FED UMPIRES Manual, Let's Start the rewrite
 

Folks,

For those of you who do not do much at NFHS.org, take a look at this thread:
NFHS Forum: Missed 1B Mechanic

I know we have at least one person with influence on the FED Rules Committee who blesses us with his presence, and there are others who have pull in their state.

IMO, this situation in the NFHS thread is a reason why the FED manual needs to be rewritten, immediately if not sooner. If there are lots of inexperienced FED people who umpire, then their manual needs to reflect that reality.

Any opinions?

Anyone willing to start the rewrite?

Why re-invent the wheel? The CCA and Redbook are both widely available and much, much better. Evans' new Mechanic Bible, based on the Redbook, is the best out there.

Our state does not use the Manual. So who cares what you write. ;)

Peace

Page 1: See the CCA Manual.

Page 2: The End

JM

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.

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

The answer would basically be the same: Throw it out.

Men, you know better than this
 

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.

If you work FED, and your assocation tells you to use the FED manual, then that is what you have to use. Not everybody owns the CCA or Evans manual, and even if they did, it's still out of line to do things differently than how the league trains you to. The solution to disagreeing with the FED manual is to not work any more of their games, rather than going against the directions of supervisors and evaluators.

Take the Baseball Ontario umpire's manual for example. It might be a bit different than what is taught in the pro schools, but we go by the Baseball Ontario manual because the majority of people who are carded under OBA haven't been trained PBUC mechanics. For example, PBUC says to go out on any flyball that pulls the center fielder towards the right field line. OBA says to go out on any flyball that pulls the right fielder towards the line. We do things the Ontario way because that's what we are told to do, not because some umpires decide that their way is better than the rest without consulting the book publishers.

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.

You seem to be confusing not using FED rules in a FED game as opposed to not working FED mechanics in a FED game.

The answer to FED's crappy manual is to, as an association, adopt another one.

So you're saying that rather than coping with the mechanics manual of the organization they work for, many umpires knowingly go against what the manual teaches them?

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.

I greatly appreciate what you are saying men..
 

However, you are missing the point. Nobody I know of uses pure FED baseball mechanics, and everyone says "Amen."

But, even though we all teach mechanics differently than FED, we have to remember that: 1. Most FED umpires don't work at it as hard as we do. 2. Most FED umpires need to be told how to do certain things in clear terms.

I mean how many of us really needed to know that you call people safe at 1B if they miss the bag as they go by? Well, there are a lot of FED guys who don't know, and won't know until it is in the FED mechanics book. Also, there are some good points to the FED manual, at least for umpires who work and study only for FED baseball.

The manual could be so much better then it is, if someone (TEE?) would start pushing for changes in what the manual has in it.

MrUmpire,

While I do not own the new Evans/Nelson mechanics manual yet, I understand it is outstanding.

I would suggest the CCA manual simply because it is more affordable and, in addition to 2-man mechanics, covers 3, 4, & 6 man as well. Probably a little more realistic that a majority of umpires might actuallu acquire one.

JM

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 ???????????????????

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Same reason.

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.

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.

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

You might have to type more slowly for him.

Glamour and Good Housekeeping are both better than Redbook. :D

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.

Why would you pre-game a set of mechanics that your state or organization does not want applied?

Also we must keep in mind that there are not many variations in mechanics. Usually the mechanics involve where you stand before the play starts. After that we go where the play takes us and try to cover plays the best of our ability. Baseball mechanics are not complicated. At least with two person mechanics, one person watches one thing, the other person watches the rest.

Peace

That doesn't change the fact that the guy using the FED mechanic is to blame for the missed call. The PIAA evaluator might disagree, but given the circumstances he's wrong. The PU's mistake would have been conducting a pre-game based on CCA mechanics, not "missing" the call at third after having done so. That's assuming working PIAA playoffs carries more weight with him than than adhering to what was agreed upon in a pre-game, and if that's the case I'd ask him the question Rut raised.

Your particular play will no longer be a point of departure between the two before too much longer, I'm guessing. With the NFHS now having the base umpire make the call on the second play in the infield, I have hope that they'll soon move to the 21st century on this one, too.

Obviously I do have an OBR rulebook, but I would never use an MLB interpretations rule book for non-MLB games. I have professional positioning manuals, but I cannot use them because I don't work professional games. You have to use what your organization tells you to use, or at least you should. I don't understand why they don't just stop making FED mechanics manuals if nobody uses them.

Agreed completely.

Guess a lot of people here are wasting money on J/R, Carl's BRD, the Evans manual, etc.

And what we are saying is many local associations have adopted CCA or PBUC mechanics. There are entire states, like Oregon, that have done this. The NFHS does not have the power to tell any umpire association or state to use its mechanics.

They keep making Fed manuals because there are still places out there that use it. If you work in those places you probably are stuck with it until you convince those in charge there should be a change.

Including myself.

Looks like the associations are now over-ruling the NFHS. It looks like a bad political struggle is at play here.

While we're at it, let's get him into the 19th century regarding uniform colors and white trim on shoes so that our rules interpreter can get off of that kick and on to learning rules he hasn't gotten to yet, like interference.

We enjoyed a 45-minute discussion at our last meeting about whether under Fed rules interference is an immediate dead ball and where runners should be placed because he "doesn't believe in the case book."

Ugh, I hope that's not true! That's our state interpreter! If so, Uncle Marty might have to step down. I've only met him once, so you would know him better than I.

There's no overuling going on. No bad political struggle. You obviously do not understand. FED puts puts out a mechanics manual, however they DO NOT mandate that it be used. Got it now? States and associations are free to chose a mechanics manual. Some choose CCA, some chose pro, some chose FED. We do not have a national play-off so there is no issue of umpires coming from different regions using different mechanics.

Exactly. In fact, it's literally true: setting aside the FED umpire manual does not entail rejecting NFHS rules.

Yes I've got it, but you don't need to say "Got it now?". That sentence has a very rude tone to it, and was completely unnecessary considering what otherwise was a good post.

I would love it if PIAA would come up to speed on some issues. How about carrying the stopwatch on the field this year to make sure that pace of play keeps up. I think this one is going to carry a lot of difficulties.

However, the problem still lies in regional and state tournaments. Our organization started using the red book this year (apparently, they had their own set of mechanics before), but many other organizations use FED, or a hybrid version of their own. I've heard that some confusion abounds at the tournament level. However, it helps that the later rounds of tournaments are run as 3-man, so most have to learn the mechanics for 3-man together.