Leaderboard

Well, that mechanic isn't listed in the CCA and I've never seen it taught. From a personal perspective, that sounds like a horrible mechanic. PU is trailing the BR on the foul line watching his responsibilities and if he is lucky is maybe 20 - 25 feet up the line when the ball is thrown to 1st base. He then needs to get in a foot race with the BR to 2nd? I wouldn't dump that on any of my partners when working the field. As a standard mechanic, U1 can only go foul for a play at first base in 3 or 4-man where there is no secondary responsibility for the BR advancing. At least that is what I have always been taught. I'm normally only a step or 2 off the line anyway for an infield play at 1st these days. Since I moved from going to the "90" to tighter to the foul line, I don't think I've really ever felt squeezed by F4 ranging to the line.

This is definitely a weakness of the system. I think if it helps us weed out the umpires committing egregious offenses, like umpiring under the influence, it will be useful. We're definitely not in a position to nit pick umpires. Adding a degree of accountability is the goal.

Here's an interesting play that occurred recently nfhs game. Bottom 8 tied, 0 outs , bases loaded winning run walked in. BU watches BR touch 1st,R1 2nd,R2 3rd all good. R3 touches plate . Team begins to celebrate and all base runners, players run & gather out behind first base shallow RF celebrating. BU begins walking off the diamond, and observes the catcher pursuing the winning team celebration " huddle". Alert that something must be happening. BU watching the catcher randomly begin tagging celebrating players. Then BU turns his attention back to the plate area, and hears the PU say something to the effect with the word "appeal" in the sentence. PU call time, and calls out the winning walk off walk Runner on appeal. This was a noisy , fluid & chaotic scene keep in mind . The 2 umpires get together in conference after getting everything calmed down. And confirm that indeed the winning run missed HP!!. Winning coach states that they have video, which we advise cannot be viewed or used. So now the question is how do you as the umpires proceed with this situation? I'll let the group comment awhile, before disclosing how this situation was resolved. Marc

[insert funny quip about umpiring and this study here. I'd do it but my brain is too tired.] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2026/03/09/difficult-people-aging-study/89069753007/ People who make your life more difficult may be aging you faster, according to recent research. In the study, published last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found that people with more hasslers in their life, or those "who create problems or make life more difficult," have a higher biological age compared to their actual chronological age. "These results suggest that the hasslers in one’s social environment may constitute an overlooked but consequential biological risk factor," the authors write. The study even accounted for several other factors, including occupation, adverse childhood experiences and smoking. But still, the impact of negative social ties remained significant, the study notes. Just how significant? "Each additional hassler is associated with approximately 1.5% faster biological aging and roughly nine (months) of additional biological age among individuals of the same chronological age," the authors found. But not all hasslers were the same. Family and friend hasslers showed "detrimental associations," whereas spouse hasslers did not. And biological aging wasn't the only impact. Hasslers were also associated with multiple adverse mental and physical health outcomes like depression, anxiety and higher body mass index. "These findings together highlight the critical role of negative social ties in biological aging as chronic stressors and the need for interventions that reduce harmful social exposures to promote healthier aging trajectories," the authors added.

I found a book called "How to deal with people who make your life miserable." I kept it in my office and would periodically take it out and start reading it when some people insisted on dropping in.

Relevant to umpiring, I cannot understand nor concur with umpire colleagues who make hassling, being contentious, and tearing down other (colleague) umpires (directly, face-to-face) “a thing”, or part of (their) some methodology. Like, it’s their job or role to be difficult (to each other). Why or how is this beneficial?!?!

No, but the mechanic gram only shows U1 going fair. Additionally. 5.5 Positioning for Taking Plays tells us that while the manual doesn't depict actual positions, umpires take plays from the position they deem most advantageous without taking themselves out of position for the next play. I submit that U1 going foul and expecting the Plate to take the BR into 2nd (and possibly 3rd) takes both umpires out of position for the next play.

Is any mechanic regarding taking plays at 1B given except "move into the best position"? Evans and PBUC (and my state) would allow pressure to put U1 foul. Evans and PBUC envisioned "not your partners".

I want to agree with @noumpere, but there is one part of the OP I find troubling: That is a fishing expedition, not an appeal, and I am not stopping my walk off the field for that.

Guess I am lost on what the advantage is to be gained with U1 staying in foul territory (behind the play). Like @DevildogUmp said, there is no way I am putting it on my PU to bust ass to 2nd base. There is no way most PUs in my area would ever get there.

Assuming PU judged R3 missed the plate and BU can't help, then call out R3, return the other runners (that is, to the bases they reached because of the walk), proceed with the next batter.

I’m with ya. I’m on a big believer in “well, what other rules don’t you want me to enforce today?” This one just seems like a loophole that hasn’t been closed.

You're probably not wrong, but did you search them ALL??? Perhaps I was over-simplifying it, or trying to hard to find a reason to 'justify' it. I just mean, we have a rule, that states 'if beyond first base, then it's penalized at the time of the interference'. We have a rule that tells us to do that. And here we are, saying, "I'm not going to enforce that rule because I don't believe in it. Instead, I'm not scoring the run." In person, in a game, I absolutely would do that, and not score the run. 100% Do remember Richvee, I'm in favor of not counting the run. I'm just pointing out some Devils advocate thing, double standards, common sense, whatever you wanna call it. You're right that it would probably need to happen on a big stage where rules committees would need to see it in action, and finish the sentence at the end of the rule: "unless it allows a run to score", or something.

The more I think about it, if this happens in a big ame with the chances of such a play going viral, either scenario could very well lead to a rule clarification/change.

I have seen no one teach this mechanic at the amateur level working the 2 umpire system. Fight to get fair, if a hard shift is on, get inside and take the play from inside.

Depends on how far F4 moves to his left, or if there's a large shift and F4 is really deep.. Only go foul if he will threaten your position of if the throw will come from (nearly) behind you. Too many see this mechanic and go foul for all balls to F4's left.

Thanks. We used to have coaches ratings in our state and there were significant data between the winning and losing coaches. Winning coaches consistently rated the umpires higher. Coaches who know nothing about umpiring are trying to rate the umpires. I understand what you're doing and I think it's a step in the right direction. Good luck.

Still Twitter, still won't watch it, so no, I did not see him go. At this point, let's just quit letting people play the game and have all contests played on an XBOX.

I have worn these and Adrenalines. These are my turf shoes and I have never slipped with them either on dry or wet fields.

Lower end of traction. I wouldn't recommend them in areas where it is soggy or bogged down. They're better suited for drier conditions and turf. I believe @MadMax wears.

As usual in this kind of situation, we have 2 options. Enforce the rule as written and interpreted, prompting an eventual change to the rule, or MSU, roll the dice with a protest committee/assigner/state commissioner on the fairness question. That whole stick is poopy. Maybe one end is a bit less so, because everyone will expect that no run scores. The expected call sneaks by almost always, right or wrong.

The vast majority of coaches who would come out on this are most likely the "I don't know, I just want the run" types. Like many things in our beautiful game, the odds of this situation arising are minute, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few who might pick up on this. This is more likely if this starts popping up in discussions. .

And/or "Coach, why should you benefit from committing Interference?"

If I got an argument from the offence, I might actually go to the MSU rulebook. "Coach, on that type of interference runners return time of pitch, so no run scores."

Truthfully, 100% chance you get less of an argument if you rule it this way. No one expect the run to count.

Just got home from a local clinic who brought in a vendor to sell us the latest top of the line* gear from . . . Champro and Smitty. (*Meaning the stuff that he bought at a clearance warehouse sale.)