Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/19/2024 in all areas

  1. At the risk of trying to find rationality in the irrational... if it isn't B I think they were going for D since all of these are under Rule 4 in rulebook (as @Senor Azul deftly pointed out) and I think that, though your points on inaccuracy/incompleteness are valid, they are "correct adjacent". Test writer (or was it AI?!? dunh-dunh-dunh) headed the question based on the rule section and viola. I hate multiple choice. I always get too cute and outsmart (or is it outdumb) myself. section
    2 points
  2. Oh yes, formally having something in-between tacit endorsement and nuclear. Warning and player is skip over their next AB for an out. Sign me up. Oh Ms. Teschmacher...
    2 points
  3. But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun . . . (Quite possibly the greatest movie ever. I can't resist.)
    1 point
  4. I think this conversation is an excellent example. Case plays don't make anything legal or illegal. Rules do. However, umpires read case plays and selectively parse the verbiage as a rule, rather than using the case play to understand the rule and how it works. A case play should contain with it the logic of how the rule is applied, not supplant or replace a rule. Case plays (in NFHS, anyway) are numbered to go with the rule they refer back to. They do not typically contain the logic as to how the rule is applied. Too many umpires do not look for that logic-connection to gain understanding, they just read the words and accept them as "rules" to make calls. EXAMPLE (doing it wrong): Rule 8-1-1(d) tells us a pitched ball must touch a batter or his clothing in order for the batter to be awarded first base. Rule 8-1-1(d)(2) tells us that if the ball strikes a loose garment, such as one being worn improperly, the award is negated. The OLD case play 8.1.1 Situation Q presents to us a pitch that strikes "an armband-placard type device" that is "loosely attached to the belt." According to that case play, and in accordance with the rules above, the case play tells us the batter does NOT receive the award to first base because the equipment is not being worn properly. But then . . . CURRENT case play 8.1.1 Situation Q gives us the infamous "sliding mitt in the pocket" situation. The case play itself states that the uniform, hat, helmet, protective equipment, shoes, etc. MUST BE WORN PROPERLY. The case play infers that the sliding mitt is not being worn properly, admonishes the umpire for allowing it to stick out of the pocket, and then awards the base anyway. This is not logical. This play contains NO information on how or why this rules was applied. It does nothing other than chastise umpires. A question on my recent test confirms that a hat sticking out of the back pocket and being struck by the ball falls under 8-1-1(d)(2). So why do we have a case play that says something completely contrary to the rules and previous applications? What is the logic they used to get there? Which one are you going to adhere to? Saying a sliding glove sticking out is OK, but nothing else is because . . . a case play says so? However, you better NOT have a sweatband attached to your belt on defense BECAUSE of . . . that old 8.1.1 Situation Q case play? Where is the rule saying this? EXAMPLE (doing it right): Rule 3-3-1 tells us the offense should not leave the dugout during a live ball for unauthorized purposes. Nowhere in the book does it list what the authorized purposes are. We do have a penalty of a team warning and then ejection for subsequent offenses. SO . . . when the bat boy comes out during a live ball, I should warn and eject! NO! Case play 3.3.1 Situation B tells us the bat boy leaving the dugout to retrieve the bat should NOT be ejected because " . . . the intent of the rule is to limit offensive players from flooding around the home plate area and potentially interfering . . . " THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT! Explain why the rule is there so that an umpire can learn to use it properly.
    1 point
  5. Only one way comes to mind and I'm secure in saying that would be a lodged ball
    1 point
  6. In lieu of me blowing a gasket, I will just say . . .
    1 point
  7. Sharks have NO feet. I believe that the BIRD has an interpretation that NO legs, since not directly mentioned, may be legal, but fins should be considered as wings that are being worn improperly. The shark should be instructed to put his wings on properly. I feel as if I should write a sequel to Animal Farm . . . Animal Park.
    1 point
  8. How do you know it continues? Throwing his bat against the fence is a whole level different than pounding the ground. Would you EJ a BB player for slamming the ball against the floor after a call? No, the T is the warning.
