Register or Sign In to remove these ads

VolUmp

Members
  • Content count

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

VolUmp last won the day on January 15

VolUmp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

124 Neutral

About VolUmp

  • Birthday 12/10/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Tennessee

More information about you

  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    High School; AmLegion; Summer/Fall Travel
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,756 profile views
  1. Unlike some who are hell-bent on twisting and dissecting your words, my answer is YES ... if you let this action go, it will indeed be more difficult to punish the opposing team for something similar but more egregious. I dislike/disagree with plenty of FED rules, but it really does a disservice to everyone when you start picking and choosing what to enforce and what not to enforce. Just yesterday, a catcher came out and had the two-piece mask and skullcap combo. No ear coverage. I told him to hustle back and get a legal helmet. He said, "My coach lets me use this." i walked over to the coach and said, "Coach, you need to get a legal helmet for your catcher to use. What he's got isn't legal. And then … he said it … "We were told it's umpire's discretion, and he's been using it all season." "Who told you it's umpire's discretion?" "The first umpire we had this year." Well ... I corrected him, but what really sucks is I also believe him. I believe it was an umpire who told him erroneously that it's up to us ... and the 10-15 references in the Rules and Casebooks including the inset image on page 13 of the RB (1-5-4) aren't really to be taken seriously (not to mention the test question that says, "If the umpire feels the equipment is safe, the catcher may use it even if it does not meet the specifications laid out in the rulebook.") I don't really like this rule, plenty of MLB catchers wear the combo, but we are basically under oath to uphold the FED rules — most especially the safety rules and sportsmanship rules. If our State Director caught wind of an umpire knowingly ignoring this rule, we'd be taken to task over it. BOTTOM LINE If a kid throws a helmet or bat in disgust, it's not up to us to decide at whom he's disgusted. We get told every year the diamond is an extension of the classroom. If a kid threw a textbook across the room and hit the wall with it, no one would shrug it off and say, "He's just emotional — he didn't do well on the last quiz."
  2. Hmmmm .... If an MLB pitcher throws 5 perfect innings and then the game is stopped for thunderstorms, how is his feat recorded? Perfect Game? *Perfect Game? W? I'm sure it has happened. Edit: Weather-shortened contests in which a team has no baserunners and games in which a team reaches first base only in extra innings do not qualify as perfect games under the present definition.
  3. … And Little League, and several other brands of baseball who endeavor to rid the game of fun and drama.
  4. No, Elk, No. You conveniently skipped 2/3 of page 29 and quoted the wrong penalty. 3-3-1 is clearly broken down into 3 sections, which should be memorized by all offials: A) Warnable Infractions B) Mostly Warnable Infractions that in egregious (major) cases can be ejectable. C) Automatic Ejectable Infractions. Nothing in your post (OP) sounds egregious or major. Ignorant? Sure. Egregious? Major? Absolutely not. The correct Penalty is: PENALTY: The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur. What you had was a perfect case of RESTRICTING both the AC for leaving the box to object, and the HC (guilty by association and responsible for said AC's behavior). You even emphasized this above in red. If what you described is considered to be MAJOR in your mind, I can promise you that you wouldn't last a week around here. You would be banished to the world of JV (with no partner) and Middle School.
  5. 1) Your Assignor should have known and should have told you what kind of a playoff game this was. Sounds like two private schools that don't have enough players to field a Varsity team, so they will use 12-18 year olds. 2) F1 need no disengage at all to throw to 3rd. 3) I don't see how you ejected the 1BC, since by rule, he should have been restricted to the dugout, along with the HC. You make no mention of him saying or doing anything that would warrant an EJ. Come out of the box to object? That's a restriction only. There's actually nowhere in FED written or unwritten that a HC cannot question or object to a balk. He can't delay the game, but he can question it.
  6. Here's the rest of the story. Don Hoak ... a one-time teammate of Jackie Robinson for two years ... loved to find loopholes in the OBR book. For decades, there was no rule that stated, "runners must retouch their bases after a foul ball." So, Don Hoak figured out that he could take an 89-foot lead after a foul ball awaiting the ball to be put back in play ... but he never actually got away with it. The umpires had overheard some discussion that he had planned to test this non-rule. He tested it, they approached him and said, "OK ... you made your point ... now get back to 1st Base ... we're not allowing this to happen (9.01c). Soon afterwards, the rule was formally created. THEN ... the rule was relaxed (in interpretation manuals) that as long as runners returned to the vicinity of their bases, they have satisfied the rule ... they don't technically have to kick the base, and therefore, there is no appeal, and therefore, there is no penalty. It is difficult, however, to get upset with a coach who INSISTS that the rule book says X (but he hasn't heard of the interpretation). That's a coach who has at least read the rule book which is an extremely rare find. Don and Jackie were also largely responsible for the creation of the INTERFERENCE rule that states, "If a player allows a batted ball to hit him with the obvious intent to break up a double play ... " This was another loophole they exposed for a while by kicking the ball intentionally when it appeared to be a tailor-made DP ball.
