getting inside

[topper]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I think the NCAA wants the base umpires concentrating on the game and not yucking it up with the PU talking about where they will be going to dinner.

I watch the infielders and count pitches because if I have a coach question me on if the pitcher took 6 warmups I can have an answer.

Another point from Ed. If you called the out on the bases to end the inning you do not clean the pitchers plate. You just go to the outfield. Your partner cleans it. If the plate ump calls the out then it is whomever is in the middle of the diamond. If both are on the wings then it is U3's responsibility.

Don't clean bases unless they are dirty to the point of affecting play. Wait till the inning is over. If you clean a base right after a close play it weakens your call. We play on dirt.

What an umpire does when the ball is in play is exponentially more important than these points. Too much time is spent "majoring on the minors" these days. Do what makes sense. I don't clean a base unless it needs it, but if it needs to be cleaned immediately after a call, I clean it. If a coach's perception of this causes them to come out, fine. I'll probably have them take their perception and their a$$ back to the dugout.

So many umpires that I work with and evaluate are so concerned with these types of ancillary points that the rest of their game, the important parts, suffer. I do let those I'm teaching/evaluating know what the Staff expects when it comes to these things, but that's about as far as it goes. I'm much more concerned with an umpire's ability to call the game than his/her ability to buy the proper belt buckle or where/how they stand between innings.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by topper

What an umpire does when the ball is in play is exponentially more important than these points. Too much time is spent "majoring on the minors" these days. Do what makes sense. I don't clean a base unless it needs it, but if it needs to be cleaned immediately after a call, I clean it. If a coach's perception of this causes them to come out, fine. I'll probably have them take their perception and their a$$ back to the dugout.

So many umpires that I work with and evaluate are so concerned with these types of ancillary points that the rest of their game, the important parts, suffer. I do let those I'm teaching/evaluating know what the Staff expects when it comes to these things, but that's about as far as it goes. I'm much more concerned with an umpire's ability to call the game than his/her ability to buy the proper belt buckle or where/how they stand between innings.

Yeah, but some people get really, really hung up on these things. I was working a tournament a while back, three man crew. In one game, as U1, I walked over behind second base to talk with my partner about a rotation issue I had noticed. Later, in another game, I was U3. There was a team that was warming up right where tradition has me standing, between innings, so I opted for the old just off the foul line a few feet in from third. In both cases, I got from the evaluator the old "where are you supposed to be between innings?!" While the first instance was deemed acceptable, with furrowed brow, I was told in the second instance that I should have moved the players warming up back. That had me wondering, why then, do we have alternate between inning positions?

Basically, though, these little nuances are little more than a case of "when in Rome...etc."

[Rachel]

I can appreciate the complaint of NCAA evaluators being too worried about details. I agree with Topper in that what you do when the ball is in play is what is important. There are a lot of great umpires that call a great game. What the coaches want is a consistent accurate zone, the calls right and a lot of hustle. They want you to be approachable and be professional. A lot of us do that.

That would be your problem.

I know even when I would be on the line with my PU I would be talking about the game. The coaches don't know that. Your crew needs to give the perception of unity and teamwork. Too many conferences with your crew may give the perception of confusion. If you need to get together to discuss something do so but not as a course of habit.

Things like the decision for when to go out on a ball to the outfield and when it is just wasting an umpire. That is what evaluators look for. The minor stuff is the minor stuff but it is noticed.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I know even when I would be on the line with my PU I would be talking about the game. The coaches don't know that. Your crew needs to give the perception of unity and teamwork. Too many conferences with your crew may give the perception of confusion. If you need to get together to discuss something do so but not as a course of habit.

Seems there are a lot of people who worry a lot about what the coaches think or perceive. I'm not there to satisfy what some putz chooses to read into anything.

Even with that belief, meeting routinely eliminates such perceptions. It is the rare meetings that will throw up a red flag and make a coach wonder what their problem may be.

Things like the decision for when to go out on a ball to the outfield and when it is just wasting an umpire. That is what evaluators look for. The minor stuff is the minor stuff but it is noticed.

I'm with Top, just do the damn job. The minor stuff should be routine and take care of itself.

An evaluator should be observing the entire umpire, not looking for CS issues to nitpick.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Seems there are a lot of people who worry a lot about what the coaches think or percieve. I'm not there to satisfy what some putz chooses to read into anything.
Geesh...Irish...we all know what a hard arse you profess to be (not that that is bad in some arenas)...that doesn't always fly for others...as long as an umpire can fulfill their responsibilities to the game and their partners...why not let people percieve you in a positive manner or think well of you?Even with that belief, meeting routinely eliminates such perceptions. And midway on the lines lets you hear things you might not want to hear!! It is the rare meetings that will throw up a red flag and make a coach wonder what their problem may be.



I'm with Top, just do the damn job. The minor stuff should be routine and take care of itself. [/COLOR]YEP!! Should.[/COLOR]

An evaluator should be observing the entire umpire, not looking for CS issues to nitpick.

Kinda like what "type" of hammer mechanic is executed?

Sometimes the CS things separate umpires...for instance let observers know who has read the manual and who hasn't bothered? Making the CS issues part of the entire umpire!!

[wadeintothem]

I personnally think its fine for umpires to meet, but its not consistent umpire team to umpire team, so I think that lends to disallowing it.

There is disfavor with the practice in both ASA and NCAA.

In regular tournaments I think its fine and like to BS a little between innings, and no its not always about the game - when training a rook, I insist on it most 1/2 innings so each training issue can be addressed immediately (or even maybe to tell him/her good job/call).

In championship play, ASA has put little X's on the field and I dutifully move to those X's and stand there and try to avoid talking at all....

[bestviewofall]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...ASA has put little X's on the field...

LOL. Don't we know. And according to my Delaware Slow-Pitch friends, those are the only ones that are acceptable for softball.

Taken out of context, I know. But, still fun.

[IRISHMAFIA]

[COLOR=black]

Geesh...Irish...we all know what a hard arse you profess to be (not that that is bad in some arenas)...that doesn't always fly for others...as long as an umpire can fulfill their responsibilities to the game and their partners...

Actually, I'm not that tough on evaluations unless there is an issue that is completely out of line that could effect the game or safety of the participants (including the umpire). I prefer to address the small stuff on the side with the umpire and work with him/her to improve. An evaluator should be part of the training process, not intimidation process. Unfortunately, some people believe in fear and intimidation as a training method. I prefer pride and satisfaction with a job well done as a motivator.

why not let people percieve you in a positive manner or think well of you?

As an umpire, I'm on the field to do the job assigned and do it in the fashion expected by the sanctioning body under which those players chose to participate. If I do the job properly, odds are someone is still going to be upset with something that didn't go their way. The only people I care about when working the game are my partners.

(Rant on)We've all had to deal with umpires I refer to a GAGAs. Go along to get along. We all know a few. These are the umpires who try to socialize with the coaches and players during the game or maybe a parent or two at the fence. Some are so worried that they may not get a good rating from this coach or that team, they are willing to overlook what they may consider small infractions as to garner favor. Because of this, I've seen umpires that you would probably refuse to work with get HS tournament games while others who just do their job sit at home.
(Rant off)

The only person an umpire should worry about impressing are the partners.

And midway on the lines lets you hear things you might not want to hear!!

Don't understand this comment. Hell, half the stuff that comes out of a coach's or player's mouth is something I may not want to hear. Let them talk, really don't care. My mind will not permit FYCs, so that isn't going to happen. OTOH, there may be something going on that I am missing. No such thing as too much information.

An evaluator should be observing the entire umpire, not looking for CS issues to nitpick.

Kinda like what "type" of hammer mechanic is executed?

On an eval, yeah. However, that doesn't mean the umpire should not be reminded of the preferred mechanic for that association afterward.

Sometimes the CS things separate umpires...for instance let observers know who has read the manual and who hasn't bothered? Making the CS issues part of the entire umpire!!

Again, I agree (Man, this better not become a habit! ). That doesn't mean an evaluation should be peppered with a ****load of little issues that bury a relatively good performance. I just believe the CS can be handled with a little counseling. Now, if the umpire blows off the UIC/evaluator/whomever and continues in the same manner, yeah, that definitely needs to be noted before this umpire moves on.

I know ASA often takes a hit on "robotics" though I don't see it, but there is more to doing things in the prescribed manner, even the CS things, than enjoying and demonstrating individuality.

How can we take a promising young umpire who wants to be the best and train him/her in the prescribed mechanics (the associations, not mine) and tell him/her the manner in which s/he has to perform to advance then have that umpire stand and watch other accomplished umpires basically do their own thing and continue to get the best assignments?

Anyone who has kids knows the "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy wears thin real quick.

Hope I didn't cut out any questions you had.

[luvthegame]

Nope...good job!! And good info!!