24sdad

The umpiring profession, similar to the law enforcement profession, is image conscious. We have all heard from mentors and even given the advice ourselves - look, dress and act professional if you want to be viewed as a professional. What is, and what is not, part of that professional image is usually dictated by those in the upper echelons of their respective organizations - association board members, umpire supervisors, chief's of police, etc. Those policy makers are typically, not always, but typically somewhat older than the majority they supervise. As such, these guys (or gals) probably missed the popular "tattoo craze" of the last 10-15 years, and what they view as "acceptable and professional" differs from what most of their subordinates feel. Just look at today's MLB game. You would be hard pressed to find a player without visible tats, and equally hard pressed to find an older (been around the game longer) manager or coach with tats (or at least visible ones). What I think will be interesting is when these current "policy makers" begin to retire and are replaced with their newer generation subordinates, bringing with them a completely different idea of what is acceptable and professional and what is not. I don't have any tats and have absolutely no problem with someone who does. It is a personal choice and frankly, none of my business. But those who do choose to go that route might be wise to consider that "dream job" you always wanted could currently be unattainable due to a visible tattoo. At least for now.

That was it! Jax, that is probably the premier level, upper class HS age event in the country. Good job on your invite and assignment!

That was it! He played for CBA Marucci (all 2015 grads from So Cal). I showed him your picture and asked if he remembered you and he said "how would I know, you all look alike to players." Damn kids.

Jax, was your assignment in Fla the Perfect Game WWBA in Jupiter? My son just returned from there. He said they had different groups of partners every game and the umpiring was pretty damn good.

Just finished a one man varsity fall ball game. I am guessing I put the ball in play 40-50 times. Was I positive F1 had the ball each and every time he engaged? No. Was I worried the defense would try to pull a HB trick? No, because if they did I would just fix it and move on. I don't care who you are, you will occasionally lose track of the ball. Manny asks to see the ball before he puts it in play. Ok, apparently it works for him but not something I would do. He believes he is correct and others believe they are correct. I don't see either side convincing the other to change anytime soon.

If they are out on appeal, then they are considered to have advanced for purposes of both the balk and CI rules. The OBS did not cause the missed base. BR is out on appeal before reaching first. No run. Agree, both B/R and R2 "safely" advanced one base so negate both the balk and CI. Since B/R was out on a close play at 2nd, I am going to guess absent the obstruction at first he would have been safe at 2nd. Call time at this point and make award (B/R safe at 2nd on OBS) and R2's run counts, albeit briefly. Def now appeals the miss of first by B/R, bang the out and remove R2's run for the reason mentioned above. May not be 100% (or 1%) correct, but that is what I would do and sell the hell out of it.

Joyce also busted his ass up the 3BL (as far as the play would allow) before taking the knee. Lots of good teaching points and hopefully Thunder can find it.

Which means you can work pretty much year 'round. I feel SOOOOOO sorry for you ! As you should. But actually your statement is not 100% correct. Its not "pretty much" year round, its year round! Although October-December is typically our "slow" time as I only have about 5 or 6 games a week. Checking the weather for my game this friday, I see its supposed to get down to 75. Might have to consider wearing my long sleeves. Its rough sometimes, but we suck it up and soldier on.

We have gnats bugging us here is So Cal pretty much year round. Had a partner tell me to mix Avon's Skin So Soft with the water in my squirt bottle and use it on my hat before each game. Something in it that bugs do not like. Have not had a problem with any winged critter since. Plus, it smells pretty good too. Plus plus, you can squirt down your shoes with it between games, wipe em down with a rag and the oil in it gives a pretty decent shine.

I understand this guy is your assignor and all, but the way this looks to everyone in attendance is that you are a dummy and, thank God, your wiser and more experienced partner was on hand to set you straight, overturn this obvious screw up and maintain the integrity of our national pastime. Curious, did the offensive HC come out after you changed your call or was he just as clueless as your partner and the defensive HC? Did you ever consider telling your partner after he "pulled you aside" that maybe he did not see what you saw, you were positive F1's actions constituted a balk, and as such the call stands? Routine ground ball to F6 who promptly throws the ball into the dugout (first play by inf). You correctly place B/R on second base. Your same partner pulls you aside and says the B/R gets third base on this play because by the time the ball trickled unassisted into the dugout, B/R had touched 1st base. As in your OP, you know he is wrong and explain it is a TOP award. As in the OP, he tells you that you are incorrect. Are you going to move the runner to 3rd because he has 20+ years experience and is your assignor? I know you are in a difficult position given who your partner is and I don't think anyone will dispute this. You said you felt like ##### the rest of the game, which I am guessing was due to you compromising what you know is right. Doing what is right is sometimes a difficult choice, and failing to do so can easily be rationalized by a variety of justifications. Others might disagree, but if you are right, you're right. Stick to your guns. This might just cause your experienced partner to crack open a rule book or two.

