lawump

And, they get the money back if they win the protest.

$100 is the standard fee for all youth groups in my area of the country...including high school

South Carolina is being pushed back roughly 2 1/2 weeks. We'll start our "pre-season" tournaments (these are games with umpires) at the end of the first week of March. Our state championships will be the first week of June rather than the second week of May. Of course, with positivity rates running at 20% right now in our state (that is, 20% of all people tested are testing "positive") it is entirely possible that this season could be delayed further.

Not me! I actually tried to change this rule to the OBR rule. I didn't get very far. In fact, it didn't even come up for a formal vote, as I recall, as there was little appetite in the room to change it. So, it is more than one person.

The game management lesson in this scenario is that the line-ups must be reviewed carefully at the plate meeting, and the plate umpire has to ask a couple of questions. These include confirming for whom the DH is batting (including batting for himself if he is a DP/DH) and confirming that all of the team's substitutes are listed. These should be routine procedures followed at each and every plate conference. So, I'm with beerguy55...who played on defense in the first inning? For whom was the listed DH batting? We cannot fully evaluate how you handled this until we know that information. I'm not trying to pile on @agdz59 (but you did ask for an evaluation), but it seems to me that a failure to fully clarify with the head coach at the plate meeting for whom the DH was batting has caused a lot of issues for your crew.

With the numerous rule changes over the last several rules cycles, I would say the differences are becoming greater as NCAA has been trending towards being more in line with OBR interpretations and away from FED over that time. All of that to say: that even though it is not that long ago a 2016 edition of the BRD is probably too out-of-date when dealing with the NCAA as it has had a lot of significant changes.

I have mixed feelings about the “must use hammer mechanic” mantra. On one hand, if an umpire has consistently good timing, he can point to the side without any problems. In the 23-years since I completed my formal professional training, I have always pointed to the side. That includes when I worked Class “A” baseball (which is the most advanced and fastest level of baseball in the world using a 2-man umpire crew). I have never missed anything as a result of pointing to the side in those 23-years. (A brief aside (pardon that pun): I DO realize that I have probably just jinxed myself). However, on the other hand, I realize that most amateur umpires do not have professional training and, furthermore (I say this lovingly as a trainer) many amateur umpires struggle with learning good timing...so I kind of get why some associations/organizations mandate the hammer. It’s just that I’ll never umpire for such an entity.

And just to add my two cents: some day this will happen again only the head coach/manager will come running out directly to you (the plate umpire). Your only reply must be, “you need to talk to my partner,” followed by (should the coach continue to talk to you) “skip, you need to talk to my partner about his call!”

Here's what happened. I talked to the base umpire after the game. First, he said that the plate umpire gave a loud and unmistakable strike three mechanic (which was a different mechanic than his strike one and two mechanics...as is the case for most of us (the late, great Harry Wendlestedt not withstanding)). He said they both couldn't believe what happened. Second, he said they got together after the play. While talking, my base umpire told the plate umpire that it was BOO and they needed to handle it accordingly. The plate umpire said, "no, its too late we have to let it stand." Ultimately, the plate guy won out as he was a much more senior guy. I told the base umpire that he was correct and that this was easily covered by the rules: BOO absolutely covered this situation. I told him I understood why he backed down (being a much younger umpire), but that going forward when he is absolutely positive that a rule was being missed he could not back down. I told him that when working travel ball, when his partner refuses to change a rules error he should say, "John (name changed), I believe we are absolutely missing this rule. We need to call the site director to our field and get this resolved." I told him that if it was a high school game (with no site director), I would look my partner in the eye and say, "John, I am positive that if the coach protests we are going to lose. You're the senior guy so we'll do what you decide, but please know that I will not be able to back you up to our assignor when we lose the protest." I told him to then call me immediately after the game. The next question the base umpire asked me involved the fact that the coach never specifically stated he was appealing batting out of order. (The coach had just come out and yelled, "they can't do that! That's wrong, he struck out!) I responded that in my opinion, that was good enough at this level of baseball. In fact, I told my base umpire that if I had been umpiring I would have probably replied, "just to confirm....you are appealing batting out of order, correct?" Anyways, as for the actual incident, the defensive team did not file a protest after the plate umpire announced that they were not going to change their call. (If they had protested, I would have absolutely overturned the call.) So, when they were done yelling at us tournament officials about the "horrible umpiring", we told them that if they had filed a protest when this happened we would have fixed it and you would not be yelling at us about the umpiring. We reminded them that the rules explicitly provided them with an avenue to fix this mistake (filing a protest) and that they failed to do that so there was nothing we could do. Alas, the run that scored was the winning run.

