What do you guys think of this one?

Can a plate umpire appeal to his partner on a check swing without ever being asked to check?

This question arises because I did it.

With a 3-2 count and the bases loaded, BR swings(?) at pitch in the dirt. BR takes off for first. I called "Ball, no he didn't go". Catcher drops it, bobbles it, etc. No one has any idea why BR is running to first- myself included. To clarify, I fire out from behind the plate, amd SELL the appeal. Partner says no, everyone moves up- no problems.

After the game, another supervisor tells me that I can't do that.
I tell him that I did it for EVERYONE'S benefit.
He says NO.

What do you think??


Bainer.

If, for some reason...sand in your eye, catcher stood up, you flinched, whatever...you don't know if the batter went, feel free to go to your partner.

If, however, you have already announced, "No he didn't go", then you shouldn't go, unless an appeal is made.

By vocalizing "No, he didn't go", you have already sold the call and you told everyone that you clearly saw it. in this sitch, I would not go to my partner unless appealed by the coach.

you can appeal whenever you want, it doesnt have to be requested because its you asking for help on something you might not be able to see. after saying he didnt go, i wouldnt ask because you just said he didnt go so that means you know he didnt go.

I would appeal anyway, even though I said "no he didn't go."

Why? Because the ball was in the dirt and caused a situation where we needed IMMEDIATE confirmation whether or not there was a swing. The defense could've waited until R3 came down the line, tagged him, and then appealed.

The "no he didn't go" is overruled, in my opinion, by the PBUC admonition to get help immediately if the ball gets away on strike three. The correct mechanic on a check swing is to ALWAYS say "no he didn't go" so what's the difference?

I'd be asking.

Rich

"The correct mechanic on a check swing is to ALWAYS say "no he didn't go" so what's the difference?"

Even if you thought he swung?

Bob

Of course not. You know what I meant :)

Rich

No, it is not!

That mechanic only applies "<i>If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch...</i>" according to Section 10.9 of the UDP <i>Manual For The Two-Umpire System</i>.

If the pitch was a ball BUT the umpire <b>did not see</b> whether or not the batter either offered at or checked on the pitch, the correct mechanic is to call "Ball" only. See OBR 2.00 Definition of A Ball.

Why would anyone make the "no, he didn't go" determination if there was no swing at all, whether checked or otherwise, in their view?

If you were unsighted and <i>suspected</i> a checked swing, even though you didn't see one, you could most certainly ask your partner for help without being asked yourself. BUT you wouldn't call "no, he didn't go" first! That's the same as saying "I saw him check and he didn't offer at the pitch. Partner, did he offer at the pitch?" Not a decisive call by any estimation.

Cheers

I say "Ball. No, he didn't go" on EVERY checked swing. To not do so is equivalent to what umpires used to do back when I started in the 80s -- have secret signals designed to tell your partner that you don't want your call of "Ball" reversed.

We disagree on the appropriate-ness of that, so there's no sense bringing that up.

BTW, I don't see a gray area. At face value, I either see a swing or see a no swing. Strike or ball. But if that bat moves off the shoulder and I determine that the batter hasn't offered, I say "Ball. No, he didn't go."

That doesn't mean I made the correct call by any means. And it doesn't remove the responsibility of me quickly appealing that pitch when the outcome of that appeal and the timeliness of it could affect the game.

Then again, I've never been bothered with base umpires reversing the ball call to a strike call. To me, it's always just been part of the game.

Rich

The fact that you "don't see" IS the gray area! Well, more like a "black" area really. :)

So you admit that you have made a determination that the batter didn't offer. My point was: what about those occasions when you made no determination at all? Maybe you were unsighted by the catcher. Maybe you had your eyes shut. Maybe you were so focused on the path of the pitch that you lost the batter entirely from your field of focus (you did say that is why you believe the PU isn't in the best position to call check swings, didn't you?).

On THOSE occasions the correct mechanic is to call "<i>Ball</i>" only. In that case how could you reasonably add "<i>no, he didn't go</i>", so making a determination, when you actually <b>saw</b> nothing? NOW, therefore, you <i>still</i> have not 1 but 2 mechanics in play anyway! Thus the means for any intended elimination of so-called "<i>secret signals</i>" is already defeated by reality!

From there, Rich, it is merely a short step into the light to use the mechanic "<i>Ball; no, he didn't go</i>" only when you have decided the batter clearly didn't offer, and "<i>Ball</i>" alone when unsighted or you aren't sure either way. Leave the Dark Side and come join us in the Light, mate. :D

Happy checking.

Cheers

I agree 98% with Rich. With a two-strike count and the ball in the dirt (especially one that eludes the catcher) you should automatically appeal to BU. After further review of Warren's comments I think adding the No He didn't go complicates the situation. I still think far too many umpires do not verbalize "BALL". Verbalizing works far better and I think results in calling more strikes. You can pause without someone being "surprised" by a subsequent strike call.

Porterisian
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

On THOSE occasions the correct mechanic is to call "<i>Ball</i>" only. In that case how could you reasonably add "<i>no, he didn't go</i>", so making a determination, when you actually <b>saw</b> nothing? NOW, therefore, you <i>still</i> have not 1 but 2 mechanics in play anyway! Thus the means for any intended elimination of so-called "<i>secret signals</i>" is already defeated by reality! From there, Rich, it is merely a short step into the light to use the mechanic "<i>Ball; no, he didn't go</i>" only when you have decided the batter clearly didn't offer, and "<i>Ball</i>" alone when unsighted or you aren't sure either way. Leave the Dark Side and come join us in the Light, mate. :D Happy checking. Cheers

Warren;

As I have explained before, it is now a violation of extablished NCAA umpire policy for umpires to vary their calls on a check swing so as to send a message to the BU. More specifically, it is not taught that way in pro school either. Only "Smittys" in the USA and umpires down under still engage in this sort of chicanery.

