A LLWS Observation

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

What is up with the red undershirts under the jackets that are black with light blue and white stripes...that looks stupid!

I can agree with you on that. In Ohio we're required to wear red undershirts for Fed ball. I find it bizarre.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

It is just the way it is! It killed me when Jim Joyce was wearing a goatee...looks horrible. Maybe you just became a better umpire...it wasn't because you grew facial hair.

My dad doesn't like them either. He's 65.

There's nothing wrong with properly groomed facial hair. I don't wear it, but it's not like this is one of baseball's unwritten rules... unless Marge Schott is your boss.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I can agree with you on that. In Ohio we're required to wear red undershirts for Fed ball. I find it bizarre.

I was taught your undershirt should be one of the colors of the stripes (piping) on your shirt/jacket.

[johnnyg08]

They're probably wearing what they're told. I'm sure there's a lot of instruction around appearance. Your boss tells you to wear 'X', then it's typically a good idea to wear 'X'

[Fittske]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I was taught your undershirt should be one of the colors of the stripes (piping) on your shirt/jacket.

I was taught that your undershirt should be the same color as the darkest color on the collar but not to be not the same color as the shirt.

Powder Shirt (Navy undershirt)
Cream Shirt (Black Undershirt)
Polo blue Shirt (Black Undershirt)
Black Shirt (white undershirt)
Navy (Red under shirt, since the collar is also Navy, the darkest color on the collar is red)

For High school we wear Navy undershirts under our Navy shirts.

However I can see no logic why red is being worn under black shirts/jackets

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Again, there's nothing inherently incompatible about umpiring and facial hair, even if you don't like it.

And there's nothing incompatible about almost any other appearance item. It IS one of the unwritten societal rules (the extent to which depends on the specific area) and you will be viewed differently (and, thus, your umpiring will be judged differently until there's sufficient specific evidence to overcome it) if you have one.

It might not be "logical", but it's true.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Well, uhm, yes.

Maybe not the LLWS, but do you really believe that players and coaches aren't watching the parade of "bad calls" and "arrogant umpires" being shoved down our throats by ESPN, and NOT smacking their chops??

Example:

NABA game a few weeks ago (yeah, I know - already a pacifier away from being a daycare center). Had a banger at first. I take the play in, "review" in my head, and gun the runner out. Typical groaning. Then a voice rings out: "Another good call, Jim Joyce!"**

And that's weeks/months after the 'perfect' game.

So, yeah, I'm thinking a daddy-coach in the sub-HS level is sitting at home thinking up lines to say during his next fall and/or spring season.

**That was almost funny, but there was a better exchange a minute or so later. Player 1: "that was pretty good timing on that play." Player 2: "yeah, the timing was great, but he still f%^&$d up the call!" At least they understood timing!

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by asdf

I especially enjoy "foul ball" being bellowed out by the plate umpire as the ball is rolling back down the screen behind the plate.

asdf:
Please be more careful when you're quoting a poster.

In your post #63, you highlighted a reply to post that says at the top, Originally posted by KJump.

That was NOT posted by me. That reply was originally posted by Mrumpiresir. See post #62.

I'm already catching enough heat on what I've posted. I don't need to be taking it for comments I DID NOT post.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And there's nothing incompatible about almost any other appearance item. It IS one of the unwritten societal rules (the extent to which depends on the specific area) and you will be viewed differently (and, thus, your umpiring will be judged differently until there's sufficient specific evidence to overcome it) if you have one.

It might not be "logical", but it's true.

And depending on your race, gender, sport or association can change a lot of those things as well.

I have never been asked to remove facial hair except in one conference in basketball. Everyone else has not said a word about it to me or others like me that I am aware of. And this is really not the case at the high school level. Guys wear all kinds of things at the high school level.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

asdf:
Please be more careful when you're quoting a poster.

In your post #63, you highlighted a reply to post that says at the top, Originally posted by KJump.

That was NOT posted by me. That reply was originally posted by Mrumpiresir. See post #62.

I'm already catching enough heat on what I've posted. I don't need to be taking it for comments I DID NOT post.

All I did was hit the quote button, just like I have many times in the past.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And there's nothing incompatible about almost any other appearance item. It IS one of the unwritten societal rules (the extent to which depends on the specific area) and you will be viewed differently (and, thus, your umpiring will be judged differently until there's sufficient specific evidence to overcome it) if you have one.

It might not be "logical", but it's true.

That's what people who don't like facial hair always say, but I don't really think it is true. My own experience bears out the exact opposite.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by asdf

All I did was hit the quote button, just like I have many times in the past.

So what does that mean? that it's OK for you to attribute a quote to me that I did not post?
It's not my quote. Clearly you can see that. (I hope).
Obviously, you did something the rest of us don't do when we reply post a reply quoting a poster.
Don't misquote people and then brush it off as no big deal.

[KJUmp]

[QUOTE=Mrumpiresir;690210]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

In a regional game, I don't remember the teams, with a runner on first, a ground ball was hit to the infield. The runner was forced at second and the throw to first went out of play. They awarded the batter - runner third base. WHY?? One of the other five umps should have corrected this. On another play, did you see the first base ump emphatically call the runner out as the ball sailed past the fielder? Extremely bad timing. A batter was walked on ball three. Routine calls badly missed. The list goes on. Have you not been watching? We have to live this down because we are all "Brothers in Blue" and what they do reflects on all of us. These are not just opinion.

Why? Well share a little more information on the play. Was the base award a TOP or a TOT award?
You said R1 was forced at 2nd. How was the force registered? Unassisted? Assisted? Was the throw to 1st the second throw of an infielder? Had the BR already reached 1st at the time of the throw?

No disagreement on the bad timing. Didn't see the play, but we'd all be in agreement bad/poor timing will get anyone at any level in trouble. I've always felt that good timing is the mechanic that is the most difficult to master and the single most important mechanic for any umpire.

Routine calls badly missed....well here again, you're long on criticism and generalizations, but short on specifics and details.

"Brothers in Blue", you are not treating these guys like brother umpires.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

They're probably wearing what they're told. I'm sure there's a lot of instruction around appearance. Your boss tells you to wear 'X', then it's typically a good idea to wear 'X'

Bingo!

[Mrumpiresir]

[QUOTE=KJUmp;690349]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

Why? Well share a little more information on the play. Was the base award a TOP or a TOT award?
You said R1 was forced at 2nd. How was the force registered? Unassisted? Assisted? Was the throw to 1st the second throw of an infielder? Had the BR already reached 1st at the time of the throw?


Routine calls badly missed....well here again, you're long on criticism and generalizations, but short on specifics and details.

"Brothers in Blue", you are not treating these guys like brother umpires.

Are you not following the posts on this thread?

OK. Since you did not see the play, the runner definitely had not reached first when the throw was made by the second baseman after recieving the throw from the SS. A no brainer for any serious umpire.

As far as routine calls badly missed, I guess you just weren't watching.

You did not see these games and are trying to defend these guys because you feel I am simply bashing them.

So tell me, How can you make an intelligent argument about things you did not see?