LLWS - Championship
 

This plate umpire is doing a GREAT job! Fun to watch, and a credit to his training. The game is good, too. :rolleyes:

JJ

For the most part I agree, I feel his timing on off speed pitches causes him to decide the pitch before it crossed the plate. Positioning for the plays at the plate were excellent. His zone is too tight for me, and not consistent on the corners or on the breaking ball. Saying that though, he is the best I have seen so far, over all.

Wasn't giving the high strike - both teams POed. Otherwise pretty good.

Up until now most have been complaining that the zones were too large.

Can't please some folks I guess,

I'm not sure what game you fellas are watching. He wasn't consistent on balls and strikes the whole game.

The announcers were on him the whole game, and West coach belittled him on the field. It was awful.

Hmm...I thought his mechanics were solid, and I thought his positioning was good, and his timing was better than most of the LL umpires I saw in this tournament. Balls and strikes? Coaches and players PO'd? Heck, those folks are upset most of the time during a game, depending on how they're doing.
So much for trying to compliment a hard working umpire. I won't make that mistake here again.

JJ

I thought that he did a pretty dreadful job. He missed at least three dozen pitches that could have been called strikes. Thought there is room for some deviation, how is it that with him behind the plate the number of pitches per inning more than doubled per pitcher? Not 3 or 4 pitches, but an increase from around 13 to around 27? That's absolutely ridiculous. There were at least a dozen pitches that were strikes in ANY umpire's zone, which were called balls.

He seemed more focused on pleasing the spectators by doing things like showing the count every single pitch (which didn't help him when he gave the batter 1st base on ball three). He also had an egregious "swinging" third strike where the West player's bat barely came off of his shoulder (bases loaded - inning over!).

It was also great how he would say, "ball, no swing" all the time, only to go for help on the checked swing. Was he trying to convince the base umpires that he was right?

With regard to game management, he didn't appear to have much there either. Players and coaches (at least the one I could understand) were on him all game and he didn't address it once. The players antics and demonstration of displeasure with his zone is understandable, but not acceptable and he never seemed to address it.

Unfortunately, I didn't anticipate a 3 hour game so my DVR cut off going into the 6th inning :rolleyes:

I thought that was a fairly standard thing, although myself and most others I know would say "ball, no he didn't"

"Ball. No, he didn't go."

I say this every time I have a check swing where I judge the batter didn't offer. Means nothing other than I thought he didn't go. Isn't meant to give a message to anyone other than that.

I was recently taught to not say anything but "Ball." If you say something afterward like, "He didn't go," or "No he didn't," then you're definitively stating that you saw no swing, and you shouldn't subsequently go for help when asked.

Correct, I am definitively stating that I saw no swing, because I didn't. You first need to judge the pitch as it pertains to the zone (you have a ball), and then you need to determine if he swung (he didn't). Why hide the fact that you think he didn't go? If U1/U3 turn it over and say he did, no big deal.

Anyways, NCAA 3.6.f says get help when they ask, so I'm asking if they're asking. "ball, no he didn't" - "can you check?" - "Bob, did he go?" - "yes he did" - "ok we have a 2-2 count here" -- simple.

If I didn't definitively know, I'd check with a base umpire right away.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it shouldn't be a big deal. It's just what I've been recently told.

Then why did you add a rolls eyes at the end.

I disagreed with your entire first post ... agreed with the rolls eyes. This guy was awful, but I've been trained to expect this over the last 2 weeks.

From what I understand the ump who called the previous game had a zone the size of a 65" plasma tv. His is typical. I am sure this plate guy saw the previous game and he told himself " there is no way I am calling a game like that!" So he over compensated and was tight. I saw some of the game. He was tight. That is human nature. He did over umpire. Gave the count waaaay too much. If you have 10 other umps calling a huge zone and 1 ump who calls a descent zone you are still gonna make players and coaches unhappy. Btw, I have been making players and coaches unhappy for 15 years!!!!! At least I have that going for me....

The one "thing" we do not know is how these umpires are instructed.