Almost all umpires that I know doing NCAA ball say "Ball" for a check swing (or no swing) when the ball is not in the strike zone. The " no he did not go" part has been eliminated from the vocabaulary of NCAA and experienced minor league umpires. A few of the single A umpires still use this mechanic because it has been taught in the pro schools. However, the pro school umpires are taught to say that each time the batter even flinches a bat, no matter how minor. The may NOT say "no he did not go" on one check swing and just "ball" on another. Whatever way they choose must be the same way each and every time.

Since it is easier and less controversial to just say "ball", that is what most experienced umpires have defaulted to.

Your continued efforts to distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings on this subject is not helpful. (It almost Porterisian.) Get over it. Australia is behind the times. Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics to American umpires that will only get them in trouble with the big dogs.

I'm sorry about the Porter comment but I just could not help it. That was totally unfair on my part. :)

Peter

Bainer;

I check without being asked all the time at the highest levels of NCAA ball. (See my article on this of three weeks ago on the paid part of this site.)

One thing, I never do is say "no he did not go." That is now verboten in good baseball. The correct call when the ball is not in the strike zone and you don't think that the batter swung is "Ball." Don't add anything else. That is the way that top level umpires north of the equator call the game.

Peter

Re: Porterisian
 

Peter, you're obsessed. I'm flattered.

Rhubarb...
 

Ok, let's deal with your assertions one at a time:<ul><li>Putting Australian officials in the same category as US "Smittys"? Brrrrrrtttt!!!! :p<p><li>"<i>...distort, deliberately misinterpret, and pick apart others writings ...</i>" - you're just trying to light my wick, aren't ya? Well, I ain't gonna give ya' the satisfaction! Brrrrrrttttt!!! :p<p><li>"<i>Quit trying to teach archaic mechanics...</i>"? Ok, that one needs an answer besides "<i>Brrrrrrtttt!!!</i> :p". See below.</ul>You are again operating from the basis of a false assumption, Peter: namely that the <i>new</i> mechanic is necessarily the <i>better</i> mechanic. Fact is, all the new mechanic appears to do is to appease the whining coaches and managers who believed they were being "cheated" out of <b><i>their</i></b> "right" to a "fair" appeal on a check swing. The trouble with <i>their</i> reasoning is that the whole check swing appeal process first arose as a concession to the UMPIRE, to seek help on his judgement call IF <b><i>he</i></b> felt he needed to do so.

Since 1976, though, we've been cow-towing to those whining coaches DEMANDING that we check every time they want a second opinion - especially if they've noticed that Smitty is on the line and they feel their chances of a result are commensurately better. It's just another way for coaches to try to control umpires who quite properly ought to be above and beyond their control for the good of the game.

IOW, Pete, the check swing appeal is just a packet of pi$$ that shouldn't even be in the rules anymore to begin with!<ol><li>It's the ONLY umpire's judgement decision that can <b>legally</b> be appealed
(<i>Oh, erk! Here comes BFair agin! Better get the <b>SOK</b> ready.</i> :) )<p><li>It's the ONLY appeal without any rule-based time limit on its expiry.<p><li>It's an anachronism that ASSUMES that the base coach is better placed to see the check swing - that's 70's thinking only shared by Rich Fronheiser and a few others these days. The PBUC has long since determined differently. Trust the NCAA to foster a movement against that sensible view in favour of the whining coaches. They don't call balks any more in NCAA either, do they? ;)</ol>Frankly I'm perfectly HAPPY that Australia hasn't yet followed the NCAA "lead" on this issue. I'll sincerely regret the day that they do. Until then, I'll continue to "espouse" - rather than "teach" - any damn mechanic I like! Like everyone else on this board and elsewhere, please feel free to ignore that if it isn't to your liking.

Oh, and before anyone gets the WRONG IDEA from this purely TEXT message, NO I am NOT angry simply because I have chosen to use a few BOLD words to emphasise the occasional point. Peter is obviously looking to fire up a discussion. I believe my response points out that the same objective can be achieved without resorting to insults - even the good natured ones that Peter seldom uses. :D

Cheers

The PBUC hasn't instructed umpires to refuse such request for checked swings, Warren.

Matter of fact, I've seen batters rung up at low level minor league games with umpires in the middle (B or C). That just tells me that you're way off base and you really don't know what the current thinking is over here. And you certainly aren't speaking for the umpire schools or the PBUC. Jim Evans pooh-poohed the secret signal nonsense at a clinic I attended -- he said the base umpire should call what he sees provided he's sure of a swing REGARDLESS of his location on the field.

The days when a top umpire feels slighted when his partner overturns a call of "BALL" upon appeal are mostly over. The only ones that seem to care about this these days are (1) Smittys, (2) Control freaks, and (3) Umpires that should've hung it up 10 years ago. Category three usually also involves a balloon protector and the mistaken belief that the plate umpire only covers the plate and the base umpire covers the rest.

Me? Thanks for getting me another strike. Now let's get on with the game.

But you know how I feel about that.

Rich

PS - I don't know how you can say that the PBUC has concluded the plate umpire has the better view. Wasn't there a study done where checked swings were looked at and 90% of the time the batter actually offered? If so, why isn't the plate umpire CALLING 90% of the check swings as strikes?

I agree call the strikes
 

I agree with that statement.

A couple of years ago at a clinic it was suggested that if you have a doubt then he probably swung at the pitch. (unless you are completely blocked by a bad F2)

So the last couple of years I have called strike on any check swing when PU unless I knew 100% that he did not swing.

I have not had one complaint in those two years when I've called the strike.

