Register or Sign In to remove these ads

HokieUmp

Moderators
  • Content count

    672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

HokieUmp last won the day on December 3 2016

HokieUmp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

263 Good

About HokieUmp

  • Birthday July 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Williamsburg, Va.

More information about you

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6,183 profile views
  1. 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."
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Because no where else will have me?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Well, <poop>.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. Or, as we like to say sometimes, "THAT f---ing guy." (Ok, maybe not really.)
  11. Some men just want to watch the world burn.....
  12. Seriously? I'm not in the coaching business, either, but all I do is say "Dude, it's only two" if I see that he's walking away thinking he's out. Would it KILL you to do that? Not begging, and it sure seems a lot easier than antagonizing a team. (And yes, it's happened to me before.)
  13. Strangely enough, it's the second time this year I've used it, and it worked then, too. First game of the year, had a lot of close plays on the bases. Coach wasn't happy with his team, and just missed a 3rd strike call. So I safe a BR at first, and he's kind of had "enough." I let him walk all the way to me, since I knew what was coming, and was in no hurry. The first thing he said was "That was at least a step!" That wasn't true, so I knew he was already just arguing for the sound of his own voice. "You can't anticipate that play!" [Thinking: "Coach, if I'm anticipating anything it's strikes and outs. Never a safe."] "You've been so good all day! How can you miss that one??" [This was a new tack to me - odd enough that I looked up, made eye contact, and chuckled.] "You've been so good!" When he realized I hadn't said anything, and wasn't going to, he took a slight step back, and kind of pushed downward with both fists, kind of like a little kid having a tantrum, and upped the ante slightly: "You *missed* that! How could you miss it! You missed that!" [Again: I've said nothing.] At this point, he's done his griping, vented some, and gotten NONE of my own words to use against me. So he turned and walked away. Total time elapsed, from the time he arrived out in C until he turned away: maybe 30-45 seconds? No ejection, no prolonged argument, nothing personal (other than to say I missed it, but again - it was thisclose, so for him to act like it was bigger than life, he had nothing). Again, I don't advocate it for everything and everyone - had other coach chats that had to be addressed already this year - but it actually seems like it can work. If I could only figure out the alchemy enough to know exactly WHEN to use it .......
  14. As in, you hate the concept, or in that it doesn't work on coaches you encounter? For me, I had nothing else to say at that point, so I went with no response. He's not supposed to really do much other than ask "what'd he do?" AND by not saying anything, he's got nothing to turn against me. I'm not going to suggest silence works ALL that time, but I had nothing more to say.
  15. Had a situation like the OP this week. Maybe others have let it go, but a kid at this hitch-looking deal when he came set. And it was one of the first pitches in the set in the first inning. Maybe it was because our association had a briefing on balking, but I had the kid stopping, then moving his hands to a lower set position. (Given where the convo went with the coach, he may have felt it was continuous movement, but I didn't.) Coach: What'd he do? Me: Start and stop. Coach: He does that with every pitch! Me: I give some leeway on movement, but he stopped and moved again. Coach: But he does that on every pitch. Me: [Silence.] [Thinking: Well, we'll be out here on the 40 degrees and 20-30mph wind for a long effing time, then!] Coach: [Walks away, Says something to the kid - I'd already stopped paying attention.] Lo and behold, he DIDN'T do that on every pitch! He brought his hands straight down to the belt area in one smooth motion, and didn't dick around any further! So apparently, whatever disease this kid had that made him do that on the mound? I CURED him! Yay for me! So I let the coach have a brief say. But it never became an argument about balks, since it takes two people. Give him what you had, and that's it.