FED UMPIRES Manual, Let's Start the rewrite

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

why not start with the rule book, then worry about the maual.

I agree.

I learned a long time ago that there are many, many complainers about, well just about everything. Ask them to step up to the plate, run for an office, take the lead role, re-write a manual, etc, etc. they are nowhere to be found.

Start the re-write yourself. Go for it.

However, if the acceptable mechanic (whatever it may be) is something that is not explicity covered in the rules and manual, (and I agree it is not), for missing a base is your main reason for re-writing the manual, then????

Lets look at the practical side of this. Exactly how many times have you had to make this call and use whatever mechanic you choose to use. Once?
Twice? Threee times?. In twenty something years I am lucky if I remember once. I know some may say that is because of my age but, I haven't quite lost it yet.

I think most officials get a good understanding of the intent of the rules and the proper way to handle a missed base infraction more sooner that later. I also do not know of any Professional Federation Umpire.

So if it is perfection you are after, go for the re-write. Some will be happy, some will care less.

But, putting things into perspective here, Welll ???????????????????

[bossman72]

The problem lies when you deviate from the state association's standard. PA uses the FED manual as the standard, which should only be used for kindling.

Here is the catch: you work CCA mechanics in your chapter. You work playoffs or with someone from another chapter and they work FED mechanics. Even though you pregame CCA mechanics, if you blow a rotation and subsequent call, YOU (the one who uses CCA) are in the wrong because you didn't use the FED standard (even though it sucks).

PA guys - we should submit something to "Uncle Marty" and ask him about changing the standard.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I used to agree.

What CCA had going for it were its expanded visual aids and discussion. I think Evans' new tome surpasses CCA in both areas and others. It will take some time, but I believe it will replace the CCA and the Redbook as the top alternatives to the FED manual.

Not at the College level.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

Not at the College level.

I believe I wrote that I thought it would become the alternative for the FED manual. Unless colleges in your area use the FED manual, that's really not an issue.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I haven't been "stuck" with FED since....ever. I have never seen a mandate from FED that their manual must be used. From what I've seen on this board, many areas do not work FED mechanics. I believe someone posted that the entire state of Oregon has abandoned them. It also appears that at least parts of Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, California and other states also have left FED mechanics behind.

That said, if your association has endorsed FED mechanics, perhaps you are stuck. My sympathies.

In Alabama, we have our own mechanics manual also. This is used state-wide, not association to association.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I've never seen a FED manual. We don't use them here. We use CCA and Red Book, along with whatever is gleaned from pro school grads and the pro umpires in our association.

After the things I've read here over the last few years about the FED manual, and the awful mechanics portrayed in the rule book, if I ever see a copy of the manual in my house, it will be deposited into the round file.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Yes, I know we all have our favorite stuff for mechanics, mine being the six weeks of notes from Harry's in 1985 when I was there.

But you and I all know that FED is not going to adopt CCA mechanics, or an expensive Evans book, also when both are set up for higher levels of baseball than FED is.

And until we all who work BB move to JR's state, we are stuck with FED.

States can change any of the mechanics that they want to. The NF does not care or cannot stop you from doing it. The NF creates these books to have a standard if individual jurisdictions choose not to create their own mechanics. There is nothing that says you must follow the FED mechanics or else.

Also keep this in mind, it is not like baseball mechanics are that far off base from each other. The mechanics differences are really minor at least from the CCA Manual to the FED Manual. And just like anything in mechanics, these are guidelines, they are not mandates. There are situations not covered clearly in the mechanics and if your partner does one thing, you have to adjust to cover plays properly. For example the FED tells umpires that are in the A position to go out on every hit to center field to right field. The CCA Mechanics basically says "Read, Pause and React." All I care about is if my partner goes out, I cover what they cannot cover. It is not really that complicated if you ask me.

Peace

[cc6]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No umpires as such work for NFHS. As independent contractors, we work (around here at least) for assignors and leagues. Those organizations do not have their own manuals.

Our association uses the red book.

So why do they even have an NFHS book if nobody works for NFHS?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For example the FED tells umpires that are in the A position to go out on every hit to center field to right field.

Actually, it depends on which part of the book you read. There are sections that seem to be telling the umpire in "A" to go out on everything. Other sections tell the umpire to pivot into the infield on routine fly balls.

And that is another problem with the FED manual- editing. It was originally written years ago, so some of the instruction is just plain outdated. Bits-and-pieces have been revised through the years, creating a sometimes disjointed or conflicting document.

