Okay, since your hands are already covered from the s---ty end of the stick (hope you wore gloves!), let me ask this:

In Fed, a pitcher can't pickoff from the windup. So, a lot of times, R3 will take off way down the line from third and bluff a steal. Why? To distract the pitcher - and maybe to get the pitcher to balk. You calling that, too?? Do you think the two things are equal, and do you can them the same?

And back to my other comment: when an infielder is tapping his glove behind the runner, one can make the argument he's hindering the runner, since that runner may take a smaller lead, or be going the wrong way when the pitch is delivered. So that could be called a rules violation, too. (I know: the runner should be listening to a coach. And whatever pitcher is bothered by The Clapper should be worrying about pitching, too.)

What I'm saying is: don't extend every little thing that happens on the field into something to be ruled upon. Some parts of the game can go on without us. Or they'll be policed by the players. And my disagreement with you is that the umpire in question determined this was an attempt to draw a balk, and warranted a warning, and you agree with that; I don't. Therefore, I disagree it's a rule violation.

Wow, youse must be one of doze superumps. You can even officiate games haveing never even seen em. Amazing. Not too good at reading though.

"(when it is necessary)".

As far as the fielder tapping his glove, come on now, I've been around too long to even begin to think that is a hinderance. Hopefully so have you.

Now for the runner at third!! I'll go one better than your example. (Actually happened) The runner takes the same type of lead and begins to specifically yell at the pitcher, at the top of his lungs "Hey Pitch". Your gonna let that go too?

Then I guess your going to let the pitch to that players head go too, just to even things up. Right? Hell, they probably don't even need you at the game because besides balls and strikes you can't be bothered with all those silly rules you don't agree with. Just get a parent out there for a hot dog and coke.

I truly believe your better than that.

And all I have been saying all along here is WHEN the obvious happens during a game , do your job and MAKE THE DANG CALL.

I guess I just suck, then. All I've been trying to say is there wasn't a call to be made, as I don't see the 'obviousness' you're mentioning, and I'm not alone, from what I've looked back and read. (Even though reading is apparently not in my skill set, either.)

I will certainly agree with the general statement: WHEN something happens, make a call. That's a "no s---" one, there.

What I've been trying to get across is, in MY opinion - but remember, I suck - this is NOT one of those times. A couple posts ago, you said: My point: that umpire was wrong. Sure, he made a call when he saw an 'obvious' rule violation; good for him, and good for his convictions. But he saw a 'rule violation' that wasn't there. So he's wrong.

And sorry that I'm "officiating games having never seen em." Maybe your brilliant discourse has confused me, but when we talk about games and situations in an Internet forum, and say "what we had," isn't that the friggin' point?? - officiating something we weren't there for?

"Orderly Minds, Friendly Gentlemen"
 

Applause to you both. You made some good points on each side. Kinda philosophical in a way, with no "ideal" right answer. I am wiser to learn and consider both sides of the argument and use them as I feel best on the ball field.

Order My Frijoles, Girls. :)