Sometimes, third world plays actually occur. This play happened in a weekend travel ball game involving 13u teams. The game was played using FED rules with some modifications (the modifications are inapplicable to this play). I assign the umpires for this travel ball organization's games in my geographical area. Top of the seventh inning, tie game, R3, no outs. Batter is called out on strikes. The umpires then did what they normally do between batters (give each other signals, mentally reset, etc.). The next pitch comes in and the batter hits a deep fly to left field which is caught by F7. R3 tags and scores. Immediately after the play is over, the defensive coaches start screaming, "he can't do that! You called him out of strikes!" Yup, apparently the only person in the ballpark who didn't know he had been called out on strikes was the batter as the same batter got back in the box and hit the very next pitch for the sacrifice fly. On the other side, the offensive coaches do not dispute that the player was called out on strikes as they are only yelling, "too late! You let him get back in the box; you can't change it now!" What would you do? After giving some time for some responses, I will tell you what my umpires did and whether or not I agreed.

Actually @grayhawk did not give such an example. (And that's no dig at Grayhawk.) Grayhawk's suggested mechanic was actually taught in 1997 at umpire school (and, in fact, it continues to be taught). So, Grayhaw's post is a compelling example of an amateur umpire knowing and using an advance mechanic taught at pro school that a lot of pro school students struggle with. (I would expect nothing less from @grayhawk, BTW). Unrelated to the quoted posted above, but related to other posts in this thread, I'm going to stick up for some of us trainers. By way of example, I actually received a text this afternoon from one of my high school umpires. I have been the lead trainer in my high school association for 15-years, and this umpire texted me stating that he is at a college 2-man camp as he is trying to advance in his career and get onto a Division 2 college conference staff. He texted me and wrote, in part, "I want to thank you...I am at the 2-man camp this weekend and they are running the same drills you do. And I nailed my double play footwork. (Your) camp puts guys ready to work at any level. I got the best base evaluation I have ever received and it is from (your camp)." Honestly, that is the highlight of my 2020 umpire year. Just sharing to say that not all trainers are in it to be d!cks, nor an overlord; some of us really do want to make each student the best they possibly can be.

If I were a coach (and, by the grace of GOD, I am not one and never will be one) I would never ask (nor have my catcher ask) this question. For, in my umpiring career I have seen too many umpires verbally describe their strike zone (whether it be to other umpires or to a coach/player) as being one thing, only to see them go out and call a strike zone that is the complete opposite. It is my experience that if one, for whatever reason, has a desire to be covered from head-to-toe in bullSH*#, one should listen to one of his fellow umpires describe their strike zone. (Not saying that there aren't any umpires who accurately describe their strike zone...but they are in the minority. LOL)

I won't re-tread an old discussion (that I apparently missed). LOL. I'll just add that I see the merits of your argument, but I'm not sure my pro umpire school instructors would have agreed with it (at least in 1997...they certainly could have changed since then.) But, in fact, the lawyer in me likes your argument/position as it seems very logical to me.

I cannot totally agree with this post, @maven, with regards to a batter’s interference with a catcher’s throw. In Fed, calling a second out (when the batter strikes out and then interferes with the catcher) against the runner being played upon is discretionary and requires the umpire to determine if the defense had a possibility of getting a double play “but for” the interference. Under OBR, there is no discretion. Compare, “(i)f the pitch is a third strike and in the umpire’s judgment interference prevents a possible double play (additional outs), two may be ruled out,” (FED 7-3-5 Penalty) with, “(I)f the batter interferes with the catcher’s throw after the batter is out on strike three, the umpire shall call “Time” and the runner is declared out for the batter’s interference.” (MLB Umpire Manual 2019, Section II, #66) (emphasis added) Now, honestly, we teach our umpires to call a double play, when working FED ball, unless they are absolutely 100% convinced there was no possibility of a double play. We teach this because that is the game participants’ expectation as that is the way it is called in every other code set. But, by rule, FED is different than OBR and NCAA.