  7. Plenty of High School Coaches and Catchers (and yes, some High School Umpires) don't know this simple truth. I got asked this very day by a catcher, "Didn't that ball hit the plate?" ... to which I said, "Yes Sir" ... to which he said nothing ... with that glazed look that says, "I thought that made it foul, but I guess I don't know the rule ... "
  8. This may have been as simple as the ball bounced off the catcher or catcher's gear after hitting the plate and then rolling forward ... and then GuestDavidJ heard the words, "Catcher was in foul territory" without hearing the full explanation. Not saying that happened ... saying it COULD have happened, and that kind of miscommunication happens all the time. What pi$$es me off to no end is when I give a crystal clear explanation to a coach and then I hear him misquoting me to his cronies in the dugout later. We're supposed to "turn a deaf ear" to that crap, but it's not easy.
  9. No, I don't ... because that is a matter of common sense, and the writers and publisher of the FED Books allow hundreds of errors to remain each year with no interest in correcting them ... same with test questions. I know. I wrote to the editor with an offer to overhaul everything free of charge. He thanked me and said, "They are not interested in making corrections." Elliott Hopkins. Our Educator. Carelessly throwing a bat and deliberately throwing a bat are two of the most worthless adjectives FED could have chosen to describe two infractions that have penalties ranging from nothing to an ejection. a couple of more words or phrases could clear it up once and for all.
  10. The rules REQUIRE an EJ. Perhaps you need to re-read the rule. YES, I agree with context being considered ... but the final six actions under 3-3-1 are not allowing ... they are requiring ejections. I called a very heated district tournament game about 3 years ago where the best player swung three times and whiffed three times with bases loaded for the third out. He flung his bat to the dugout rail with nets. There was no one within 25 feet of the bat. He couldn't have possibly been angry/frustrated with anyone other than himself. Even if you play the safety card, I would say that does not apply. He knew he threw it where it couldn't hurt anyone. DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY JUSTIFICATION ... ANY CONTEXT ... ANY "SPIRIT" OF RULE 3-3-1 L that could have let this player out of an Ejection? Quite simply, no. The PU would have been heavily reprimanded and probably been prevented from progressing further into the post season had he not made the ejection ... REGARDLESS of what the other team did. They were so happy to pitch out of serious trouble that they may have let it go. So what? There are certain rules you can turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to or use judgment to mitigate the penalty. A helmet thrown to the backstop or a bat thrown to the netting are not examples of that.
  11. You don't have a choice here. This isn't a judgment call. It's like asking you to bend the rules on strike three because a kid is emotional. FED Rule 3-3-1 states the six actions that are automatic ejections. Throwing equipment is one of them. Period. Every official and coach should have these two pages memorized. Don't ever answer personal questions like, "Have you ever worked with kids?" Totally irrelevant question. Totally irrelevant answer. Only relevance is to what you add to the EJ report. If the coach doesn't like the rule, there is a forum where he can seek to get it changed.
  12. Thank you. I stand extremely corrected.
  13. Pay

    I don't understand the question, as every school pays the same rate.
  14. Pay

    Sounds like the flow chart works completely differently here. Schools cannot post a game on Arbiter — they have to email a game "request" for officials to our Assignor, who then posts the game with officials pre-accepted. I actually agree with this because otherwise, too many of our guys would just decline the games and say, "Oops ... forgot to block that night ... " So, likewise, if there is a schedule change or a rainout, the school is required to call the Assignor who then can make the change on Arbiter, but as I stated above, often I'll get a call saying, "School A canceled at 7:00, I'm moving you to school B at 6:00 with a different partner ... call John Doe." In the interest of time, none of the changes will ever be reflected in Arbiter. The only problem that causes is, you cannot pull up an accurate history of all the games you worked for income or tax purposes.
  15. Perhaps it's a major POI (Interest?) in your region, but not a POE in the FED book. Not at all.