I cannot remember anyone getting tossed in the LL Regionals or LLWS and there were some actions that warrented it.

If you remember the Danny Almonte era, there was a player on the Bronx team who hit an HR and taunted the other team all the way around the bases. Even his own coach said he probably should have been EJ'd.

There was a coach many years back who made a mockrey by not allowing one of his players to get the minimum one at bat requirement and took a forfeit. I think it was a coach from Indiana if memory serves and nothing happened.

I could go on and on which leads me to believe that these umpires are SPECIFICALLY instructed not to toss anyone.

As far as the strike zone goes these "guys / gals" can't win. It's either too liberal or too tight.

Pete Booth

A) This is something all umpires live with... But that said -
B) There is a HUGE amount of space between the finals guy's "too small" and the semi-finals guy's "too large" Neither of these two zones were acceptable in anyone's book.

Far too much speculation on how people are instructed. I ejected someone in a World Series (Senior Baseball -- kid drew a line -- it was the third ejection in that tournament in 11 years) and I umpired a regional that had 6 games on ESPN (I worked 3 of those games) and received no such instruction. Trust me when I say that if we would've had an ejectable offense present itself to me, I would not have hesitated to umpire the way I always umpire.

While I've not been at WP as an umpire, I am close friends with 2 guys who have -- they received no such instruction and were not told how to call balls and strikes, either.

The only umpire I know personally was the guy that worked the International Final -- I have no clue whatsoever how he didn't get the championship plate, but that happens all the time in these tourneys. Umpiring ability isn't always the number one reason assignments are made as they are. I know from personal experience.

I added the rolleyes to imply that mostly I'd been watching the umpire work and, "Oh - there's a GAME, too". Jeez - I can't even use rolleyes correctly.

JJ

PS Do you have ANY friends?

You misspelled "is never"

Doesn't saying "ball" cover it? That would, after all, be the definition of "ball."

We don't say, "out, fielder had possession of the ball while in contact with the base prior to the forced runner contacting the base."

Which way were you affected....didn't get an assignment you deserved or got an assignment you didn't deserve?

Maybe the other guy that got the champ plate gig was deserving just as much as your friend. C'mon, it's not always "politics" in these tourneys as many people would have you believe. We need to quit perpetuating the sour grapes mentality when we don't get the assignments of our liking and lets be gracious and congratulate the ones that do...and be humble when we get the ones we may be surprised by of our own.

It covers it in the same way as just calling a runner "safe" at first base even though the ball beat him by two steps and the first baseman pulled his foot. In both cases, you have a call and an extra piece of information that saves or at least redirects the followup.

This is not the professional teaching, unless it changed recently.

And besides, in OBR/NCAA you *must* go for help when asked, regardless of what you say on the check swing.

It communicates that I saw the bat move and that I judged it wasn't enough to consider it an offer.

I'm amazed at how many people act as if this isn't mainstream. This is the passage directly from the PBUC manual:

"All decisions on checked swings shall be called loudly and clearly by the plate umpire. If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch, the mechanic to be used by the plate umpire is: "Ball; No he didn't go." If the pitch is a ball but the batter commits on the check swing, the mechanic to be used is: "Yes, he went," while pointing directly at the batter and then coming up with the strike motion."

I think that it is a poor and unnecessary mechanic. In the very least, it is an overused and abused mechanic.

Define a checked swing for us. Not that I would use the LLWS umpires as a benchmark, but they were saying "Yes, he did" on "checked swings" where the batter clearly went. If there is a follow through, regardless of how weak it is, it's not a checked swing. A checked swing would require opposite torque in an effort not to complete the swing, no?

This is a bit of apples and oranges, or at least two different types of apples.

On a pulled foot, you're saying that, "but for the pulled foot, the runner would have been out." It's also communicating something that not everyone may have seen.

When you say "ball" it means that the pitch didn't enter the strike zone and, in the very least, you don't believe the batter swung. When you say, "ball, no he didn't," you are definitively stating that the batter did not swing. To me, there is a huge difference. As a coach, if the base umpire then said, "yes, he swung" I would go out and say to the plate umpire, "you said he didn't swing and the base umpire said he did swing, so now we're at 50/50. So why is it a swing?" If he says, "well, I wasn't sure if he swung," I would say, "then why did you specifically and definitively stated, "no swing?" Then I would likely either hear "they told me to" or I hear crickets chirping.