I am going follow up on the posts above that discuss mechanics...but I have a little different take. First, kudos for using a "tool in our box" (as set forth above) and giving, what appears to be in type, a confident explanation before calling the runner out. Second, kudos for giving the explanation first and then banging him out (which is the way it is taught...as opposed to "safes" where we call "SAFE" and then give the explanation. For example, "SAFE! YOU DROPPED THE BALL!") My only suggestion...and the one that popped in my head before I even read any of the replies...is that your verbal explanation of the call was way too long. You may have delivered it perfectly, but I can see that sentence as being one that could easily turn into a tongue twister or be one that gets delivered awkwardly with poor body language. I would suggest keeping the verbiage more simple. On this play, I like to point at the bag with my left-hand (the pointing is optional) and say loudly and sternly, "HE'S ON THE BAG! HE'S ON THE BAG! HE'S OUT!" It is a four-word sentence followed by the normal 2-word sentence we use for all out calls. I am pointing at the bag with my left hand as I'm saying the first two sentences, and then giving the "whacker out mechanic" with my right hand/fist as I'm saying the last sentence. If we commit to using standard language each and every time, we can actually practice ahead of time how we say and deliver those words so that when we use them in a real game they will come out confidently with the proper body language. I'm not saying that one couldn't use your sentence each time...but that's a lot more to practice than, "HE'S ON THE BAG!". IMHO, there is also no need to say "before the runner". When you use my suggested language ("He's on the bag!") you're telling everyone in the ballpark that you know there was an issue as to whether or not the fielder was on the base before the runner got to the base; everyone knows that he had to jump to glove the throw. Using, "He's on the bag" is telling everyone that you saw him come off, but that he was back on the base before the runner. And, the advantage of my phraseology, as opposed to yours, is that mine is much simpler and easier to deliver. Just a suggestion. Good job! (I would NOT have gone for help.)

I will suggest the following: 1. Rule 6.01(a)(10) Comment reads, in part, "(w)hen a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact..." (emphasis added). Thus, for me, the question is: "at the time the potential interfering act occurred, was the 'batter-runner going to first base' or was he lingering/paused?" For me, that is how the time issue should be resolved (with exceptions set forth below). 2. I would argue, that since this comment is an exception to the general rule that a runner (including the batter-runner) shall be called "out" if he "fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball...", the onus is on the runner to show (by his actions) the umpire that he qualifies for protection under this exception. Thus, if the umpire has any doubt, he should call interference as that is the general rule. 3. In the videos posted above of plays which occurred in prior seasons, I think one can very easily argue that in each and every one of those plays, at the time of the potential interfering act, the batter-runner was not "going to first base". Even in the Cincinnati video (of which, it has been suggested, was most like last night's play), I do not believe that the runner was "going to first base" at the time the potential interfering act occurred. 4. In last night's play, I think there is no doubt that the batter-runner was "going to first base" at the time the potential interference occurred. For me, the fact that he had, what I consider to be, a slight delay is irrelevant, unless... 5. ...I would still have interference, despite the fact that a batter-runner was "going to first base" at the time the potential interfering act occurred, if I adjudged that the batter-runner's prior delay/lingering was an intentional act intending to impeded/hinder the catcher. In last night's play I believe the delay was a momentary one that was a natural attempt (that is, not an intentional act designed to hinder/impede) by the B/R to locate the ball. Just my two cents.

Bingo! A problem that far too many umpires (this includes amateur umpires and first-year pro umpires) suffer from is that their initial starting position in "B" or "C" is too deep. Sometimes, I tease some of the Coastal Plain League umpires that I evaluate for MiLB that they must think they're already in Double-A because they're standing so deep...like they're working in a 3-man crew! The proper mechanic, per MiLB, is to find the halfway point between the back edge of the mound and the grass/dirt line in the middle of the second base cutout. (Note that it is NOT the halfway point between the back of the mound and second base, itself). The umpire's depth should be that he is standing at a depth that is halfway between the back edge of the mound and the grass/dirt line in the second base cutout. If anything, we tell them that it is okay to stand a step closer (toward the plate) if you feel it gives you a better angle...but never a step deeper. The next key is to always step up when the ball is put in play. That means, you should step toward the plate. We teach that your first step should be forward and with the foot that is on the same side as the ball passed you. So, if the umpire is in "C" and a ground ball is hit to F6 (who is standing in a normal position for an F6) or to F5, the base umpire's first step would be a big step forward with his right foot/leg. His second step would be with his left foot. The first step would be straight toward the plate, but as the umpire is making the second step he would turn his body so that when his left foot re-plants, his chest would now be toward the ball (toward F6 as he is fielding the batted ball). This is how we get "chest to ball". With the use of a proper initial starting position the umpire will end up near the front edge (closest to home plate) of the working area/box...which is near the back edge of the mound. If the umpire then uses the proper additional steps/footwork (and a little bit of hustle) as the play continues to develop, he will have a very good angle to see both plays.