    1 point
  9. Captain O’Hagen: “I’ll pistol-whip the next guy who says shenanigans!!” … … Mack: “Hey Farva, what’s the name of that restaurant with all the goofy sh!t on the walls?” Farva: “You mean Shenanigan’s?!” “Ohhhhhhhh!!!” <offering their pistols to Captain O’Hagen>
    1 point
  10. I realize I’m slicing semantics and dicing details, but I chose my terms carefully, and details matter. Whether or not an ejection is enacted when the circumstances and actions likely warrant it does have a direct bearing (or effect) upon your perceived capability as an umpire. Yes, on this, you are correct. However, it begs the question – “Who is doing the observing?” The “who” is important, because whomever it is, they are employing subjective bias. By contrast, when you use the term “measurable”, that relates to an objective point. We also use the term “metric(s)”. Games worked at X level, TrackMan score, NFHS test results… those are all metrics… measurables. We crave measurables. We work in a stats-heavy industry, everything is broken down, reformulated, and scrutinized in numbers and figures, and then compared and projected. We just can’t do that with umpiring. There’s much too much subjectivity (and too many variables) inherit in our line of work. Certainly, there is no shortage of people who try and translate subjective “impression” into objective results. We typically call them grades. Ejections are a terrible, almost meaningless metric, insofar that their quantity is no indication as to if they were warranted (“good” ejection vs. a “bad” ejection), nor does it convey any of the events leading up to them, nor if the umpire with the “notches in his belt” followed the “proper” steps and protocols. What was the purpose of your observing (and subsequently evaluating) him? It was a one-man game, which creates an entirely different context. It begs the question, why didn’t you work with him? I’m not upset with you, BB4U, but more… irritated with the assigner. In that one-man game, that umpire likely took the path of least resistance and friction. Was there a sign posted “no buckets outside dugout”? If not (and that’s what it sounds like), did the buckets themselves cause any problems during the game? And if he’s walking everywhere, I can sympathize… solo games are long, and there’s a lot to manage. You have to maintain focus over the entirety of the game. What purpose is served from running/hustling everywhere, all the time, in a game like that one? I have found that, given my size (6’2” 215), that if I discern and choose when to run and when to walk purposefully, the participants (players, coaches) have a more appropriately responsive attitude. The essence of my point is not that you, BB4U, are wrong or incorrect… simply to point out that a lot of this is contextual and subjective.
    1 point
  11. And, thus the behavior continues. If a player "slams" his bat after I call him out on strikes, he's done, I don't care why he did it. Quick story: A travel ball league game last summer. I called a kid out on a border-line corner strike three. He took a couple of steps and threw his bat against the fence. Bye, bye. After the game, three sets of parents came up to thank me. They said he has been doing stuff like this all season and none of the umpires did anything about it.
    1 point
  12. This would be the one time that old, well over used old wives tail about the umpire who sits in the stands to call balls and strikes because the fans think they have a better view would actually come into use! I would 100% be behind that fence... let you and the players be the bait!
    1 point
  13. Item B is covered in rule 4-1-3 and 4-4-1f Note 1: ...Each team's lineup card shall list a minimum of nine players to start the game... Item C is covered in rule 4-1-3b and its following Penalty: Please note that rule 4-1's header reads: Starting a Game
    1 point
  14. No sir, but at that price it's a good candidate for a flip. It looked new or close to it.
    1 point
  15. “Hey, Mike, that behavior has gotten too far. He can’t slam his equipment like that. I’d hate to mistakenly think he’s being unsportsmanlike toward me/the call. Please handle that situation, so it doesn’t present to me again.”
    1 point
  16. The rules imply your players must be bi-pedal. The batter's box and catcher's box rules require having "both" feet in (otherwise they'd say "all" feet). I think an ostrich would look pretty cool back there.
    1 point
  17. I am only familiar with OBR based rules but my first reaction was: in what context could C. have anything to do do with starting and ending a game?
    1 point
  18. The Man in Blue. Very good. That makes sense and I agree with what you say. It reminds me of a story a few years ago. I was asked by the assigner to observe a high school umpire working a one-man game. One team had buckets outside the dugouts for the coaches to sit on. The umpire walked everywhere he went, allowed more than five warmup pitches between innings, rarely left the home plate circle on batted balls, etc. etc. etc. When I reported back to the assigner he said, "I hear what you are saying but, you know what, my phone never rings. Nobody ever calls me to complain about him." Go figure!
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...