Thanks
David

I certainly didn't intend for this to happen...
 

Gentlemen!!

Allow me to clarify, as clearly, this question has gotten out of hand-

-I, as does Rich apparently, say "Ball- no, he didn't go" on all checks. This is what I was taught at the pro school, and little by little, I have been growing away from it, but for the most part- it's what I do.

-Although the ensuing conversation did raise some interesting points, the purpose of this post was to find out if it is acceptable to check on your own- clearly mixed results.

Thanks for everyone's help!


Bainer.

I didn't say that they had! I said that they no longer believed the BU was in the best position to make that call. That is reflected in the fact that their criterion for deciding whether a batter checked or not has changed from the 70's version of "Did the barrel of the bat break the plane of the plate" to the 90's version of "Did the batter swing at the pitch".

See above.

It's all a matter of opinion, right Rich?

Cheers

One simply needs to look at some games from the 70's on ESPN Classic to see the impact that checked swing appeals have made on the game. Anytime I watch one of those oldies, I am astounded by the number of times the batters clearly break the plane, break their wrists, and even point their barrels into fair territory, and they are all called balls by the plate umpire. Nary a word is said, too.

Re: I certainly didn't intend for this to happen...
 

Bainer;

You should not be upset that this situation has "gotten out of hand." That is not bad, it is GOOD.

Unfortunately, I cannot explain my reasoning at this time on the free part of this site. I have written an 11 part article on this subject for the paid site, which the editor says will begin on August 12.

Thank you for providing an opportunity to plug my article. :)

Peter

Re: Re: I certainly didn't intend for this to happen...
 

Your honesty is indeed refreshing. What an advertisement for the dignified paid part of this site! Jim / NYC

Re: I certainly didn't intend for this to happen...
 

[/B][/QUOTE]

Bainer;

You should not be upset that this situation has "gotten out of hand." That is not bad, it is GOOD.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not upset- as a writer myself I reserve the right to digress at will...

I just wanted to make sure that everyone was playing fair.

There's something to be said for the involving way that two or more educated individuals can debate a given topic- but when they stray and begin to question EACH OTHER- the interest wains.

Keep it clean boys-


Bainer.

Re: Re: I certainly didn't intend for this to happen...
 

I'm afraid I am one person who is never going to see the GOOD in a litany of personal insults, Peter. I'm even less likely to want to follow an 11-part series on the subject, but since I never read your articles I guess you'll lose nothing of your "popularity" by that admission.

I believe we can "<i>disagree without being disagreeable</i>", to quote an old nemesis of yours. I believe that it is possible to disparage the idea without disparaging the person behind it. And I believe that anonimity is no excuse for poor behaviour. That is why I have always posted exclusively under my own name, with all the attendant risks, and made my e-mail address freely available for off-line discussions.

All I can say, Peter, is that it must be some awfully convoluted reasoning that requires an 11-part series of 800+ word articles to make your point.

Cheers

11 parts ???
 

I don't think 11 parts on the anatomy of the check swing could clear this subject anymore than it has been in this thread.

I don't think it needs 11 parts though. But maybe they need the material for filler.

Maybe 2. Either you ask or you don't, and either you call what you saw or go along with Smitty.

Thanks
David

Re: 11 parts ???
 

Uh, I don't think Peter's 11-part series is on the Check Swing, David. I think it is generally on the value of Internet umpiring. All the same, around 9000 words does seem a bit excessive even for the latter subject. The longest series I ever managed was on Umpire Ethics, and that ran to only 7 parts. :D

My series on the Check Swing appeal, entitled <i>Help of a Half Swing</i>, was only 3 parts: roughly What It Is (part 1), How To Handle It (part 2) and When To Refuse It (part 3). Of course Part 3 was easily the most controversial. ;)

Re: Re: 11 parts ???
 

That makes more sense, (g)

I was not completely paying attention I guess.

Internet umpiring - that at least sounds interesting, and it keeps guys coming back to the boards.

I just wonder how much of it is actually making its way onto the field.

Thanks
David

Yes, 11 parts and a teaser
 

David;

Thanks for more opportunities to promote my article. I'll give a brief outline here since there seems to be some confusion on the subject.

The aspects of Internet umpiring working its way into the real game is only contained in one or two parts of the 11 part series. However, since this is one of the most eyecatching part, it is easily promoted that way.

The series is entitled "Creative Ejections". It begins with the proposition that youth ball umpires are allowing way too much bad behavior in their games. The article expounds at length on why this bad for the umpire. (as if it wasn't bad enough for the kids.) Just read any of the recent news blurbs on this site about youth baseball games degenerating into near riots.

The article gives lots of specific examples. The following examples are not from the article but it might give the reader a flavor:

Imagine if you will, the following far fetched scenerio:

Friex and myself head to Australia on a vacation together and go to a typical bush league baseball game to take in the local flavor of baseball. Lo and behold, Warren Willson is working the plate. This is not the type of baseball that he has led us to believe that he does, this more closely resembles MSBL. Warren does not know that Freix and I are there and have linked up. Freix takes a seat behind third and I take a seat behind first. (among the 22 other fans in attendnace.)

In the third inning, Warren calls a worm burner a strike and while the dugout groans, I yell out "Hey, Warren, is this the AAA baseball that you have led the Internet umpires believe you work?"

From over at third Freix yells out "Come on Warren, no need to call pitches like that, the sheep will wait for your body."

For the rest of the game, I yap at Warren about AAA baseball and how this isn't it, and Freix yells "BAA, BAA" and other suggestive things about what Warren does with sheep.

Now here on the anonymous Internet, where Warren does not know anyone, he goes crazy when someone questions his integrity or suggests that he has the hots for animals. He dropped off the site and stopped writing for a year because of questions about his integrity. What would he do when this occurred up close and personal at a baseball game? Does anyone seriously believe that it would not affect the quality of his calls?

