Register or Sign In to remove these ads

ElkOil

Members
  • Content count

    1,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by ElkOil

  1. I have a hard time believing I would make this same call. http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/weird-minor-league-strikeout-likely-the-most-bizarre-yo-1795606023
  2. Dang! Sorry -- I didn't see the previous post.
  3. Well, see... there you go. Knowledge: It's the gift that keeps giving.
  4. And 15 is my limit on schnitzengruben.
  5. This is a good reminder why six games in one day should be avoided. You can't help but get worn down.
  6. This would be a rule application. But since nobody said anything, did you at least address it with your partner in a post-game discussion?
  7. I'll pass along a tip I picked up from a player/father in men's league. Tell your players to go to the plate with the attitude that they don't need an umpire. If the ball is close to the strike zone, swing. If it's not, it's obviously a ball. Batters at every level would do well for themselves to refuse to let their fate at the plate be decided by the umpire. If you don't want to get called out, swing. If you don't trust the umpire's judgement, swing. Take that power out of his hands by taking control of your own at-bat. And at the end of the game, sometimes the best can do is use it as a learning opportunity for your players to deal with adversity since this game employs umpires of all levels of experience, skill and ability.
  8. Not rushing to conclusions on the field is critical in this scenario, and I agree that coaches should be open to considering the discrepancies between what they see and what the umpire sees. In this post, however, I'll grant the OP the benefit of any doubt to get to the heart of his question, so my answer is similar to others here. Do not address this in-game with the umpire. Rather, let his association know your concerns so they can handle it as a training opportunity.
  9. Looks like you answered your own question. If you believe you need to see better, change your position. Maybe try a deeper position or slightly different angle. Try moving your eyes a little when looking at the pitcher. Our eyes are made to see the detail of whatever we focus on and blur our periphery. But our periphery is better at seeing movement. So just because you're not focusing on something doesn't mean you can't or won't see it just because it's out of the center of your view. So see your bigger picture and think about everything in your field of view. Make adjustments if something isn't working for you and don't be afraid to try different things.
  10. Well, the truth is that he's there to call the game and deal with drama. It's part of the job. That's why he's paid. He can't choose to leave over something this petty and expect to keep getting assignments. Walking out for something like this is inexcusable. Making the statement that he'll leave is making the situation about him, and that's never a good thing for an umpire to do. If this level of "drama" breaches his limit, it's time for him to hang it up.
  11. It's not unrealistic to say this is my brush with greatness.
  12. Are these "warning tiers" part of the Babe Ruth rule set?
  13. 1. Absolutely not when it's intended to taunt the other team, as was the case in this situation, in my judgement. 2. Taunting and sportsmanship absolutely matter. Addressing this critical in order to avoid your next statement: 3. I cannot believe you'd condone this. No umpire worth his salt would ever make such a statement.
  14. Any time a pitch hits a batter, the ball is dead. Period. Next, the umpire decides if the pitch was a ball or a strike. If it was a ball, the batter is awarded first base. If it was a strike, the batter remains at bat or is retired if it was strike three.
  15. Of course you do. Even if you're not an umpire and simply spectate baseball, you can question and judge calls. It's normal and should be done so we can learn from what others do, both good and bad. Umpires miss calls. We make mistakes on rules applications and interpretations. We're in positions on the field that cause us to not see some plays the way could otherwise see them. If I can extrapolate from your use of the word "brother," it seems more like a hesitation to opine based on a fraternal connection you have with other umpires. Embrace reviewing calls. Heck, we do video reviews at our association meetings. This isn't to ridicule, but there are few better tools at our disposal than video to learn from others. There were two umpires in our association who both botched a call real, real bad... and it was captured on video. They got a copy of it and had the shamelessness to share it at one of our meetings. It was an outstanding opportunity, particularly because the guys were there in the room with us and could give us their setup, narrative, and answer questions.
  16. Got it. I agree with @LRZ. You're just the arbiter of the game. You're not the one creating controversy. All you're doing is properly reacting to a player's actions.
  17. Your answer lies in answering this: Why were you caught off guard? Was it because you weren't watching him and he did something unexpected, or was it because he started his delivery before the batter was ready?
  18. How it felt and what it actually was may be two different things. Remove your emotions and instead view this through the lens of objectivity. Was he quick pitching or wasn't he? What was he actually doing? Your feelings are irrelevant since you have to apply fact-based decision-making.
  19. It's no different than any other illegal pitch: without runners on, award a ball to the batter; with runners it's a balk. HOWEVER, we got in a pretty lengthy conversation about this last year on this forum in which many of us felt like simply killing the pitch by calling time was more appropriate than allowing it to continue into a pitch and balk situation.
  20. Those are sleeveless dresses.
  21. Indeed!
  22. They're adorable, but more than a handful. I've got a full-grown husky mix myself.
  23. ...not quite sure about sarcasm here, but I'm leaning towards yes...?
  24. No, that's Buck Showalter.