Fittske24

Personally I don't consider the phrase "That was a bad call at second" or "You made a bad call at second base" ejection worthy. Coaches are entitled to their opinion about our work...even assistant coaches as long as, just like @maven said, the opinion is neither personal, prolonged, or profane. When you replied to the coaches comment with "What?" he responds back, then you eject? This can be considered as baiting. You responding with "what?" implies that you didn't hear him. What do you think the coach will do when you ask him "what?" He is going to repeat himself. When it comes to cheap shots by coaches and ejections, you have to make sure you have warned when appropriate. Why not give a stern "That's enough" If he continues, restrict him to the dugout...then if that is still not enough, then eject. There is no assigner in America that would have a problem with an ejection if you use this process. This may not apply to all ejections because sometimes some coaches go from 0-ejection in a split second. We as umpires have to work harder to keep coaches in the game when appropriate especially at the HS level. The best way to do that is by getting in your warnings if possible before ejecting.

You make the call... and based on your ruling what do you tell the coach? Ready, set.... Go!

One of the main reasons schools teach the hammer is it allows them to evaluate students and new umpires on the same consistent mechanic. It also keeps your head forward when calling strikes with runners on base. This is important when working the lower levels of professional baseball which usually is 2-man crews.

I'm a little confused by your diagram...The picture on the left has the top line at the top of the shoulder during the swing. The picture on the right has the top line below the batters elbows as he is prepared to swing. Why wouldn't the picture on the right have the top line at the top of the shoulders also? I understand what you're saying about your zone, but the diagrams are inaccurate. Unless I'm missing something. Same batter, relative strike zone in comparison to natural, standing stance. The right picture shows that the top of the strike zone (during the batters swing) ends up being about a baseball's length above the belt of the natural standing stance - as he stated in his description Absolutly..... The funny thing is the rule book defines the strike zone as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. Most strikes that are called, occur when the batter is in his natural standing stance. That is the reson for the two pictures. We call most of our strike when the pateer is like the picture on the right even the we use the picture on the right to define the Zone.

Correct. My strike zone is more like an oval....... As the pitches get more up or down on the edges of the zone, I require the pitch to cover more of the strike zone. In the graphic below, by rule the darker balls are strikes, but these or more often than not unhittable pitches. By unhittable I mean most batters will fail to hit safely when swinging at these pitches. Calling these pitches strikes would give the pitcher a considerable advantage.

Here is my $0.02... The rule book determines the STRIKE ZONE from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. Based on the rule book definition of STRIKE ZONE, I usually take a look at the top of the batters belt and then go a ball or so above that. This works for any batter regardless of their size. The strike zone is 3 dimensional however.......for me, the higher the pitch that is close to the top of the zone the more of the plate it must get before I cal it a strike. So for example, a pitch that is at the very TOP of the zone, that pitch must go over the heart of the plate. I feel the pitcher would gain more of an advantage on pitches that are at the TOP of the zone but on the corners. (Same rules apply for pitches at the bottom of the zone). How the catcher receives the pitch matters as well...but thats a whole nother topic

If you ask me.... It's going to make things at our levels worse. Simply because players and coaches are going to try to compare plays at our level with plays that they see get over turned at the MLB level. I can here it now...."they at that same play last night in the Yankees game and it got over turned. What are you so sure you got it right?"

In Non-conference games the umpires can wear what that want as long as they match. In Florida they wear anything from navy to cream. For conference assignments, the approved uniform is black with the pro blue alternate. The NCAA tournament uniform consists of the same colors.

The "V" style bar is primarliy there for support. With the changes in mask materials and manufacturing processes, some designs don't require the extra support.

JM The note referenced from the MLBUM is not the "step and a reach" or "immediate vicinity" provision at play here. That note is more geared to a player who has cleanly fielded a batted ball and is attempting to make a play or subsequent play. As a matter of fact, I don't think OBR has a "step and a reach" provision that protects a fielder who errors in his initial attempt to field a batted ball. In OBR, this play Is more likely to be obstruction because the player only has to avoid a player in the immediate act of fielding a batted ball. Once the pitcher errors, all bets are off. The defense is penalized for not making the play cleanly and being in the immediate path of the runner. In NCAA, there is a provision under the definition of interference (2-50 AR-3): "If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called." This A.R. protects the fielder even if he errors, as long as the ball is still in immediate reach of the original fielder. If I were a betting man, I think this provision was put in place to prohibit plays like this from occurring.

This is a good example as to why you should keep moving as swipe tag plays at home plate develop. If the HP umpire continued to adjust (even if it requires rotating into fair ground) and stayed on the "hip pocket" of the catchers glove hand side, he would have been in great position to see the missed swiped tag. Staying stationary here might case the HP umpire to miss important elements of the play.

I would say he was a tad bit late adjusting to the swipe tag. Because of this, he couldn't adjust quick enough to see the space between catchers glove and tag attempt.

I am in total disbelief.... Rest well my friend. GOD REST YOUR SOUL......R.I.P. Mike Taylor.

If you wear your chest protecter tight enough, the pads will hold in place. I've used rite temp pads for the past 4 years with out them falling or slipping.

For me, this comparison is like "do you like Mercedes or BMW?" I prefer the gold, because when you get the proper size, it will fit like a glove. The platinum for me was a tad bit bulky, However, I never had the opportunity to try the smaller sized platinum. Either way you can’t lose.

Check with your Regional UIC he may be able to provide some regional umpires to serve as instructors. For your region....I'm assuming it's the central region, the UIC is Jeffrey Knoebel jknoebel@bellsouth.net

This ^^^^^^^^^

From a post I made back in 2012... Still applies for me today....

I would recommend going up a full size.

Based on the play in the OP, I'm telling that coach in a NCAA game "he is not obligated to avoid. the runner may make contact, slide into or make contact with a fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the plate. In this case the runner made a legal slide, there is no violation." In a FED game I'm telling the coach "the contact was judged to be unavoidable, and since the runners slide was legal and the contact was not malicious, there is no violation."

First..... There is no such thing as a "train wreck". For newer umpires that may read this thread should understand that the term "train wreck" should never be used in explanation to a coach or manager. I prefer to use "unavoidable contact" to describe this type of play. Now let's look at the rules that come into play here for all codes: Obstruction Interference Collision rule (if applicable) Malicious contact (if applicable) What we know from the OP is F2 IS in secure possession of the ball at the time of contact AND R2's slide IS legal. Because of this, obstruction, interference, malicious contact and collision rules on,the initial collision, do not apply. In all codes. This applies to the initial contact. After the initial contact, obstruction or interference are still a possibility if the play has not terminated at home plate. If F2 lays on, prohibits the progress of R2 after the collision or vice versa, obstruction or interference comes back into play. Mechanics note: even though this contact is unavoidable or incidental, the plate umpire must give this play a "that's nothing" mechanic to show that the contact was neither obstruction or interference. Making no signal will draw unnecessary confusion as to the status if the contact.

My prayers go out to you Manny......

Incorrect. The plate coats sold by Honig's today is made by Hardwicks.(same vendor that makes Honig's and MLB poly-wools.) This is the same plate coat that is worn by current MLB umpire staff.

I believe the plate coats sold by all-American are made by fetchheimer.

Good luck and dont suck!