You think the above is preposterous. OK, let me give you a real life example, also not from the 11 part series. I wouldn't want to give anything away for free. :)

Several years ago, we had a true a$$hole umpire that made me look like a saint. I couldn't hold a candle to this guy when it came to being disagreeable. Anyway, he found out that whenever a certain minor league umpire (from the Carlonia League, single A) came to town, he stayed with a woman we'll call Karen.

Our umpire fan would go to the games where this minor league umpire worked and make references to Karen all game long. Comments like "I'll warm up Karen for you if this game goes into extra innings." Every time a close call came up against the home team, he yelled out a comment (usally sexual) about Karen. The minor league umpire's performance went into the toilet as the game would go along.

If this happens to minor league umpires, what happens to journeyman umpires when the negativity starts. For the coaches and fans will jump in right on the thing sends the umpire up a wall. (In exactly the same way that I jump on Porter about his mental problems.) Warren's inabilty to deal with this in an anonymous Internet setting is why I have doubts about his status as an umpire in Australia.

They coaches and fans show no mercy. The 11 part series gives the umpire ways to be an a$$hole and launch preemptive strikes against his tormenters. Hence the title, "Creative Ejections."

Peter

Peter, I'm sure Warren will tell you.........

that's a b-a-a-a, b-a-a-a, b-a-a-a-a-a-a-d example..........LOL


Freix

I'm sure Peter's article will prove to be interesting and thought provoking as is most of his previous work. I'm also sure that he will do less assuming in his piece.

I know a number of people who are sensitive to attacks on their integrity whether they are in a quasi-anonymous setting or not. Our own dear U.S. president has reportedly gone into an absolute rage over attacks on his. And this where no one but secret service agents can see him. Hard to be in a more anonymous setting than that. Yet in public, he handles the same barbs with great aplomb.

I wouldn't use having difficulty with personal attacks on the internet as criteria for how one performs in the real world. Very often, just the opposite is true. I know of some umpires on the internet who handle attacks with something just short of grace, yet in the real world when they are seen coming on the field eyes roll and snickers are heard. Once the chirping starts, they just go to hell.

While we cannot deny who we are and it is we take all our baggage with us where ever we go, some of us are better actors than others. Two days ago I ejected a multi-ethnic catcher and was subjected to catcalls of "bigot" and "racist." There is nothing more dear to a former 60's liberal than his sense of racial fairness, and I was never more pissed at or shaken by fans in my life. But I decided that I never heard them. My zone didn't waver. My judgment on close plays at home remained consistent and both coaches congratulated me for staying in the game and giving them my best, even the coach of the ejected player and the obscene fans.

Have fans ever gotten to me? Sure. But it had nothing to do with any outward reaction you or any one else has ever witnessed or any trait I have exhibited in anonymous environments.

Again, there is no doubt in my mind that Peter's artcle will entertain and even enlighten, but I doubt it will be based on mere conjecture. I have known of Peter for several years. We have been on opposite sides and we have been on adjacent sides. Peter says what he thinks. I have no problem with that. And, over time, he has improved in how he puts his thoughts on paper. While he can still be provocative, and intentionally so, at times, I have learned to have a better understanding for the message behind the medium.

I do have new found respect, however, for his marketing skills; not the cheap plug for his article, but how he has used a seemingly needless needling of an adversary as a hook to his new series. At first, I thought, "Why dredge this up again, Peter?". But it became quickly obvious: For the same reason the National Inquirer will never let Elvis die or Bill Clinton go impotent.

The devise works so well, rather than be offended, Warren will probaly do it homage by using it to his own advantage on a piece down the road.

Nah! I wouldn't give Peter or his wacky ideas that level of credibility!

Peter always starts his epics with a plausible yet false premise. In this case his flawed premise is that what people write on the Internet is somehow a true reflection of how they would actually perform in a game. If that were true, Freix would have called the plate in the last MLB All Star game!

I have a real life example of the fallacy Peter perpetrates with his assumption. A great but now deceased umpire friend of mine couldn't pass a written rules test to save his life. He became extremely nervous, and broke out in a cold sweat, any time someone put an exam paper in front of him. By Peter's reasoning he should have been equally nervous and poorly performed under pressure on the diamond. Needless to say he wasn't. In fact the reverse was true. He was unquestionably the best official we had at that time - ice cool in a crisis and able to rule correctly under the most intense pressure. He was also universally respected for his calm, almost effortless game control until the day he died in a mining accident.

Peter knows that I am angered and disgusted by officials who personally attack other officials while hiding behind the relative anonimity of the Internet. That is true whether or not they post under their own name, because most of us will never meet our fiercest Internet rivals in person. That should not be an excuse to abandon the ethic that you don't personally criticise a fellow official, especially in a public forum.

To draw the illogical conclusion that I would react in the same way on the diamond is just fantastic nonsense. The circumstances are entirely different. For one thing, when I am calling an actual game I almost never hear what is said outside the wire, regardless of who says it. I had developed an extraordinary level of elective deafness on the diamond long before I started calling NSW State League (AA-AAA Minors equivalent, at its best). If I hadn't then I certainly wouldn't have been selected for two Australian Championship series, or plated the championship final of the Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships).

Even if I <i>did</i> hear such abuse, I can assure Peter that I wouldn't react <i>during</i> the game. I've heard a darn sight more creative abuse from a lot closer quarters than that and never missed a beat! OTOH, I couldn't guarantee the offender's personal safety <i>after</i> the game. We Aussies have a long tradition of allowing men to settle their personal differences in the time-honoured fashion.

