Register or Sign In to remove these ads


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HokieUmp last won the day on December 3 2016

HokieUmp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

265 Good

About HokieUmp

  • Birthday July 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Williamsburg, Va.

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
  • Occupation
    Tech Director
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Other (explain below)

Recent Profile Visitors

6,246 profile views
  1. And Jesus said "Dude, my Achilles is REALLY hurting."
  2. I don't condone those actions, unless it's pro-rasslin. Having said that: runner #2 gets blown up worse than the first one. So, don't players watch what's happening on the field? Meaning: you see a teammate get blown up like that on the plate, and you're not at least a little cautious coming through? Maybe you don't tempt fate by being right on F2?
  3. That 'cause the number's too big, or just too hard to concentrate these days??
  4. "Did anyone get that on their phone??" Otherwise, it's nothing.
  5. Sorry, but the way I read this, the coach had come out - so we're already in the dangerous waters of arguing balls and strikes. (In fact, it seems to me - again, if I'm reading the OP right - that what the PU should be saying immediately is "You can't argue balls and strikes, especially coming out, and if you continue out, you WILL be ejected." And the "appeal" comes while he's already doing something he should so very much not be doing. So, are you saying that you're okay with still allowing this appeal? I will have to disagree here, fellas. There's no appeal to make, by rule or otherwise, since we'd never GET to his appeal. Fruit of the tainted tree, or something. And then I'd let my partner have it after the game. [NOTE: I don't disagree with Ken, et al, in the sense that certain rulesets DO make it required if asked.]
  6. Alright, *I'm* your huckleberry...... 8 games in one day? Why, that's nothin! I've done 16 games in one day, umpiring the bases on one field while simultaneously working the plate on the field next to it! And then, without even changing shirts, I jumped into my time machine, went back to the start of the day, and umpired them ALL OVER AGAIN - from the opposite position as the first time! Your move, @Matt Hoey.
  7. I like what the ump in the OP said, and I'm okay with the lack of response to the last remark. Given my usual level of smartassery, though, my likely response would be: "Okay, and after you get beaten senseless, what's left of you will get ejected."
  8. Sounds like he wanted to go big AND go home. (I remember *my* "Conjunction Junction," thank you very much!) I would have loved to see it play like this: Coach: "I've NEVER heard of that!" Umpire: And since you're retiring, now you never will. [ejects] And scene.
  9. So, the rule in question has been covered. But MY query is: "grounds for restriction"?? He demands to be shown a rule in the book AND refuses to leave? That's only good for a restriction?? .... And I'm surmising, from the all-caps, that he made his declaration for most, if not all, to hear. Seems like a restriction is the least of his concerns. Why in the absolute %@#$^#& wasn't this guy run? I get it - playoffs. But that doesn't buy them extra warnings or the right to rant more before earning a dismissal.
  10. Because no where else will have me?
  11. Actually, no, I wasn't kidding. You DID, in fact, do all the things in your second line. And then you went "yeah, but...." Believe it or not, that's happened on this site before. I'll try to add [sarcasm] tags the next time, since your third paragraph tells me I wasn't obvious enough. But no, no one disagrees - of those that know enough of the LL rulebook to respond. So you're right - there's not a rule. But at the same time, you were given the logic path that you follow to actually work a game under LL rules. And be correct while doing it. And you continue to resist. [sarcasm]As for the last paragraph, I'm glad I made you laugh; it's one of the talents I bring to the site.[/sarcasm] I don't see it as dismissing you for furthering a discussion; I see it more as 'dismissing' you - if that's the word - for being one of those guys that gets told what the accepted rule/interpretation/practice is - AT THIS TIME (because things might change, of course) - and yet wants to Be Right and/or "yeahbut" (space intentionally deleted) the thing to death. You are being one of Those Guys. And again - throwing some shade at a long time, respected poster. (Not me, certainly, but noumpere.) THAT'S where it could be argued is the subject for which I 'dismiss' you. I prefer to say "calling you out," but po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
  12. Okay, pretend I don't have "moderator" next to my name, and that I'm just a regular cranky dude. Because that's what I generally am, and that's how I'm going to respond here. There are a number of people that have told you how to rule on this. Because you want a black-and-white rule specifically written - perhaps even addressing you by name in the book - and because your UIC ruled the way he did (spoiler alert - he was incorrect), you don't want to accept that interpretations in all codes have taken care of the issue. Just because some coaches-box-monkey-turned-lawyer is giving you crap doesn't make them right, and the collective opinion of the umpiring world (including this site) wrong. And then you take this 'shots-fired' response to noumpere, along with another dozen or so posts about the subject - for "intellectual curiosity." Thing is, noumpere's a pretty sharp guy, for one, he's posted almost 320 times more often than you (I did the math), for two, and his rep score is through the roof, which means a lot of people have liked or agreed with a lot of what he's said, for three. So maybe do some reading, along with some writing, when you're here. Not saying to not write - not saying that at all - but you came here with a question, and got your answer. Stop digging.
  13. Well, <poop>.
  14. So I just read this today, and I had this same deal TODAY. Team ran #23 for F2 in the 2nd. F2 got on base again in the 3rd or 4th, and they wanted to run for him again. I didn't have a great angle on the back of the courtesy runner's jersey as he ran out, but it turned out it was #20. All I did was call down to the HC in the 3B box, "Eli, it's gotta be 23. Same guy has to run." #23 gets out there, and off we go. Now, my games don't have your fancy-pants PA announcers, so the net result was the time-out to get F2 out there took a little longer to complete. I completely take the tack of preventative umpiring here, versus having to screw around with an illegal sub or some such. So I'm actually TRYING to "notice," as I remember who ran for what position, and make sure they stay correct. Too much?
  15. I'm not a fan of one thing on the Android version: the load-up of your games. One of my orgs has my games loaded from this stint in the org (from 2015-present, this time). That's all well and fine, but when the app starts, instead of taking me to today's games (and maybe the games right around today's date), it loads THEM. ALL. From the first game in 2015, until, well, all of my 2017 games for the two orgs I belong to. And if my games from EOA (that primary group) were still in the system, I guess it would load every game I've done from 2007 on. In IT terms, we call that "suck." If I've missed some setting on the app that turns that 'feature' off, please share. It's not gonna kill me, since I use the web version like 98% of the time, but if I want to double-check something about the game I've got that day, I have to load all of that. It doesn't take THAT long, in the grand scheme of things, but it's not a good thing.