Actually I said I was a former coach. I coached about 10 years. And I was curious because in a perfect world an umpire never needs an out, desperate or otherwise.

I know it happens doesn't mean I have to like it. Also doesn't mean I'm going to complain about it to the men in blue either. I don't like to see teams get embarrassed either.

The examples you both gave are on the extreme end. And it's not like we can let the clock help us in baseball.

Problem is I've seen it happen in 6-3 games when the umpire is ready to go home. And this example is on the opposite extreme. So NONE of you on this board would do it but doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Appreciate the discussion.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And since you coached for about 10 years, I'm sure you're aware that "perfect world" is a rare thing.

Perhaps, but I would venture to say that during district play, nearly half of the games are closer to the extreme end than they are to the middle. It's a rare game that it's not apparent to everyone on both sides who's going to win the game by the end of the 2nd inning. We LOVE the close ones - but those are not the norm.

I've come across this occasionally ... that guy doesn't normally work much after that. I think that is far more rare than the blowout that needs to be "managed" though.

Yep, perfect world isn't rare, it's non-existent. LOL.

You should come to central KY, our HS baseball is pretty competitive, good games are more than norm than blowouts. Of course, I'll admit my bias, our district has 5 teams, 3 of which are in state top 10.

I agree with your last statement from HS level on up. See it much more at LL and Babe Ruth levels in our area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not saying you haven't seen it, because unfortunately, umpires like this do exist.

But, on the flip side of the coin, consider that there can be a difference between "umpire calling an out because he's ready to go home" and "an umpire calling an out on a judgement call that I as a coach disagree with". The former is annoying, unprofessional, and a disservice to everyone involved; the later is a fundamental aspect of the coach/umpire dynamic. And from a coaches perspective, I imagine that it can be difficult to differentiate between the two.

OK, I'll rephrase: If the game situation dictates that an out is desperately needed, he's out. Otherwise, no catch.

Better?

I can't disagree with you on that. Sometimes what coaches see and what you see can be different. Fortunately the ones who do it because they are ready to go home are a small minority.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find it completely repulsive that an umpire would inject himself/herself into the game and affect the outcome. As the game wanes on, you call what you called in the first inning. What was a strike in the 1st inning is a strike now and what was an out in the 1st inning is an out now. Umpires that change their calls and zones with the game, in my opinion, should not be on the field - period.

All that said, HS varsity game in the 6th hour and the bottom of the 17th inning with 2 outs, as I watch the fly ball to F8, I am thinking "Come on, kid, just catch the damn ball!".

I don't think anyone is seriously saying "change how you call it."

Someone might be saying, "change the benefit of the doubt" from "it's safe, until he proves a catch" to "it's a catch, until he proves he drops it."

We all have "benefits of the doubt" ideas and this is a pretty subtle shift.

Key phrase highlighted.