Of course it wouldn't go that far, assuming Peter's entirely implausible example were ever to become reality. The very idea that Aussies, who pride themselves on their tradition of mateship, would sit idly by while two idiots with American accents standing out like a pair of bullock's nuts loudly and personally criticised <i>any</i> Australian official is just far too preposterous to imagine. :D

Cheers

So Many False Assumptions
 

Warren;

Wow, it's the pot calling the kettle black. At least you are consistent. I am regularly accused of jumping to conclusions by the big dog down under. Just for fun, let's look at all of the conclusions that you have jumped to that are incorrect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

Quote:

Nah! I wouldn't give Peter or his wacky ideas that level of credibility! Peter always starts his epics with a plausible yet false premise.

ALWAYS!?. My, My, a big jump to conclusion even for you. Let's see, in the past I have concluded that most umpires are evaluated by the mechanics that the use, rather than the quality of their calls. Just try setting up behind the catcher rather than using the slot for calling balls and strikes and see what your NCAA or Minor League evaluator does to your rating. Yes, you might find one or two that will let it pass, but my "premise" is right-on for the vast majority.

One of my original "wacky ideas" was that umpires should strive for the avoidance of gross misses rather than trying to get their calls right. One approaches the game from a different point of view when his goal is to avoid obvious mistakes rather than a goal of getting it right.

I could go on and on but then I would have to write a Warren Willson length article.

Quote:

In this case his flawed premise is that what people write on the Internet is somehow a true reflection of how they would actually perform in a game. If that were true, Freix would have called the plate in the last MLB All Star game!

What a giant leap to conclusion. Neither Freix nor I has even put forth the proposition that he does NCAA D1 ball much less MLB. On the contrary, I have said that an over emphasis on the rules might be an indication of a low level umpire. You and Freix over emphasize the rules to the exclusion of more important aspects of umpiring. I have never implied that good writing ability is indicative of umpiring capability. In your case, I might have added verbose writing ability.

Quote:

I have a real life example of the fallacy Peter perpetrates with his assumption. A great but now deceased umpire friend of mine couldn't pass a written rules test to save his life. He became extremely nervous, and broke out in a cold sweat, any time someone put an exam paper in front of him. By Peter's reasoning he should have been equally nervous and poorly performed under pressure on the diamond. Needless to say he wasn't. In fact the reverse was true. He was unquestionably the best official we had at that time - ice cool in a crisis and able to rule correctly under the most intense pressure. He was also universally respected for his calm, almost effortless game control until the day he died in a mining accident.

Once again, false assumption. From my assigning days, I can tell you that approximately 10% of umpires are functionally illiterate. I have mentioned this in past writings. Many good umpires are incapable of taking a written exam of any kind because of reading at less than a 5th grade level.

Quote:

Peter knows that I am angered and disgusted by officials who personally attack other officials while hiding behind the relative anonimity of the Internet. That is true whether or not they post under their own name, because most of us will never meet our fiercest Internet rivals in person. That should not be an excuse to abandon the ethic that you don't personally criticise a fellow official, especially in a public forum.

Once again, false assumption. You have assumed that I have have bought into some umpire ethical code. When has anyone known me to buy into conventional wisdom without question? On the contrary, I am disagreeable and consistently challenge the hypocritical wannabe big dogs who say one thing and do another. In this case, I am talking about a certain man down under, who loudly proclaims that "you don't personally criticize a fellow official" and then proceeds to criticize and insult. Would you like me to do a search of this forum, just like I did for Jim Porter when he made an equally ridiculous statement, to show you how much of a hypocrite that you are on this issue?

Quote:

To draw the illogical conclusion that I would react in the same way on the diamond is just fantastic nonsense. The circumstances are entirely different. For one thing, when I am calling an actual game I almost never hear what is said outside the wire, regardless of who says it. I had developed an extraordinary level of elective deafness on the diamond long before I started calling NSW State League (AA-AAA Minors equivalent, at its best). If I hadn't then I certainly wouldn't have been selected for two Australian Championship series, or plated the championship final of the Commonwealth Cup (Australian Senior Provincial Championships).

Since I have never seen you umpire, I cannot say for certain that you are wrong, but based on my observations of hundreds of other umpires, there is a very strong possibility that you are delusional or lying. It is therefore not an "illogical conclusion" as you say, but a conclusion based on extensive observation. I elaborate in detail on this very point in my 11 part article. Thanks for another opportunity to plug my article which starts on August 12.

With regards to Internet umpiring, in the past I have said that those who have trouble controlling their emotions on the Internet would have trouble controlling them elsewhere. Notice that I did not say anything about writing style or illiteracy impacting your umpiring (which were two of your false conclusions above), only a lack of emotional self control.

I have seen numerous umpires loudly proclaim that what goes on outside the fence does not affect them. Then I watch their games and an entirely different reality emerges. They might not be lying, for lying assumes that one knows the real truth. They might truly believe their statements. In that case, they are only delusional. So which is it Warren, are you a liar or a candidate for the Jim Porter "reality" award? Does anyone believe Jim's statement that the Internet is the only place that he has these emotional problems? Is it an "illogical conclusion" (your words, Warren) to assume that Jim has emotional problems in several areas of his life, not just umpire boards.

Quote:

Even if I <i>did</i> hear such abuse, I can assure Peter that I wouldn't react <i>during</i> the game. I've heard a darn sight more creative abuse from a lot closer quarters than that and never missed a beat! OTOH, I couldn't guarantee the offender's personal safety <i>after</i> the game. We Aussies have a long tradition of allowing men to settle their personal differences in the time-honoured fashion.

