I think we all now know more than we ever thought possible about FED conferences. But it's this kind of discusion that leaves an impression. If and when it comes up in a game situation, I think I'll have it down pretty well a a result of the comments on this thread.

your new here so.. Tim C will not give you the answers.. he wants you to read the rule book.. Tim has been around a long time, and some guys get on here that are clueless ....also you can use the search feature and most of the time this has already been asked.

Besides the minor part where he was wrong (and has said so), I don't think he was tough on anyone. Tim (and ozzy, and a few others) believe in the "give a man a fish and he's fed for one day, teach a man to fish and he's fed forever" philosophy. Assuming that the OP's on this site want to learn, that approach is better than just giving the answer... just like when we take our tests - discussing the relevant rule and WHY the answer is what it was is far superior to simply giving someone the answer.

OK, but does that really work for other rule sets? :D

"...Cookie is still not an umpire, most likely a troll..."

Sheese! Another one!

Rather than get caught up in a name-calling contest, I'd like to go back to square one to see how we got here..

This past weekend I umpired several games (Fed rules) at a memorial tournament in my home town. My partner and I would occasionally gather on the first base line between innings and have a quick discussion about some baseball rule. One occurred when the 3rd base coach (whose team had just ended their at-bats and was on its way onto the field) went directly to the mound as his F1 came out to warm up. I mentioned to my partner whether we should charge him a visit because he stopped there to talk with his F1. We both understood that as long as he didn't delay the warm-ups, it's not a big deal; let it go.

Well, on another occasion during the games I asked my partner about the delay that occurred in a previous inning when in the middle of an inning, the DC requested time from the dugout and sent out a replacement for his left-fielder, ostensibly for defensive reasons (stronger throwing arm?). I asked my partner if that was technically a "visit." We both left it as being "nothing"; play on. Later that evening, out of curiousity, I tried to see if the Fed Case book had something to say about it. I found nothing. So my Original Post here...

Tim's response was about F1; that was not my question (I already knew that). He also added the part about a defensive player going out to talk to F1 at the express instructions from the coach; that was not my question (and I already knew that, too).

However, Tim did get me thinking (even self-doubting a little) when he mentioned, "Charged visits are based on F1 and occur on the mouond." So I checked the Fed Rule book thinking that I must have missed something in my understanding of it, AND I also posted my response to what-appeared-to-me his error-filled post. Thus, here I am, vis-a-vis with Tim C. et al...

On the other hand, Bob responded directly to my question, pretty much confirming what my partner and I had concluded during the half inning that it was nothing - "A change of players is not a charged visit." And Bob further led me to thinking/realizing that when you replace a player with another - that's a substitution - no charge there (just like replacing an F1, no charged visit there. Duh! Me!)

Thank you UmpTTS43 and BSUmp16 for clarifying the situation. Perhaps I was mixing the words "visit", "conference", "meeting" interchangeaby. I'll be a little more careful with my choice of words...

Furthermore, I still have a whole lot of other baseball "situations" swirling about in my head without concrete answers, and I still want to present them to the boards (AND not to upstage anyone, to pretend to be a know-it-all, etc. etc.), but rather to get a resolution to them in my own head. If some of you choose to ignore them, then that's your right - it's a free country. Others, I welcome your posts...

Cookie, you pose any question that comes to mind and you'll get lots of great input from many umpires who have had decades of experience. Remember that a written forum such as this doesn't allow for an instant face-to-face dialog, so you and the people responding don't get the benefit of vocal emphasis and inflection that we have in normal conversations. That means some posters will post with one intention, and others will read those posts with different interpretations. Don't take very much on this board personally - read it all, glean the valuable information, and discard the chaff. And as I have said for years relative to umpiring, "Consider the source".
Enjoy!

JJ

PS Remember you have an Ignore button, too!

~Sigh~
 

I would suggest to new umpires to not do this.

T

Except
 

Tee,

I recommend meeting like this only if the BU is paying for dinner and want my input on where we are eating....

The base umpire belongs in short, field and the plate umpire belongs on the foul line, in front of the dugout that is going on defense. Umpires should not be "jawing" on the 1st or 3rd base line for any reason. You bump fists after the plate meeting and you should not meet again (hopefully) until the last inning is over. Jawing on the line is a sure ticket to getting a coach pissed off at your crew, besides, that means your crew is not doing their between inning jobs.

The plate umpire doesn't have to be on the line or in front of a particular dugout for that matter. I've started standing almost 1BLX or 3BLX between innings. Keeps you out of the way and you can see more going on. The PU can go to the side in front of the team going out on defense, or can do the opposite and stand on the side of the team about to hit. There isn't a definitive protocol on this anywhere. It's a local, if not personal preference.

Just a different perspective.

Most of the plate umpires I see working A and AAA now go to the offensive side where it is more convenient for them to give a "last one" to the first batter after giving "two more" to the pitcher.

If you look at the body of his work to date, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that cookie is either not an umpire, or is acting purposefully dense...troll-like, one might say.