Interesting Read...

[Publius]

Using six umpires is a good idea. The problem is, they use the two additional ones the wrong way.

They belong on the warning track.

[jicecone]

Lets get this politically correct. You need 11 umpires for each game.

6 on the fieild.

1 in each Dugout

3 in the press box. (1 to tell them the rules, 1 to explain the rules and 1 to discuss the rules and explanations.) This assumes a broadcast crew of three of course. However, in some cases you may need up to 3 for each Birdbrain, oh, Im sorry I meant to say broadcast announcer.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Lets get this politically correct. You need 11 umpires for each game.

6 on the fieild.

1 in each Dugout

3 in the press box. (1 to tell them the rules, 1 to explain the rules and 1 to discuss the rules and explanations.) This assumes a broadcast crew of three of course. However, in some cases you may need up to 3 for each Birdbrain, oh, Im sorry I meant to say broadcast announcer.

I would LOVE to have an official help me with the broadcasts, both baseball and football. Every one that I have asked has turned me down. An official would help me at least sing on key.

[maven]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

I would LOVE to have an official help me with the broadcasts, both baseball and football.

This is difficult to do well. The broadcast official needs to be able to explain rules to non-officials in an accurate yet accessible way, and to do it on the spur of the moment. That takes you down below 5% of officials in my experience: few of us are Mike Pereira.

Then he or she must be able to discuss a situation in a game without throwing the game officials under the bus. That adds another layer of difficulty.

And, of course, you have some states (like mine) that prohibit officials from speaking to the "media" about contests and officiating. So you'd need special permission to do that here.

[rbmartin]

#5. "The Jorge Posada Rule" is the only one in this article that I argee with.

Limiting catcher's trips to the mound makes some sense.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

#5. "The Jorge Posada Rule" is the only one in this article that I argee with.

Limiting catcher's trips to the mound makes some sense.

Jorge's trips have allready been limited so that takes care of that problem.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by maven

.

Then he or she must be able to discuss a situation in a game without throwing the game officials under the bus. That adds another layer of difficulty.

And there is the difference between a sportscaster and official. One has integrity and the other would bury his own mother under the bus, for good ratings.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by maven

Then he or she must be able to discuss a situation in a game without throwing the game officials under the bus. That adds another layer of difficulty.

And, of course, you have some states (like mine) that prohibit officials from speaking to the "media" about contests and officiating. So you'd need special permission to do that here.

This all assumes you're using a current MLB umpire. If you use a former umpire in the same way that FOX uses Pereira, there wouldn't be any concerns that you point out.

Didn't a network put Steve Palermo in the booth a number of years ago?

[bsaucer]

Why not have the HP umpire wear a mike so he can explain rulings to the press box and fans, like the ref does in football?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by bsaucer

Why not have the HP umpire wear a mike so he can explain rulings to the press box and fans, like the ref does in football?

I believe this is done in Japan, too.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bsaucer

Why not have the HP umpire wear a mike so he can explain rulings to the press box and fans, like the ref does in football?

Not worth the hassle. How often would an umpire have to use it in a routine game? Calls that would need an explanation don't happen all the time as they do in football.