With all due respect, Warren, you are not the person that can evaluate whether or not you "missed a beat." The umpire is usually in the worst position to evaluate his own performance. Outside neutral raters are needed to determine the accuaracy of your statement. Good umpires, just like athletes of any kind, have outside mentors to evaluate and correct their shortcomings. We are often unable to see our own failings. But then again, this is one of the "wacky" ideas that I have put forward for years. In this case, it is backed up by all reputable psychologists in other areas, except the one down under. Maybe you could wrote an article on why umpires are different from other people and can self correct without any outside help.

With your last statement in the above quote, are you suggesting that umpires engage fans in a fight after the game to "settle" things?

Quote:

Of course it wouldn't go that far, assuming Peter's entirely implausible example were ever to become reality. The very idea that Aussies, who pride themselves on their tradition of mateship, would sit idly by while two idiots with American accents standing out like a pair of bullock's nuts loudly and personally criticised <i>any</i> Australian official is just far too preposterous to imagine.

"Mateship" !!!!!! I don't even want to know what this means. It is rumored that you have an issue with sheep, but mateship is way to far out for me. :D

Peter

...GEEZ!...
 

Okay-

NOW I'm sorry guys....



Bainer.

Very interesting thread. Some observations from a "sort-of" outsider.

1. The ability or lack of ability to ignore contemptible, meaningless fans is quite a bit different than being defensive when someone questions your integrity or knowledge when having a discussion among your <i>compañeros.</i>

2. The level of ball one umpires is not indicaitive of the level of umpire one is. Except for a body that is design for my corporate executive position, there's not a umpire in this county that I would be concerned about holding my own with... and I <b><i>just</i></b> do LL and high school.

3. <i>Oy Vey!</i> What is this kvetching that I am hearing? Did I ask that I be sent back to McGriff's?

Talk about an emotional response!
 

A line by line rebuttal, Peter? Wow! I really must have struck a nerve ending or two! ;)

As usual you are the Master of Misdirection. Any magician would be proud of your prowess! I find it entirely ironic that following every manufactured claim of my making a "false assumption" you immediately proceed to demonstrate that very failing in spades! :D

I trust the good readers here can now gauge the depth of <i><b>your</b></i> emotion and, using your very own "right-on" premise, will be moved to call into question <i><b>your</b></i> ability to maintain control in the College D1 baseball you claim to officiate.

What an OPUS! Between that reply and the 11-part, 9000+ word series you have just posted at Officiating.com, it is truly a wonder you didn't choke when accusing ME of verbosity and hypocrisy! :p

Have a nice day!

Word Tax?
 

NOTE THE ABOVE QUOTE HAS BEEN CONDENSED WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION

Sometimes the only thing that separates this site from McGriff's appears to be that we have more experienced umpires who have a well-identified command of the English language. I think that we should consider taxing any post that is beyond a certain length or is a flame.

Nevertheless, there are still pieces of advice I draw upon. I liked Warren's suggestion that on a steal of the plate if the PU is set we should assume the batter is ready as pertains to a Quick Pitch. I also took the advice on becoming set when the pitcher is set. I had been coming set later i.e. just before the release. Although I had little trouble nor complaints about my strike zone I am going to try this earlier set for my remaining games.

If it ends up improving my umpire skills then being here (although not necessarily this thread) was worth the visit. Maybe that's what we should each ask before we press that POST button. Does this add any value Jim/NYC

I am jumping into the middle of this topic so I am sorry if I am repeating something that was already voiced. I don't see the problem with Rich's mechanic on a checked swing. All he is doing is vocalizing what he thought happened. We do the same thing when we don't call strike, we are telling the players that we don't think he offered and therfore we are calling it a ball. Now if you are 100% sure that you are correct and they ask for an appeal you do not need to grant it, you are the final authority. If i wasn't 100% and I vocalized my opinion and they asked for an appeal I might go with the appeal. I know this will bring a coach out of the dugout if the call is changed, but I would explaine to him the exact same thing, "Coach, I wasn't 100%, so I went to my partner for help." But, just for the sake of argument, I don't vocalize unless I am 100%.

If the game is played under the OBR, you must appeal when requested regardless of whether you are sure.

Rich

Must Check
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_sohl

Rich

Quote:

I am jumping into the middle of this topic so I am sorry if I am repeating something that was already voiced. I don't see the problem with Rich's mechanic on a checked swing. All he is doing is vocalizing what he thought happened. We do the same thing when we don't call strike, we are telling the players that we don't think he offered and therfore we are calling it a ball. Now if you are 100% sure that you are correct and they ask for an appeal you do not need to grant it, you are the final authority. If i wasn't 100% and I vocalized my opinion and they asked for an appeal I might go with the appeal. I know this will bring a coach out of the dugout if the call is changed, but I would explaine to him the exact same thing, "Coach, I wasn't 100%, so I went to my partner for help." But, just for the sake of argument, I don't vocalize unless I am 100%.

In OBR the PU is required to "go for help" on an appeal from the catcher or manager. I understand that in FED it is optional but sound advice is to treat it the same as OBR. There has been some debate here and elsewhere how much the BU sees when he is out of position i.e. in "B" with a left-handed batter or "C" with a right-handed hitter. I have suggested to my partners that in those cases as BU I'll likely agree with the BALL call 99% of the time unless the PU say's something to the effect "I was screened (by the catcher) - Did he go?" I am even starting to buy-in to the idea to call the checked-swing no matter where you are.

Re: Must Check
 

Not to start the debate, Jim, but I don't think an official is "out of position" when in either B or C to make that call. I'd agree that being at the open corner is better, but still the call can easily be made from B or C. I don't agree with officials who say they can't make the call from there. They can, and they must (when required).

I'd also agree <u>that from ANY position in the infield</u> that if you are not certain of the swing you should agree with your partner that he did not swing. Yet, if you are certain of the swing, then call it <u>from ANY position in the infield</u>.


