Gonna blow your minds, ASA folks

[WestMichBlue]

I just returned from the National Umpire School in South Bend, IN. Staff members included Kevin Ryan, Bernie Profato, Steve Rollins, and Jerry Fick. I committed the weekend and three hundred bucks to learn something new. What I did learn shocked me; and what I wasn’t learning caused me to leave at the end of day one.

1. Interference call on 3’ lane. Kevin mentioned that interference was called if the catcher was forced to alter his/her throw due to a B-R being outside the lane. I challenged him on that, stating that the 3’ lane rule did not mention the catcher, only the fielder taking the throw. He disagreed. We then broke up into drill groups and Steve Rollins spent at least 20 minutes covering the 3’ lane issue before starting the BU mechanics. Initially all his discussion centered on the B-R getting hit; and that if the part of the body hit is outside the 3’ lane that is interference. When asked for the call if the B-R was not hit, he stated it was interference if the defender altered their throw! If the catcher threw the ball over the head of the B-R and it sailed into RF – Interference. If the defender had to move aside to gain a clear throwing lane – interference! Instead of ruling strictly on 8.2.E, he was falling back on 8.2.F which rules interference when the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box. When the word “intent” was brought up, he said that the B-R belongs in the 3’ lane; if she is outside of it that is an intentional act and interference is the call.

2. Train Wrecks. During his presentation, Kevin discussed collision – interference, obstruction, or wreck. At the end of the day I asked him specifically about the new obstruction rule and the situation of an errant throw pulling the defender into the path of the runner when neither had the chance to avoid the contact. “Train wreck” he said. When I suggested that the defender didn’t have the ball and should be called for obstruction, his reply was “No, that is not the intent of the new obstruction rule!”

3. Retired Runners and Interference. Again Steve Rollins: a retired runner must clear the way for a defender to throw the ball or be charged with interference. I mentioned the word “intent.” His reply was that if the runner “intentionally” continued running in the path of the throw that he/she was guilty of interference. The runner was required to slide aside and clear the lane after they have been put out.

4. Calling balls and strikes. The proscribed method (from the 2005 ASA NUS Drill Book) being taught in this class for verbalizing these calls is to call Balls while down, and Strikes while up. The Umpire’s Manual always has, and still does say it is optional. I believe, and I teach to make both calls while down, and then stand to signal. I believe this helps your timing if you stay down longer. I have seen many umpires that are making the calls while coming up, and this causes them to rush their calls. But that is not what the NUS is now teaching.

So now what? We have rule books and POE’s and Case Books and interpretations printed or otherwise, and comments on these and other boards, and NUS instructors – and they don’t seem to be all saying the same. How the hell are we umpires in the field to know what to call?

WMB


[Edited by WestMichBlue on Mar 6th, 2005 at 01:07 AM]

[azbigdawg]

Short answers.

1. I agree with him
2. According to the rule, obstruction. and I will call it that way until they rewrite it.
3. I agree with him
4. No way do you make those calls standing up. You will look and be uncomfortable. Make the call down and then signal up.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue

1. Interference call on 3’ lane. Kevin mentioned that interference was called if the catcher was forced to alter his/her throw due to a B-R being outside the lane. I challenged him on that, stating that the 3’ lane rule did not mention the catcher, only the fielder taking the throw. He disagreed.

This is correct, but remember, only the umpire can make that determination. There is no given that a bad throw IS a violation, but that it CAN be a violation.

We then broke up into drill groups and Steve Rollins spent at least 20 minutes covering the 3’ lane issue before starting the BU mechanics. Initially all his discussion centered on the B-R getting hit; and that if the part of the body hit is outside the 3’ lane that is interference. When asked for the call if the B-R was not hit, he stated it was interference if the defender altered their throw! If the catcher threw the ball over the head of the B-R and it sailed into RF – Interference. If the defender had to move aside to gain a clear throwing lane – interference! Instead of ruling strictly on 8.2.E, he was falling back on 8.2.F which rules interference when the B-R interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while out of the batter’s box. When the word “intent” was brought up, he said that the B-R belongs in the 3’ lane; if she is outside of it that is an intentional act and interference is the call.

