Yes. And it may change from game to game.

Really? What would prompt that? If the same two umpires work a four-game series, why would they change designation of crew chief from game to game?

I may be wrong, but I feel that completely substituting "UIC" with "Crew Chief" in OBR is not appropriate. The problem is that it's not an antiquated reference; rather, "UIC" blurs the responsibilities between the crew chief and the plate umpire.

I bring up the example from 5.01 again. It says the UIC will start the game by announcing "Play". That's not a crew chief's call unless he's behind the plate. And 9.04(a) specifically mandates that the UIC is behind the plate.

So if someone's going to make any changes to OBR to fix this particular error, they really need to articulate those responsibilities of the crew chief (e.g., calling games due to weather, etc.) and the plate umpire.

Sometimes a CC is named in 2 man, sometimes one isn't. In the event that one is not, the PU usually assumes this role. When you deal with crews larger than that, there is a CC. When this happens, there is no UIC, just PU and 2 BU's, one of which is CC.

Again, quoting rules does not make your assurtion correct. There are many inconsistencies and incorrect statements in the rule book. Rule book says that on any interference the ball is immediately dead. Incorrect. The rule book says that on type A obstruction the ball is immediately dead. Incorrect. Rule book says PU is UIC. Incorrect. Rule book says UIC puts ball in play. Incorrect. This is why you need interpretations and clarifications.

If MLB is unwilling to edit and change the rules so that they are updated and consistent, do you think that they are worried about the titles and roles of umpires?

Double A and Triple A use three man crews.

Forgive me for being stubborn, but is there a rule cite or interpretation for this? I've never heard or read anything anywhere that says the whole concept of "UIC" in pro ball is gone.

The theme is that the term UIC is an arbitrary designation in the rule book for PU in most instances. Many of the things the OBR book says are performed by the UIC could be performed just as well by a CC who is not the PU. This is typically what is done when umpires are in crews of more than two for extended periods of time. Occasionally this is true for single assignments, ie, a non PU is designated as CC. The take away should be unless otherwise stated the PU is the UIC. If otherwise stated the CC may perform those duties of the UIC that are not by virtue of them requiring the umpire be positioned behind the plate his.

Rules are open to interpretation and adjustment. That is the spirit and intent of the rules can be as important as what is written. At this point, I have can't get over this feeling that we are picking fly **** out of pepper. Does it really matter that we designate the umpire who puts the ball in play as the PU or the UIC?

Given that rules and designation of the umpires are meant to facilitate the playing of the game, how does it matter that the OBR refers to UIC and gives him some specific duties and there is another designation called crew chief who has some of the duties yielded to him when crews work together for extended periods of time? That is what effect does the black-letter law designation you seem to be insisting have on the administration of the game if everyone involved in its administration understand the rules of engagement, ie the de facto designation of what one umpire is called versus the de jure designation of one umpire?


(cont below)

(continued from above)

Look at the places umpire-in-chief appears in the rule book (I can't quote them all because that makes this post more than 10 times the allowable size).

Rules where UIC is mentioned that CC could be substituted with no change in effect or intent:
1.15(c), 2.00 A CALLED GAME, 2.00 A FORFEITED GAME 2.00 MANAGER, 3.10 (b), 3.11, 3.13, 3.18, 4.10 (a), 4.14, 4.15, 9.04 (b) (1), (4), (6), (7), (9), 9.04(c)
Rules where UIC is mentioned that PU really needs to be responsible:
3.03, 3.06, 3.07m, 3.12, 4.01, 5.01, 6.10, 8.01 (f), 8.02, 8.03, 9.03(a), 9.04 (b) (2), (3), (5), (8)
9.03 (b)

No, no it's not.

As to the professional level:

In MLB, the term umpire-in-chief is simply not used. Yes, it is in the rulebook, but the MLB Umpire's Manual (MLBUM) which sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the crew chief has completely replaced anything set forth in the rulebook about the U-I-C. Simply put, the crew chief is the man in charge on the field. By way of example, it is the crew chief (and crew chief only) who decides when to suspend play (due to weather or other factors). It is only a crew chief who can decide that a game is forfeited (and this has happened in MLB). These are just two examples; I'll give you other examples. Let's say a team complains that the opposing team's batter used an illegal bat OR that the opposing team's pitcher is illegally altering the ball. In either case, if the plate umpire is not the crew chief he would NEVER render judgment on the legality of a bat or whether a ball has been intentialy "doctored" or not without involving his crew chief.

From MLB.com: The Crew Chief shall coordinate and direct his crew's compliance with the Office of the Commissioner's rules and policies. Other Crew Chief responsibilities include: leading periodic discussions and reviews of situations, plays and rules with his crew; generally directing the work of the other umpires on the crew, with particular emphasis on uniformity in dealing with unique situations; assigning responsibilities for maintaining time limits during the game; ensuring the timely filing of all required crew reports for incidents such as ejections, brawls and protested games; and reporting to the Office of Commissioner any irregularity in field conditions at any ballpark."

In minor league baseball, crew chiefs are assigned in Triple-A and Double-A. They are not assigned in Single-A (which uses two-man crews). In Single-A, in any unusual situation, the umpires are instructed to consult with one another prior to making any decision.

Of course, as set forth above, there are certain duties that have to be the plate umpire's duties, whether or not the plate umpire is the crew chief.

that's a bad f'up on my part. i plead cross-eyes from reading, cuttibg, and pasting the refs.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

lol.

Finally.... someone who knows what he is talking about! Thanks, Law... I was trying to state what you did but I just didn't have the time to simplify it while I was at work.

It's always been my impression that crew chief is, well, the chief of the crew. The one responsible for leadership and administration (that is the duties you describe in the second paragraph). I don't see that as being inherently incompatible with with the plate umpire being the UIC of a particular game.

Until this thread, it never occurred to me that the PU was not the de jure UIC in the MLB, even though it's quite clear that the crew chief is involved in major game administration issues.

It is not necessarily "incompatible". However, it is simply not how it is done in practice on the professional level. The crew chief is in complete control of the game on the professional level.

I'll give you another example: In the late 1990's there was an MLB game in which two different base umpires made two different calls on the same play. (Two umpires went out on a fly ball and one ruled "catch" and the other ruled "no catch". There were runners on base. Hence, it was a major SNAFU.) The other base umpire (not the plate umpire) was the crew chief. It was the crew chief who got the umpires together (not the plate umpire) and who ultimately decided the ruling on the play after consulting with his crew.

Good to know next time.