1) I worked with a 2 seam cap guy this weekend.

2) Speaking of things "others" say that get under one's skin..... where the heck did "MY TIME" come from?

From Mr. Hand. Everyone knows that.

One of my pet peeves is home plate being referred to the "dish" I have had many partners ask me if I wanted to work the dish the first or second game. The only dish I work is at dinner time. Dave

Odd. "plate" doesn't bother you but "dish" does? They both evolve from the same place. "Dish" has been around since before any of us were born. And I'm sure you work plates at dinner time too.

Geez, y'all really ought to lay off the caffeine. :)

I have no problem with umpires referring to the plate as "dish", indicators as "clickers", going to the outfield as "chasing", and taking responsibility for third base as "Going to Three".

Heck, I can even tolerate (much to my baseball counterparts) our southpaw umpires who signal outs with their left hand.

What I do have a problem with is unshined shoes, salt-crusted caps, and laziness.

How do you're baseball buddies feel about vebalizing DEAD BALL? :rolleyes:

About the same as when I verbalize "Strike" while I'm down, and then come up with the mechanic.

About the same as when I verbalize "Obstruction" and hold my left arm out on catcher's interference.

About the same as when I verbalize "Illegal Pitch" on a balk.

About the same as when... :p

I don't know why people get so upset at using they as opposed to he or she or him or her as it is quite acceptable. From Merriam-Webster:

The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.

Really, how much less could you care?

I've never been to any clinic or school where someone was corrected about wording unless it was something inappropriate or not fitting the need. Now, when you start having umpires flapping THEIR arms or tapping THEIR cap or make some other weird type of movements, you can appreciate a standard level of communications. You can also appreciate it when you walk on the field with someone from another part of the country, if not another country, and you can actually understand what they are saying or signaling.

Agree, though I think it is a bit more professional without the pronouns.

I've never worn anything less than a six-stitch, even back in the 60s. Never liked the "beanies". Always thought they took away from a professional look, but that's just me. And the count is always 3-2, not full.

Who decided that umpires shouldn't say "full count?" It's descriptive. It's short. Everyone knows what it means. Why did it become a problem to say it? But for the fact that someone told you not to say "full count" when you were learning to umpire, would you ever have thought it would be inappropriate?

Along the same lines, why are clinicians so anal about using, "Two balls, two strikes" rather than allowing umpires to say "Two and two?" Who doesn't know what "two and two" means? I've heard a clinician "correct" an umpire asking, "What is 'two and two?'" "It's four!" :D NOT!

When you can't give even a little leeway in how you give the count, it isn't hard to figure out why people think that most umpires on TV look like robots.

It's basically a matter of communication.
Consistancy in reporting the count lessens the chance for misunderstanding.

Sorry, Hugo, but the next time a player or coach misunderstands what I'm saying when I say "full count, "two and two", or even "two two" will be the first.

The formal "Three Balls, One Strike" verbal and mechanic is, IMHO, to keep everyone--players, coaches, scorekeepers, fans, concession stand workers--informed. But when I'm asked by the batter or catcher what the count is, I will always respond with either, "Three One", or even "Thirty One". Nobody has ever looked at me sideways.

As you mentioned in another thread, this is a case of dumbing things down that has become acceptable.

Perhaps. But a good pre-game with partners would remedy this.

No argument, to a point. It is more a matter of convenience when I use it.

You pre-game all your signals? Want to know my pre-game? "everything by the book" does it. :D

Seriously though, I have walked onto fields with people I have never seen before and we are immediately speaking the same language which makes the game that much more enjoyable for all, including the teams.

It isn't a problem as long as everyone understand what it means. Remember, not all games with all associations use 4-3. Retaining the 4-3 was one of the reasons the slow pitch rules don't change the required balls or strikes, but just add one to each side when the batter enters the box.

In some SP games, the count can actually be 3-3 where a courtesy foul is allowed. So which is full, 3-2 or 3-3? Is this rare? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean teams can get confused when they play in a different area and umpires are using different verbiage or the same verbiage to mean different things.

It is anal, but what happens when you have an umpire who doesn't give a ball-strike count but a strike-ball count. Or gives the count properly, but uses the opposite hands to indicate the count?

I have seen this and not from rookie umpires. It should never be different, but apparently it is somewhere, sometime.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that.