I don't buy that one for a second as a locked-in "must be the call" conclusion. It could be, but I don't think that statement is an apply-to-all ruling.

2. Train Wrecks. During his presentation, Kevin discussed collision – interference, obstruction, or wreck. At the end of the day I asked him specifically about the new obstruction rule and the situation of an errant throw pulling the defender into the path of the runner when neither had the chance to avoid the contact. “Train wreck” he said. When I suggested that the defender didn’t have the ball and should be called for obstruction, his reply was “No, that is not the intent of the new obstruction rule!”

I'll see Kevin this weekend. Maybe I can take a shot at him on this one.
{b}

3. Retired Runners and Interference. Again Steve Rollins: a retired runner must clear the way for a defender to throw the ball or be charged with interference. I mentioned the word “intent.” His reply was that if the runner “intentionally” continued running in the path of the throw that he/she was guilty of interference. The runner was required to slide aside and clear the lane after they have been put out.[/b]

This is true. However, I don't think he's talking about a runner going "poof", but one that has been put out, knows it and continues to run or stay in the path. Boy, am I going to have fun this weekend.

4. Calling balls and strikes. The proscribed method (from the 2005 ASA NUS Drill Book) being taught in this class for verbalizing these calls is to call Balls while down, and Strikes while up. The Umpire’s Manual always has, and still does say it is optional. I believe, and I teach to make both calls while down, and then stand to signal. I believe this helps your timing if you stay down longer. I have seen many umpires that are making the calls while coming up, and this causes them to rush their calls. But that is not what the NUS is now teaching.

There was no mention of such a "change" in opinion when we were all outside freezing our tails off in OKC last month. I know umpires who wait until the come up to make these call. It doesn't serve them well. Make that call while down with a short pause and there isn't any question. In SP, the flow in general makes it seem as if they are guessing.

In FP, in the quicker flow of that game, a delayed call can really throw off a batter and/or pitcher. There are some real good umpires who can come up making the strike call in one continuous motion, but it's not for everyone.

So now what? We have rule books and POE’s and Case Books and interpretations printed or otherwise, and comments on these and other boards, and NUS instructors – and they don’t seem to be all saying the same. How the hell are we umpires in the field to know what to call?

While doing things in a uniform fashion is a good thing, in recent years ASA has allowed for some individualism as long as it works and doesn't cause a problem.




[Edited by WestMichBlue on Mar 6th, 2005 at 01:07 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

[Ol Blue]

At our regional clinic last weekend Kevin Ryan was the NUS representative in attendance. One of his main points was that he intended to bring a single standard to all mechanics and to the extent possible rules interpretations.
His reasoning was that if you are working a national you should not have to change to accommodate the UIC standard but be able to us an ASA standard and still have a shot at being there Sunday afternoon. I don't type well enough to give his entire presentation so this is a very condensed version of what he was trying to say. But it sounded more like he was trying to get away from local interpretation and go to a national "this is the way it will be done" edict. Mike if you are going to see him this weekend I would like to know if you get the same take on this

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Ol Blue
At our regional clinic last weekend Kevin Ryan was the NUS representative in attendance. One of his main points was that he intended to bring a single standard to all mechanics and to the extent possible rules interpretations.
His reasoning was that if you are working a national you should not have to change to accommodate the UIC standard but be able to us an ASA standard and still have a shot at being there Sunday afternoon. I don't type well enough to give his entire presentation so this is a very condensed version of what he was trying to say. But it sounded more like he was trying to get away from local interpretation and go to a national "this is the way it will be done" edict. Mike if you are going to see him this weekend I would like to know if you get the same take on this

Not a take, that's basically what he said in OKC.

However, I wouldn't be waiting on a completely new manual very soon. It's going to take a lot of work getting everyone on the same page.

[Ol Blue]

I forgot that part. His stated time frame for doing this was 2007. I hope he can pull it off but I think only good things can come from the attempt regardless of the time involved.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
...I committed the weekend and three hundred bucks to learn something new.

And it sounds like you DID learn something new... that you don't want to spend the time and $$$ doing that again.