|
Quote:
Most of the ball that I do is JO, HS, or College FP...all girls or womens.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
They offered this position to me when he left. I politely turned them down. I like to spend my time on the field umpiring, not dealing with endless piles of paperwork about umpiring, scheduling umpires, making rain out schedules, dealing with cancellations, making phone calls into the night, trying to fill games, doing their payroll, attending board meetings, etc. This is a big program, with something on the order of 1500 kids signed up for baseball and softball in the spring/summer and about 900 in their fall program. All told, they have 117 teams right now and run over 1000 games each year. Frankly, the administrative side of things bores me and this position works out to practically a fulltime job for half the year. Not my idea of fun... |
I'm really not trying to dogpile here, and I'm a little worried it's going to come off that way.
Sounds like part of the job being too big is that you're lumping baseball and softball together. Probably a bad deal right there. I have to say I'm VERY surprised that with a program this huge there are NO umpires who would step up into this role. Not saying it's for everyone, and it's surely a thankless job... but not ONE? Given your situation, I would see two solutions. One - Contact the District UIC for whatever rule-set you're using (after separating baseball and softball, of course) - he/she may very well know someone in the area who would LIKE this job. Two - even if it was distasteful to me, I think I'd step in before the solution that seems to have found you would ever have taken place. I would not want to work for someone who I could not go to for rule issues. I would not want potential protests of my games to go upward to someone who understood the rules less than me or my fellow blues. Another solution might be to contact whoever schedules for nearby leagues - maybe they'd be willing to do it - and you'd get the side benefit of a larger umpire pool and more locations to work. I just can't see moving forward in the situation you describe. |
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I do have something to add that might be worthy of comment.
I've already posted my understanding of how "an errant throw pulling the fielder off the base into foul ground" is to be interpreted. Now, maybe I am going to have to revise my understanding. The protest from my game, and another discussion of this same rule on another forum, got me digging for "official" interpretations. No luck there at all. One little quirk in the actual rule I did come across: The NFHS rule refers to an errant throw pulling a fielder "off the base". The ASA rule says the fielder must be pulled "off the white base". Interestingly, prior to 2008 the ASA rule said only "off the base". In 2008, somebody slipped that "white" in there. I don't know if there is any significance to that- but random words don't usually appear in the middle of a rule by chance. This was not highlighted as a rule change or an editorial change. Anyhow, just to "cover all the bases", I sent an email to the ASA National Supervisor of Umpires for clarification. In an email received today, according to what I would consider "an authorative source"...apparently I have had it all wrong. His email stated that the errant throw does NOT need to pull the fielder completely off the base, past the colored base, and completely into foul ground for rule 8-2-M(5) to apply. I was told that simply being pulled directly from the white to the colored portion satisfies the requirement of the rule. I was even given an example of a fielder setting up on the white base, jumping in the air to receive an errant throw, then landing on the colored base. This was presented as an example of the fielder legally using the colored base due to an errant throw. Just when you think you know it all...:rolleyes: |
Quote:
I think our ASA National Supervisor of Umpires should consider running for elected office, because he did a great job of tap dancing around the situation. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Play 8.2-40 B1 hits a ground ball to F6. While B1 advances to 1B a double base, F3 is pulled to the colored portion of 1B by F6's throw which arrives prior to B1 touching the colored portion. Ruling: B1 is safe. Since this is a force out attempt from fair territory, the defense must use the white portion. And someone may correct me, but I was pretty sure this was discussed a few years back when someone :rolleyes: proposed a definition of "errant throw" be added to the book so everyone applied the rule the same. A prominent silver-haired gentleman with an distinguished career of umpiring and rules interpretation stood and specifically noted that the exception was supposed to apply when the defender was returning "from" foul territory, not from fair landing in foul ground. I don't care for the interpretation BretMan is relaying as it defeats the purpose of rule and awards the defense for poor play. But it that is the way ASA wants it called, that is what I will teach. Personally, I feel they should either eliminate any possibility of players crossing paths at 1B or do away with the safety base as there is nothing safe about it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10am. |