"Turn around, bend over, and use your good eye."

You're already addressing your problem of being psyched out. You said that you are calling the close ones "strikes". Good for you. When that first "nut-cutter" of a curve ball is pitched in the game (a pitch that could be called either a "strike" or a "ball" without it constituting a "gross miss" by the umpire), call it a strike. Then, stay consistent with it. For the next few weeks, months, years (whatever it takes until you are at a point where you are no longer "psyche(d)... out" about breaking balls) make a promise to yourself that you are going to call the first "nut-cutter" breaking pitch in every game a "strike"...no matter what. When you call the first "nut-cutter" pitch a strike, it will be that much easier to call the second "nut-cutter" a strike. The third will be even easier. And so on. Before you know it, you will have the game in a defensive flow. When you have the game in a defensive flow, you will quickly become relaxed and able to just focus on umpiring (instead of playing mind games with yourself about being psyched out). This is the number one piece of advice I give to any umpire (new or veteran) who ask me for advice on how to deal with nerves (for instance, before working a "big game"). I tell them: make a promise to yourself that you are going to call the first "nut-cutter" pitch of the game a "strike". That will tell everyone in the dugouts that borderline pitches will be strikes. That gets the game in a defensive flow. When the game is in a defensive flow, the batters are swinging and you have few deep counts. Game personnel have no time to argue or complain because the game is moving at good clip. You then start to relax and are able to focus on all of your mechanics...which makes you even better as the game progresses. Before you know it, you realize this SH*# is even fun, sometimes.

Congrats and good job.

South Carolina does, too.

The call made in the MLB playoff game was called exactly as I was taught, as a professional umpire, to call it. I would have called it exactly the same way if it had occurred in one of my minor league games, and I'm pretty sure close to 100% (if not 100%, outright) of MLB umpires would have called it exactly the same way. Once an infielder turns his chest towards the infield and waives off the outfielder...he has shown ordinary effort (as that term is understood on the professional level). This was really not a hard call on the professional level.

This Coronavirus, no-baseball, isolation is getting to a lot of you guys, huh?

Other than the time I had a three-man crew comprised of all veterans (all had worked at least one state championship game) kick the CO rule 3-times in the SAME playoff game against the same team (they took multiple runs off the board against the that team...who ended up losing by one run)...I've never seen it incorrectly administered in a game. (That's a true story.) With that said, umpires not doing their job (learning and administering the rules correctly) shouldn't result in a kid having a home run (or even a hit) taken away from him, IMHO. I know that it doesn't happen often, but it has absolutely happened. (It has happened in my district a couple of times over the years.) And I know one could get into a debate about "how many times does this actually happen" to justify changing the rule...and I appreciate the dissenting view...but for me, one time is too much as you're penalizing the offense for the mistake of the defense which is, IMHO, against the total "spirit" of the rules. I know this has been hashed out and argued a number of times on these boards over the years...so I won't go further. Outside of this forum, I just know that twice I had enough votes on the baseball rules committee to change this rule to the OBR rule, but that twice the NFHS executive committee rejected it. So, while I am not privy to the executive committee's thinking, I don't see this rule changing anytime soon...even if 100% of all umpires in this year's survey state they want a delayed dead ball. So, in reality, I've moved on. I expect the current rule to be the rule for a long, long time in NFHS.

LOL. One of my rationales was that almost all (not 100%...but I'm guessing a super-majority) high school umpires officiate other levels of baseball besides high school. And whether they umpire Little League, Dixie, USSSA, NCAA, American Legion, Babe Ruth, etc...they have to know the delayed dead ball balk rule. So, I would expect that a super-majority of high school umpires should already know the rule. Maybe I'm wrong; but this is certainly the case for the four states I have umpired amateur baseball in my life: Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina.