Out of batter's box

[Dakota]

Anyone who umpires fastpitch at a variety of levels uses advantage/disadvantage; if you did not, some of those lower level games would become officiating, not playing.

However, no matter the level, I would never utter those words in an explanation to a coach. Doesn't mean I would lie (e.g. "Didn't see it, coach."); but I would not tell him I agree it was illegal but did not call it because there was no advantage.

If I am not calling something due to the level of play (classic example: ticky-tack pitching mechanics errors such as double touching where there is no batter or runner deceit), I'm straight up with the rationale... "I've talked with the other coach about it, coach, and I'm not calling that at this level of play. It is something they need to work on in practice." But, 99.9% of the time, both coaches also recognize this and never bring the infractions up.

Of course, all of that goes away in champioinship play, regardless of the level of play.

The foot out of the batter's box is hard to see, and since it is a timing infraction, forensic evidence (e.g. footprints) are of no help at all. No one is arguing whether the batter stepped out of the box - of course she did - the issue is was it before contact or not? That is a much sounder basis than advantage/disadvantage for not getting overly technical or ticky-tack in making this call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Anyone who umpires fastpitch at a variety of levels uses advantage/disadvantage; if you did not, some of those lower level games would become officiating, not playing.

However, no matter the level, I would never utter those words in an explanation to a coach. Doesn't mean I would lie (e.g. "Didn't see it, coach."); but I would not tell him I agree it was illegal but did not call it because there was no advantage.

If I am not calling something due to the level of play (classic example: ticky-tack pitching mechanics errors such as double touching where there is no batter or runner deceit), I'm straight up with the rationale... "I've talked with the other coach about it, coach, and I'm not calling that at this level of play. It is something they need to work on in practice." But, 99.9% of the time, both coaches also recognize this and never bring the infractions up.

Of course, all of that goes away in champioinship play, regardless of the level of play.

The foot out of the batter's box is hard to see, and since it is a timing infraction, forensic evidence (e.g. footprints) are of no help at all. No one is arguing whether the batter stepped out of the box - of course she did - the issue is was it before contact or not? That is a much sounder basis than advantage/disadvantage for not getting overly technical or ticky-tack in making this call.

Maybe it is the terminology I'm hung up on. I've never believed it is the official's position to determine what is or is not advantageous. Seems to me that has already been addressed and resolved by those who established the rules.

Do I address different level of games in a different manner? Sure, who doesn't? Are there possible issues I may approach in a different manner? Yep. May even take the point of the season into consideration. But I do not ignore them. If I see a pitcher who is doing something that is not permitted by rule, I may give the coaches a heads up. Am I going to specifically look for that violation? No, but if it presents itself in an obvious manner, I'm going to make the appropriate call.

As Tom noted, informing coaches of a violation (ticky-tack, to some), but unless it is blatant or becomes a problem, it is not going to be called is probably something we have all done at some level. If the offended team demands I make the call when a violation occurs, no problem, I will. Unfortunately, many coaches who are like that tend to overlook their own team's indiscretions and cannot understand when they are brought to light.

As previously noted, I think it is awfully difficult to determine the line of what could or should be "overlooked" and, in some cases, may actually reflect on the umpire's integrity.

[umpirebob71]

Boxes??? We don't need no stinking boxes!!!

With apologies to Mr. Bogart.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by umpirebob71

Boxes??? We don't need no stinking boxes!!!

With apologies to Mr. Bogart.

Well, technically the apology should be made to character actor Alfonso Bedoya.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Well, technically the apology should be made to character actor Alfonso Bedoya.

Or to Mel Brooks.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Well, technically the apology should be made to character actor Alfonso Bedoya.

YouTube - Stinking Badges

[Dakota]

[NCASAUmp]

De Camptown ladies sing this song... Do da... Do da...