I do totally agree with the premise that any state or local association is free to adopt whatever mechanics they see fit.

I wonder if you were to take the FED manual and, say, the CCA manual side-by-side how much of the content would be in agreement. 75%? 90%? More? It just seems that with a little updating, editing and reorganization the NFHS could have themselves a first-rate umpire manual.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by cc6

So why do they even have an NFHS book if nobody works for NFHS?

You have, presumably, an OBR rule book published by MLB. Do you work for MLB?

Same reason.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Actually, it depends on which part of the book you read. There are sections that seem to be telling the umpire in "A" to go out on everything. Other sections tell the umpire to pivot into the infield on routine fly balls.

And that is another problem with the FED manual- editing. It was originally written years ago, so some of the instruction is just plain outdated. Bits-and-pieces have been revised through the years, creating a sometimes disjointed or conflicting document.

This is the very reason my state threw out all NF Mechanics books as the way to follow mechanics. It is not uncommon that mechanics are rarely changed and when situations come up that show a flaw in the mechanics, it takes more than necessary to change a positioning or practice. That not to say our mechanics are perfect, but they at least can be changed.

Originally Posted by BretMan

I do totally agree with the premise that any state or local association is free to adopt whatever mechanics they see fit.

Just so you know that appears to be the NF position on the issue. I have said this before, Mary Struckoff who is the editor of the NF Basketball Book and works for the NF commented on this very thing a few years ago. And I asked her personally when she came to a convention in our state of officials. She made it very clear the NF does not care if states come up with their own mechanics and said there was nothing the NF could do about it if a state or association wants to deviate from their mechanics. And she even gave a couple of examples of states that choose do their own thing (even though she personally disagreed with a particular mechanic) and the state was unwilling to follow the NF standard.

Originally Posted by BretMan

I wonder if you were to take the FED manual and, say, the CCA manual side-by-side how much of the content would be in agreement. 75%? 90%? More? It just seems that with a little updating, editing and reorganization the NFHS could have themselves a first-rate umpire manual.

I am sure if the NF spent a little more time and money to create a better product, that more states would be willing to follow their mechanics. And I think the biggest problem with the NF and their mechanics books is the fact that you do not see a lot of officials on the committee and when changes are made they are not with consideration from people that have actually strapped up the uniform. Then again, this is just my opinion. I am sure there will be those that disagree with that part of this discussion.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You have, presumably, an OBR rule book published by MLB. Do you work for MLB?

Same reason.

You might have to type more slowly for him.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Why re-invent the wheel? The CCA and Redbook are both widely available and much, much better.

Glamour and Good Housekeeping are both better than Redbook.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Here is the catch: you work CCA mechanics in your chapter. You work playoffs or with someone from another chapter and they work FED mechanics. Even though you pregame CCA mechanics, if you blow a rotation and subsequent call, YOU (the one who uses CCA) are in the wrong because you didn't use the FED standard (even though it sucks).

If you are saying:

1) the crew pre-gamed CCA mechanics, and
2) a missed call or rotation resulted from conflict borne of one umpire's use of the FED mechanic and another's use of the CCA mechanic; and
3) the umpire using the CCA mechanic is to blame for the foul-up...

I heartily disagree.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Publius

If you are saying:

1) the crew pre-gamed CCA mechanics, and
2) a missed call or rotation resulted from conflict borne of one umpire's use of the FED mechanic and another's use of the CCA mechanic; and
3) the umpire using the CCA mechanic is to blame for the foul-up...

I heartily disagree.

This is how it would happen with a PIAA evaluator in the stands (PIAA uses FED mechanics book as standard): Let's say for instance I (who likes CCA) am the PU and I don't cover 3rd on a clean triple with nobody on, assuming the BU (from another chapter that uses FED mechanics) will take it as CCA instructs. His FED-programmed mind doesn't cover third assuming that I would be there and we blow a call.

Evaluator: "Bossman, that's your call at third. That's your fault."
Me: "Yeah, but we pregamed CCA mechanics and that was supposed to be his call."
My partner: "Yeah, my fault. I should have got that call. I'm so used to using PIAA mechanics that I forgot."
Evaluator: "Bossman, why are you using CCA mechanics and not what the PIAA wants you to do?"
Me: "Because I like them better."
Evaluator: "You are to work the mechanics you are supposed to work. If you want to do your own thing, you won't be working playoffs for us anymore."


That's something how the convo would go (if that ever were to happen). I don't like it, but that's how it is.