And yet I sometimes see in MLB games where the PU won't go to a partner after the catcher asks. What is taught and what is practiced isn't always the same.

It just made sense to me when I heard it. If you must go for help when asked, then don't bother with anything more than "Ball" so that you're not opening the door to potential comments over your judgment. And it falls in line with the philosophy of one umpire not overruling another. You say, "No he didn't," and then your partner says, "Yes, he did," just sounds like two siblings pointing fingers over a broken vase. :p

He shouldn't say that - he should say "By rule, plate umpires are to ask for help from the base umpire when asked on a checked swing, at which point the call becomes the base umpire's call." Done.

If I am 100% sure about a non-swing, I will - confidently - verbalize it. "Ball -no swing!" or something similar. I am telling my partner (pre-gamed) that I had a real good look at it, and I'm sure he didn't go. If he wants to change my call, that's fine with me, but (as BU) I would have to see pretty much a full swing before I would consider ringing it up.

As for the coach coming out, the response is simple: "We're not discussing balls and strikes."

I'll go with the professionals on this one.

You could pregame this with me till the cows come home -- once you come to me, it's now my call to make -- and I'll do it the way I always do -- I make an instant judgment on every check swing and if the PU comes to me, he gets exactly what I have.

Your method smells too much like the secret signals of the 1980s where the plate guy would tell the base umpire what he wanted him to call. Quite frankly, I'm delighted every time the base umpire calls a strike on a check swing:

(1) I like strikes.
(2) If there's heat, it's all on him, not me.

I've been saying "Ball; No, he didn't go" since I started umpiring in the 1980s. I've never, not at any level, had a single coach say anything to me or my partner on this mechanic whatsoever.

To me, it's communicating that I saw the bat move and, in my judgment, the batter didn't offer. It's not much different than a foul tip mechanic -- at times it's completely unnecessary (full swing, for example) -- but at times it's useful (on a check swing foul tip). At times, I think me saying, No, he didn't go" dissuades a catcher/coach from asking and I'm not unhappy when that happens. When they ask anyway, I'm happy to ask my partner (and even more thrilled when he rings up the strike).

Of course. That's what I said.

It is not a secret signal. It's the same method (and for the same reason) you state below:I hate to break this to you Rich, but apparently you agree with me.

That's even better. When good umpires (the ones I read as good from posting on the Internet) disagree with me, I wonder what I could be missing. Apparently nothing. :D

Honestly, Dash - I read your post the same way Rich did... you did NOT say the same thing he did.

You said your communication with your partner ("no, he didn't go") should change the level of scrutiny your partner gives his call -- he'd better see a full swing if he'd going to over-rule your initial call.

That's NOT the mechanic... and it's quite the opposite from what Rich said.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt -- I'll let him elaborate.

Rich said: "You could pregame this with me till the cows come home -- once you come to me, it's now my call to make -- and I'll do it the way I always do -- I make an instant judgment on every check swing and if the PU comes to me, he gets exactly what I have.

I said: "If he wants to change my call, that's fine with me."

I don't see a big difference.

Rich said: "I've been saying "Ball; No, he didn't go" since I started umpiring in the 1980s...To me, it's communicating that I saw the bat move and, in my judgment, the batter didn't offer.

I said: "If I am 100% sure about a non-swing, I will - confidently - verbalize it. "Ball -no swing!" or something similar. I am telling my partner (pre-gamed) that I had a real good look at it, and I'm sure he didn't go."

I don't see a big difference here either.

I said nothing about a signal to my partner about how I expected him to act. Once I go to him on the appeal, it's his call, and as I said, whatever he has is fine with me.

Perhaps where it went south was this: "but (as BU) I would have to see pretty much a full swing before I would consider ringing it up."

No big deal though.

+1

Except for FED.