Crew Chief?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Stating the obvious again? UIC within OBR is an antiquated term and is no longer used. Just because it is referenced in the rule book does not make it right. Consider it one of the 230+ errors in rule book.

UIC within OBR may be antiquated at the MLB level. But does it not apply elsewhere?

If there's a two-man crew working a MiLB A-Ball or Double-A game, is one of them really designated the "crew chief"?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Manny A

If there's a two-man crew working a MiLB A-Ball or Double-A game, is one of them really designated the "crew chief"?

Yes. And it may change from game to game.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

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.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Manny A

UIC within OBR may be antiquated at the MLB level. But does it not apply elsewhere?

If there's a two-man crew working a MiLB A-Ball or Double-A game, is one of them really designated the "crew chief"?

Double A and Triple A use three man crews.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

When this happens, there is no UIC, just PU and 2 BU's, one of which is CC.

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by Manny A

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)

[tcarilli]

(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)