How much 'splaining should we do?
 

As someone else said, I was also on an inferior board for a short time.

I found that a majority of umps there spoke up in favor of explaining calls to coaches who inquire. Most often, using too many words. When I disagreed with some of these posters, I was lambasted as "old school."

Fine. See ya.

Case in point. Youth league (15s). Less than two strikes. Batter attempts bunt, the sphere strikes bat, lofts about a two-feet and settles into catcher's mitt. I call the batter out.

Here comes Skipper McDouche. "What was that?"

"Putout by catcher."

"What rule is THAT?! Show me that in the book."

Thus ended my "explanation."

This begs the question: How far do you go with a) McDouches and b) nice guys in such sitches? BTW, this was an evening game, with no lights.

Ace in Pennsy

I won't carry on a long, drawn-out rules clinic. But I will try to briefly and succinctly explain why I made the call.

For example, your answer of "Putout by catcher" won't do the trick for most inquiring minds. I would have said, "That was a batted ball that went up in the air and was caught by the catcher. That's an out, coach." I won't address a "show me in the book" statement, other than saying, "I know what's in the book, coach, so we're done here. Let's play ball."

Or just "Caught fly ball coach"

I'm not likely to respond positively to "What was THAT!?!" :)

I think "caught batted ball" is all I would have said, with no possible follow up.

If the guy had come out between innings and asked civilly, I would have succinctly told him such a play is NOT a foul tip. He did not.

After the game, he shrugged by me and said, "I'm STILL not buyin' that call."

Sic transit gloria mundi.