You make the call

[jimpiano]

The rules are rules, no matter how much I agree or disagree with them. If I don't call them, I don't get asked to call there again.

At the end of the day that is the only observation that cant be disputed.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Local Rules are Made by Fools

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Local rules here are made after input from the league commissioners, the players, the managers and the umpires.

If the shoe fits...

(Note - I'm not ridiculing ANY umpire for upholding the rules he's given. Leagues I've worked have had some pretty ridiculous ones - but I uphold them at best as possible.

I'm just saying... 99% of the time, a rule invented by a league that circumvents, supplements, or contradicts the regular rulebook (which is FINE for everyone else) is almost always filled with problems. And the profanity rule, unless spelled out completely (and it never is) is one of those.)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

...And the profanity rule, unless spelled out completely (and it never is) is one of those.)

Look, I get the culture conflict problem. But locally, here at least, it is not a problem. Just another rule requiring umpire judgment. I'm not arguing for or against these rules; I'm only arguing you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Leaving out the big apple team playing in the Bible belt, and similar clashes of acceptable / street language, what this boils down to is neither you nor Mike trust umpire judgment in application of these rules in a local setting. OK, but dollars to donuts, there are just as many, if not more, umpires with faulty judgment regarding interference and obstruction which have a much greater impact on games day in and day out.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Look, I get the culture conflict problem. But locally, here at least, it is not a problem. Just another rule requiring umpire judgment. I'm not arguing for or against these rules; I'm only arguing you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Leaving out the big apple team playing in the Bible belt, and similar clashes of acceptable / street language, what this boils down to is neither you nor Mike trust umpire judgment in application of these rules in a local setting. OK, but dollars to donuts, there are just as many, if not more, umpires with faulty judgment regarding interference and obstruction which have a much greater impact on games day in and day out.

*pulls out a $1 bill* I'll buy it.

[jimpiano]

I'm only arguing you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Maybe the most cogent comment of the entire thread.

[NCASAUmp]

Well, the whole point of this thread was about the penalties that I ruled, not the profanity issue. I tossed the guy for inciting a fight, only exampled by his statement to the opposing team's pitcher. Y'all went down this road yourselves.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Y'all went down this road yourselves.

And, enjoyed every minute of it!

[jimpiano]

I'm just saying... 99% of the time, a rule invented by a league that circumvents, supplements, or contradicts the regular rulebook (which is FINE for everyone else) is almost always filled with problems. And the profanity rule, unless spelled out completely (and it never is) is one of those.)


Since the rulebook is silent on matters of local interest then the rules have to be supplemented.

3 balls a walk, two strikes you are out...free susbstitution, and penalties for profane and abusive language are but a few addressed by local rules.

Our umpires have no problem with enforcing the league specific rules and the fact that penalties for profane and abusive language are rare speaks well for those who codified them.

I am surprised that someone who claims to be as good an umpire as you do has trouble understanding this.

[NCASAUmp]

Well, what I think they were referring to was the fact that judging a person's language is highly subjective. It's easy to be consistent with a 1-and-1 count or accepting courtesy runners for injured players, but judging what's a potty mouth and what is acceptable is completely up to each and every umpire. I've had one player get ejected by another umpire for shouting "d@mn it" when popping up, whereas I might let it slide (though not without a friendly "warning," if one can call it that). New Yorkers may let "SOB" go, whereas those in NC may not. And if the two cultures mix (as is commonly the case in the Triangle area of NC), what then?

*shrugs* Unless leagues spell it out word for word, it's completely up to how an umpire's feeling that day.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

*shrugs* Unless leagues spell it out word for word, it's completely up to how an umpire's feeling that day.

There you go! Now, let's take this one step farther down the base line.

Whether it is the strike zone, the height of a pitch, the judging of illegal, the timing on an LBR ruling, etc., what is the one thing we always tell the umpire to be?

Anyone?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

[B]Since the rulebook is silent on matters of local interest then the rules have to be supplemented.

Why ... the rules work perfectly well on their own. Also, teams who progress to tournament find themselves at a disadvantage as they've excelled in a league that has different rules (depending on what the local rule in question is...)

3 balls a walk, two strikes you are out...free susbstitution, and penalties for profane and abusive language are but a few addressed by local rules.

The first two are normally unobtrusive, although "free substitution" is often not spelled out well enough in Local Rules, and can cause problems. My main problem with language rules is MOST of the time, the rules just say "Profane language will not be tolerated," leaving this immense grey area for interpretation, which actually leads to huge differences in umpire consistency. Any rule that leads to vast umpire inconsistency is a poor rule.

Our umpires have no problem with enforcing the league specific rules and the fact that penalties for profane and abusive language are rare speaks well for those who codified them.

I don't have a problem enforcing such a rule when I'm asked to - but I'm CERTAIN that my enforcement differs from the enforcement by other umpires - and this is a bad thing. I fail to understand why one would not understand that this is a bad thing.

I am surprised that someone who claims to be as good an umpire as you do has trouble understanding this.

Where did I say I didn't understand anything? What I'm saying is that MOST profanity rules are not spelled out well and are not specific --- and this leads to huge inconsistency. Inconsistency is a bad thing. (Remember my anecdote - getting ejected for saying "crap" to my own player, and later having an opponent not get tossed for a loud F-bomb... inconsistency). Inconsistent treatment of a rule leads to inequity, which eventually leads to unfair balance among teams.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There you go! Now, let's take this one step farther down the base line.

Whether it is the strike zone, the height of a pitch, the judging of illegal, the timing on an LBR ruling, etc., what is the one thing we always tell the umpire to be?

Anyone?

Oh! I know, I know! Can I guess it?!?! Pick me, pick me!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There you go! Now, let's take this one step farther down the base line.

Whether it is the strike zone, the height of a pitch, the judging of illegal, the timing on an LBR ruling, etc., what is the one thing we always tell the umpire to be?

Anyone?

Umm...cons......uh....cons......errr....constipate d!!!!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There you go! Now, let's take this one step farther down the base line.

Whether it is the strike zone, the height of a pitch, the judging of illegal, the timing on an LBR ruling, etc., what is the one thing we always tell the umpire to be?

Anyone?

Quick to ring 'em up?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, Ferris got it right. Be consistent. Even the players and coaches will tell you they can deal with a bad umpire as long as they are consistent.

So, why would anyone want to support a rule, which I can state with confidence, that cannot possibly be applied consistently?