Freix

Often Debated
 

Perhaps the thinking has changed over the years however, I think there are two schools of thought on this. From the PBUC (Professional Baseball Umpire Corp.) manual copyright 2000 page 4 covers such an appeal.

Plate umpire...must appeal to the appropriate base umpire if requested by the defensive manager or catcher. The plate umpire may --on his own volition--ask for help from the appropriate base umpire if in doubt on a checked swing.

If the crew is working with three umpires, the plate umpire shall always ask for help from the first-base umpire with a right-handed batter at bat and shall ask for help from the third base umpire with a left-handed batter at bat

I think this dispels the notion that BU in either B or C is equally equipped to render assistance on the checked swing. Of course I can understand some of the thinking that it doesn’t matter if we are not looking for the barrel of the bat but more did he offer at the pitch.

Nevertheless, if there are two schools PU and BU should determine in the pre-game what school it will be for that game. Personally, I don’t have a problem with an added strike but I imagine some umpires, and not necessarily Smittys might.

There has been some experimentation with 3-man that, with runners on, PU will never go to the BU on the grass. Instead he will always go to the man on the rail, regardless of the "handedness" of the batter. I see this as some acknowledgment that umpires in B and C do not have a real good view of the play.

I don't think this is that difficult
 

there surely is different schools of thought from the past how many years, but as we know from MLB "times are quickly changing."

I have seen MLB umpires this year appeal to whoever, not always necessarily the ump opposite as NAPBL suggests.

And this is with the 4 man crews or 3 man crews etc.,

The bottomline IMO is that if the BU sees a swing call it a swing. If in doubt as Steve suggested call it a ball.

I'm as PU not going to give information such as I didn't see it or I got blocked.

If I'm in doubt, I'll ask.

If a coach or F2 wants help then usually I'll ask, and my partner can call it as he sees.

I know that there are a lot more strikes out there than are usually called by most umpires, especially in the younger age groups.

thanks
David

I see it more as an acknowledgment that the official on the wing has a better view than someone in the infield. I doubt if many would argue that fact.

It still doesn't mean that they feel from B or C you
"do not have a real good view of the play."
IMO, if they felt that way they could have an interpretation NOT to check partners in the inner infield positions. Such an "interpretation" would be easy to write into the PBUC Manual if they so desired.
They haven't done that yet.
The call can easily be made from B or C.
Hell, the teams make the call from the dugouts all day long......
<u>If in doubt</u>, agree with the PU. That's pretty simple.


Just my opinion,

Freix

IMO, if they felt that way they could have an interpretation NOT to check partners in the inner infield positions. Such an "interpretation" would be easy to write into the PBUC Manual if they so desired.
They haven't done that yet.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[/QUOTE]

I believe I said it was an experiment, so it should come as no surprise that it isn't written into the PBUC yet. They don't usually write things into manual until they decide if the experiement is successful.

Personally, I believe it is a better way to go, whether you look at it as a statement that the rail men have a better view or the grass men don't have as good a view. Tomato, tomahto.

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 8th, 2003 at 12:29 AM]

Rookies, Geography, and Myths.
 

I may change that rarely used method and simply ask but I will talk about it in the pre-game. Here on Long Island I have often had coaches say to players about the BU "He's not going to see anything from THERE".

Quote:

If I'm in doubt, I'll ask.

Under OBR I'll always ASK unless for some reason the coach is making a mockery of the game by "asking" too often albeit we haven't discussed that aspect.

Quote:

If a coach or F2 wants help then usually I'll ask, and my partner can call it as he sees. I know that there are a lot more strikes out there than are usually called by most umpires, especially in the younger age groups. thanks David

That is a valid point about newer umpires not calling as many strikes as the veterans. It doesn't mean that as BU I'll automatically agree with Smitty but if it is a newer official he may just have missed a STRIKE. Let's correct that. Jim/NYC

Let's talk about Prevarication
 

My, my, Warren, who was it that dropped off the boards for a year or more to lick his wounds? Who was it that wrote that he would NEVER participate again in certain forums because of unfair attacks?

And who was it that broke his pledges with regards to no more participation?

Sounds like someone with an emotional response to me? Or perhaps it is prevarication ? :D

Peter

Re: Rookies, Geography, and Myths.
 

Jim, we have those same coaches here in Texas.
They only believe that while on offense, though.
When they're on defense they are in total agreement that the strike can be seen and called from the infield.

And I've also seen those same coaches from 100 ft. away argue tag plays where the official is right on top of the call and in perfect position to make the call. It comes down to whatever excuse they want to seek to argue a call that they don't like or that they want to go there way. I've also had many coaches later admit they argued calls knowing the official got it right, but they either wanted to merely stand up for their player or attempt to intimidate the official in hopes it would pay off for them later. When you start listening to coaches during a game, your game will generally not benefit from it.

Bottom line, while being in the inner infield is not the best position possible, it's still a position where the judgment can be easily made and called. While a 4 man crew would assure a better angle on this call, it would assure a better angle on most calls. But we don't get many 4 man crews in amateur baseball.

IMO, any umpire that feels he can't call a check swing appeal from the inner infield needs to be an umpire in football, not baseball.


Freix

Peter, Warren
 

I know Peter. Despite our sparring and emotional outburst of four years ago, or so, I believe we have both arrived at a point of some level of mutual respect. It was a rocky road we traveled and most doubted we would ever see eye to eye on anything.

I know Warren. Our relationship has also had its ups and downs but overall our path to today has been quite a bit smoother. There are some that believe we are in lockstop with one another, however that is far from the truth. We have and continue to disagree vehemently on certain items. Most of the time we do so in private emails, however one disagreement in particular was conducted here at official.com a couple of months back.

