You make the call

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by 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?

Want to? I think the matter is more like "have to." There are a number of rules that I think are silly, but they're still in the books, so I have to enforce them.

But I hear where you and mcrowder are coming from. If a rule can't be applied evenly, it makes our jobs much tougher.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Well, not always. A local CYO which has a "must slide" rules and only uses umpires for their playoffs.

I have counseled some umpires who asked about it to NEVER make such a statement to anyone stating that you will enforce such a rule.

It was explained to the person who runs the league of the liability of such a rule and how it places the umpires in the middle. They understood and had no problem.

One year (the only year I worked this tournament) a coach who was also a SP player challenged me on my failure to make such a ruling.

The girl was running to 2B and was forced out. The SS threw over the still-in-the-basepath runner and, of course, all the kids started screaming that she has to slide.

I told the coach of there was no interference and that he will never hear me tell any player that they must slide. I told him I would explain after the game if he liked, but my ruling was going to stand. Afterwards, I told him why I made that statement and you could see a light bulb go on over his head.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Want to? I think the matter is more like "have to." There are a number of rules that I think are silly, but they're still in the books, so I have to enforce them.

But I hear where you and mcrowder are coming from. If a rule can't be applied evenly, it makes our jobs much tougher.

There's a difference between ENFORCING rules and supporting them. Mike and I are saying that not only should WE not support such rules ... but coaches and players should be the first to not support such a rule. In fact - if the coaches and players didn't want such a local rule, it would probably not be there in the first place.

But certainly - if the rule is there, I believe all of us would enforce it as best we could.

[mcrowder]

My favorite local rule blow up:

Rules stated that teams would use CBO and free substitution at all positions other than pitcher. I informed the league beforehand of the potential issues, and was ignored.

Late in the season, the president of the league is coaching one of the teams. His big power-hitting but slow-as-molasses catcher gets a double and is the potential winning run late in a game. Without even coming out of the dugout, he sends Speedy McWheels out there to be the Courtesy Runner.

Me: Sorry coach - no can do.

Coach/Pres: But the rules say I can send in a runner for my catcher.

Me: Yes, you can - but it has to be someone not in the lineup.

Coach/Pres: That's not what I intended when I put the rule in.

Me: Sorry ... the rule as written does not mention anything about allowing players IN the lineup to be used as CR's.

Coach/Pres: But we didn't mean to eliminate CR's when we wrote that - we just wanted everyone to bat.

Me: Sorry. Get the catcher back out there and lets play.

He eventually got himself tossed. And slowpoke didn't score on the next girl's hit, which was, of course, followed by the 3rd out. They lost in extra innings.

Just another example of a local rule not thought out correctly (and a little worse, since this EXACT situation is one of the ones I pointed out when I mentioned that the local rule didn't cover everything it needed to cover.)

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by 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?

Because they are.

I guess our umpires are just better.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Because they are.

I guess our umpires are just better.

You're funny.

[scottk_61]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

You're funny.

Said with a double fist bang banging and a twirl in the jimpiano tutu

[IRISHMAFIA]

Did anyone hear something around here? I sort of sounded like a bray.

[Dakota]

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?

So, you are suggesting that the amount of variability in the strike zone between umpires is an acceptable level of variability in the application of a profanity rule?

Hey, I guess then we have no issue to discuss at all, do we?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, you are suggesting that the amount of variability in the strike zone between umpires is an acceptable level of variability in the application of a profanity rule?

Hey, I guess then we have no issue to discuss at all, do we?

Who is trolling now?

[wadeintothem]

My local rec league has pitching restrictions. There is no way i am counting outs per pitcher (I dont even remember the exact rule, thats how much I pay attention to it).. when its brought up I tell the coaches its up to them to enforce that, because I'm not coaching their pitchers for them. You could do the same thing with a league slide rule. Enforce it coaches, your girls dont slide, take care of it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Who is trolling now?