field. They deserve umpires who did likewise.

If you need to reward somebody for covering games, give him a gift certificate for dinner, a good citizenship award, or buy him a watch.

Mr. B:

I agree with almost all you said above. I do, however, find it disingenuous if an umpire who didn't work in the league takes a post-season assignment and says he earned it for his on-field performance.

The best teams don't get to sit out the league schedule and proceed straight to the post-season based on their outstanding performance in another league or during prior seasons. Umpires shouldn't either.

If I have a crew of umpires from which to choose rated 1 (worst) through 10 (best), I do a balancing act on the issue. Based on how much he worked and his performance, an umpire can elevate his consideration for post-season play by one or two spots. So, an 8 could surpass a 10, but a 7 likely could not.

Big-boy-ball sees it differently, apparently, than youth. Absent extraordinary circumstances, neither MLB, any level of affiliated MiLB, nor the NCAA (I, II, or III) chooses umpires who didn't work the league for post-season play.

I understand your point; I just don't subscribe to it completely.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Publius

Mr. B:

I agree with almost all you said above. I do, however, find it disingenuous if an umpire who didn't work in the league takes a post-season assignment and says he earned it for his on-field performance.

I've re-read my post and I cannot find where I suggested that this would be the case. I don't know what gave you that idea.