Sensing the beginning of a conflagaration in this thread, I posted an attempt to provide both of my friends with enough cover to stay out of a protracted word war. While my post had a motive, I never-the-less believed in what I said.

Unfortunately, neither Warren nor Peter have such regard for each other as I have for them and both chose to ignore the opporutnity to remain silent.

I have in the past been just as guilty. There is one person on the internet whose behavior can move my blood pressure upwards at at least 60 points. In the past, I responded to that indidvidual.

However, for the past year, or about a year less a week or two, I have completely ignored that individual and my life has never been better. My blood pressure is back to 130/65 and I no longer scream at my monitor. I have found that remaining out of the fray, no matter the bait offered, is far better, at least for me, than to attempt to defend myself to someone who really doesn't care.

But this is not about me. Back to Peter and Warren. It would be easy for me to defend either of these gentlemen. Peter is perhaps the most entertaining umpire on the internet and Warren is perhaps the most sincere. Peter is intelligent and knows how to umpire in his environment as well as anyone. Warren is intelligent and knows how to umpire as well as anyone in his environment Unfortunately those environments are worlds apart as are their opinions on certain aspects of the rules and the game.

One of the differences between these fine two is that Peter actually enjoys the battle and looks for ways to to initiat it; while Warren doesn't really enjoy it, but engages in it anyway out of a feeling of obligation and honor. These characteristics have nothing to do with whether either of them are correct in their positions.

Another way of looking at it, perhaps is that Peter is the Sadist and Warren is the Masochist. In reality they may need each other. Otherwise Peter would have to be content with pulling the wings off captured flies and Warren would have to settle for slamming a car door on his tongue.

I believe they both know how I feel about them and will forgive my babbling analysis. Both of them in the past, and in their typical unique fashions have come to my aid and I am indebted to them. I hope they will understand that I am trying to do the same for each of them at the same time.

Allow me to apologize for this interuption and may the best man remain standng. :D

Re: Let's talk about Prevarication
 

True. That was me.

False. That is an assumption on your part.

Typical Osborne <b><i>half-truth</i></b>. I actually said I would NEVER participate in this forum again WHILE conditions remained unchanged. Note the message at the first thread in this forum. I took the chance to come back because it APPEARED that things had changed. Naturally, you and Bfair have made it your miserable business to prove otherwise.

Asked and answered. My pledge was honored in its entirety.

And NOW we get to the crux of the matter. YOU continue to mislead people with half-truths and plausible deceptions. In my dictionary that's called PREVARICATION. I called you a prevaricator a long time ago. You have done everything to live up to that label. That's not ME you're looking at now, Peter. It's a MIRROR.

Have a nice day.

Re: Re: Let's talk about Prevarication
 

I thought I had recognized part of this conversation and it was the last time I had it out with a coach before his ejection.

Me - "that's what I saw and that's the way it will be tonight"

Him - "but you were out of position. How could you make a call from there."

Me - "coach its really kind of easy etc, etc, etc,

I've followed Peter and Warren for the three years I've been on the boards, and I agree with Garth.

They both have their own style and they are both as persistent as a bulldog.

Peter is entertaining (although I don't agree at all with his style of politics and umpiring) while Warren does know what he's talking about when its baseball. (he probably studies the fine points of the rules as well as anyone)

As Garth stated, may the best one win ????

Thanks
David

Re: Re: Re: Let's talk about Prevarication
 

I don't know about Osborne, but I don't see it as a "contest" to be won or lost. If it were, I would have won on points a long time ago. :D

Osborne delights in provoking arguments for his own and others entertainment. I don't like it when he uses his fellow officials for such trivial ends. I like it even less when it is me that he decides to use.

How quickly you and Garth forget. It wasn't all that long ago that Osborne was EXPELLED from the UmpireTalk listserv for <i>exactly</i> that sort of behaviour - provoking arguments with his fellow members purely for the entertainment value. It wasn't that long ago that His Holiness was also barred from this forum for similar behaviour.

This most recent altercation really all started when I asked Osborne to stop baiting Jim Porter. I knew then that I had metaphorically tweaked the tiger's tail. Regardless of how I feel personally about Jim Porter, and we are NOT on friendly terms, I don't find Osborne's penchant for umpire-baiting in the least bit entertaining. I'm truly disappointed that both you and Garth evidently do.

Your declarations of neutrality are NOT accepted. Where I come from fence sitters invariably end up with splinters or barbed wire in their backsides. Osborne must be enjoying the unexpected support, in much the same way as the Nazi's enjoyed Swiss chocolate and alpine retreats.

Have a nice day.

Re: Peter, Warren
 

Wow I've been taking three pills a day for my blood pressure for several years. Fortunately it is down to 130/80. I'm no doctor but that diastolic of "65" could result in you just falling asleep at your monitor. Are you saying that to control BP all we need to do is ignore the posts of Peter and Warren when they deteriorate to the level they have on this thread? -- You know kind of like most of us try to do with FANS.Jim/NYC

Re: Re: Peter, Warren
 

Reading Garth's, Warren's, and Peter's posts in this thread have me falling asleep at my monitor.

It is my opinion. . .
 

that because you said "Ball, no he didn't go", you have declared two things:

a) You saw that he attempted to check the swing
b) That he successfully checked it and therefore did not go.

Declaring "Ball, no he didn't go" is telling everyone in the park those two things. 90% of GOOD coaches/catchers won't even ask you to check if you declare that. However, if they do, you are bound to check. Since you declared it, I would strongly suggest that you do NOT go to your partner without someone asking you to go. It looks like you're second guessing yourself. JMHO

Your Meds
 

Jim;

I'm glad we could be of service in calming you down. Perhaps you should save this thread as a substitute for all that Prozac/Zoloft/Ritalin etc. that you have to take to calm down.

Peter