Approved Mechanic? (ASA)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not sure you want to limit that to umpires.

Maybe not, but who "should" know especially after the training offered and publication of the mechanic?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Maybe not, but who "should" know especially after the training offered and publication of the mechanic?

Problem is, "Swing?" isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations. If the batter tries to bunt and misses, but the plate umpire didn't see it, a "No" response to "Swing?" would technically be correct.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Problem is, "Swing?" isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations. If the batter tries to bunt and misses, but the plate umpire didn't see it, a "No" response to "Swing?" would technically be correct.

I will still stay "swing" and expect my partner to know a bunt is a type of "swing". Although, maybe "offer" is more generic, including bunt, slap, going for home run, etc.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I will still stay "swing" and expect my partner to know a bunt is a type of "swing". Although, maybe "offer" is more generic, including bunt, slap, going for home run, etc.

Just my opinion, but asking "Offer?" sounds like crap. As do the few partners that have verbalized "On the Offer!!"

I suggest you lose that word; there is no offer, I don't believe that word even exists in a rule book or manual. I think you can consider an offer every time the batter even reacts, and the dugout says "she wanted it".

There has been an "ATTEMPT" to contact the ball with the bat. And the best way to deal with those that have issues understanding any part of the game is to strictly use rulebook terminology; any local colloquialism that supposedly "means the same thing" isn't what the game uses. One of my better local umpires is constantly getting in a bind because he always has a different way to explain everything OTHER than using the rulebook verbiage. He is constantly trying to explain why it is the "same thing, just different", instead of using the right words to begin with.

I guess little stuff makes me cringe. When I hear "offer" on a ball field, I expect that umpire to also announce "full count" and hold up two fists. He may also have a two stitch beanie in his equipment bag somewhere.

And while on the topic of words that make me cringe, I thought the offense "scored" runs by touching home plate. When did plate become a verb (as in "plated" a run)??

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just my opinion, but asking "Offer?" sounds like crap. As do the few partners that have verbalized "On the Offer!!"

I suggest you lose that word; there is no offer, I don't believe that word even exists in a rule book or manual. I think you can consider an offer every time the batter even reacts, and the dugout says "she wanted it".

There has been an "ATTEMPT" to contact the ball with the bat. And the best way to deal with those that have issues understanding any part of the game is to strictly use rulebook terminology; any local colloquialism that supposedly "means the same thing" isn't what the game uses. One of my better local umpires is constantly getting in a bind because he always has a different way to explain everything OTHER than using the rulebook verbiage. He is constantly trying to explain why it is the "same thing, just different", instead of using the right words to begin with.

I guess little stuff makes me cringe. When I hear "offer" on a ball field, I expect that umpire to also announce "full count" and hold up two fists. He may also have a two stitch beanie in his equipment bag somewhere.

And while on the topic of words that make me cringe, I thought the offense "scored" runs by touching home plate. When did plate become a verb (as in "plated" a run)??

I fully agree, "offer" was more a language comment than a rules comment, I only use "swing".
"Attempt" is more correct and more generic, as soon as the rain stops, I'll "attempt" to remember it.

Plated, like a lot of other usage, seems to be just announcers trying to sound more interesting. And I generally dislike nouns being used as verbs, also.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

And I generally dislike nouns being used as verbs, also.

I agree. I can't stand people that noun their verbs.

[HugoTafurst]

:d

Originally Posted by md longhorn

i agree. I can't stand people that noun their verbs.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just my opinion, but asking "Offer?" sounds like crap. As do the few partners that have verbalized "On the Offer!!"

I suggest you lose that word; there is no offer, I don't believe that word even exists in a rule book or manual.

Well, I certainly respect your opinion. I find it rather amusing that you would let something like that bother you so much.

And, Yes, I do use the word "Offer". Have been for as long as I can remember, and until I read your post, I never heard of anyone saying anything negative about it. True, it's not in a rule book or manual. But what is in a rule book is "Did they go?" and I feel that makes less sense. I simply point and say, "She offered." No evaluator or assignor has ever told me to lose the word.

For me, I don't get too hung up on anything that adds a little--just a little--individuality to the craft. If my partner says, "Swing" or "Yes" or "She went" or whatever, I honestly could care less. I'm more concerned that my partner saw the attempt and acknowledged it accordingly with the appropriate physical mechanic. Maybe it's the baseball umpire in me, but I don't see why we all have to look and sound like automatons out there.

Now, I'm not suggesting we should all have our own unique Strike mechanic like you see in MLB. But when it comes to subtle hand signals to partners, variances in verbal calls, etc., how does that tarnish the quality of umpires out there? I'd rather have a partner who looks sharp, hustles, gets into the right position, and shows sound judgment. After he/she does all that, and then tops it off with "She's out" or "Out" or "HAAAAAAA!", no biggie.

But that's just my opinion, FWIW.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't say "Full Count" and bump two fists together. And I threw away my two-seamer years ago.

[HugoTafurst]

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

where the heck did "MY TIME" come from?

From Mr. Hand. Everyone knows that.

[shipwreck]

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

And, Yes, I do use the word "Offer". Have been for as long as I can remember, and until I read your post, I never heard of anyone saying anything negative about it. True, it's not in a rule book or manual. But what is in a rule book is "Did they go?" and I feel that makes less sense. I simply point and say, "She offered." No evaluator or assignor has ever told me to lose the word.

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.

For me, I don't get too hung up on anything that adds a little--just a little--individuality to the craft. If my partner says, "Swing" or "Yes" or "She went" or whatever, I honestly could care less.

Really, how much less could you care?

I'm more concerned that my partner saw the attempt and acknowledged it accordingly with the appropriate physical mechanic. Maybe it's the baseball umpire in me, but I don't see why we all have to look and sound like automatons out there.

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.

Now, I'm not suggesting we should all have our own unique Strike mechanic like you see in MLB. But when it comes to subtle hand signals to partners, variances in verbal calls, etc., how does that tarnish the quality of umpires out there? I'd rather have a partner who looks sharp, hustles, gets into the right position, and shows sound judgment. After he/she does all that, and then tops it off with "She's out" or "Out" or "HAAAAAAA!", no biggie.

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

Oh, and one more thing: I don't say "Full Count" and bump two fists together. And I threw away my two-seamer years ago.

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.

[EsqUmp]

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!" 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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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