No worries Manny

I respectfully disagree. It's not superfluous. It is an independent action that requires your ruling, and it is taught by all the professional schools. JE Maximizing pg 270; WUS, Section I, XXI. That being said, I respect your individual choice on how you wish to umpire. Manny - my Maximizing may be a little older than yours, but on pg 30 Evans talks about how to call U3K and more importantly, the reason for a verbal and/or physical "no catch": "By pointing to the ground (or safe signal) and verbally stating "balls on the ground!" or "no catch!", the umpire is giving the batter a fair chance to advance and, also, informing the catcher he may have other obligations to fulfill in order to retire the batter." Since the batter can not legally advance and F2 has no responsibility to make a play on him, common sense would indicate Evans is not talking about an U3K with 1st occupied and less than two outs. It does not matter if the pitch was caught or uncaught, the batter is out. A verbal and/or physical "no catch" in this situation is, as grayhawk stated, "superfluous information."

If Demuth made the obstruction call on his own, he would not of pointed to third base and yelled out to Jim Joyce. Demuth saw Joyce call it and reverberated it, both at the moment it occurred, and again, after he declared the runner safe. I do believe the onus of the award of home plate was on Demuth. When did he point to 3rd base and yell at Jim Joyce? I believe what you saw was he pointed to the spot of the obstruction and called obstruction, then after he called the runner safe, he again pointed back to the spot of the obstruction and announced he had obstruction and was awarding the runner home. I agree with others that his mechanics might have been a little screwy at the plate, but I'd also say he was probably pretty amped up at the fact he was ending a WS game on an obstruction call...so I think he can be forgiven. When the initial call was made by Jim Joyce, it was echoed at home plate by Demuth. The overall is that Joyce called it, Demuth echoed it, and they were both on the same page in scoring the run. No one can definitively say whether Demuth "echoed" Joyce's OBS call or called the OBS on his own, EXCEPT Demuth. I don't remember what he said, or if he even addressed it in the post game press conference. But until he does, it is just speculation for either side of the argument... but deep down we in the "called it on his own" camp know we are right

LOL - and following 32 years (and one year of blissful retirement) I don't have to listen to those different stories anymore! I believe DeMuth also made the call on his own. I attached a video of Dan Bellino making an obstruction call/award from 2010. His mechanics left no doubt as to what occurred and why an obviously out R1 was awarded third base. Following the tag at third, Bellino calls time (in effect "waving off" the obvious out at 3rd), points to the area of the obstruction (F6), then points to third base (award), signals safe and points to third again. I don't think you needed to know the game of baseball to understand (due to his immediate, emphatic mechanics) what just happened. http://mlb.mlb.com/v...tent_id=8725303

.971 fielding average during the season (.800 fielding average during LCS) would seem to indicate this is nothing new. Tremendous tools coupled with a tremendous lack of maturity, and IMO, respect for the game. Either no one in the Dodger organization has taken the time to explain to Puig how the game is played at this level, or someone has and Puig has just chosen to ignore it. Lending credence to the latter was Puig's quote the other day of "that's how we play in Cuba."

Could that be called Umpire Interference? © Umpire’s interference occurs (1) when a plate umpire hinders, impedes or prevents a catcher’s throw attempting to prevent a stolen base or retire a runner on a pick-off play, or (2) when a fair ball touches an umpire on fair territory before passing a fielder. Rule 2.00 (Interference ©) Comment: Umpire interference may also occur when an umpire interferes with a catcher returning the ball to the pitcher.

I would go with the tag

During the game last night they showed an additional, slower version of the inside angle that to me appears R1's foot/toes were still in the air when F3 caught the ball. I thought he got it right but I don't see anything IR would overturn. Anyone else see the start of a "safe" mechanic, then quickly changed to an "out?" Could have been U1 just winding up for the punch out with his left arm starting to come up, but who knows.

Obviously, Rich's point regarding secure possession is valid in any tag play. But I think JHSump summed it up quite nicely when he said the ball was caught and held securely, but the glove moved backward slightly following the catch and prior to the tag. IMO, at no point did F6 fail to demonstrate secure possession...and that is after watching it in super slow motion. Miller, 5-10 feet from the play and in real time, watches the catch, tag and continuing action of F6 holding up his glove with the ball and judged secure possession and an out. The fact that the catch and tag were so close together, a tag with enough force to push F6's glove backward on his hand without having the ball juggled, bounce around, reappear, etc indicates secure possession to me. Although it helps hanging onto the ball, I don't believe closing your glove around the ball is a requirement of secure possession. Rich's point, in general, is valid. I just disagree it applies to this particular play.

Watching it live last night I am thinking damn that was close. After the first replay view from home plate I was leaning toward safe, thinking F6 was sweeping back to tag Gordon's inner calf as Gordon had already touched 2nd. Changed my mind again after the CF replay view, which to me clearly shows just as F6 receives the throw, his glove is pushed backward by the contact with Gordon's butt, while Gordon's hand is about a foot short of 2nd base. Big time call by Miller.

Never said camping was a requirement. This fly ball required ordinary effort to catch, period. Misplaying the ball by F4 is what caused him to still be moving at the time he dropped this routine fly ball, not the difficulty of the catch.

I understand he was still backpedaling and not "camped" under it, but IMO F4 just out and out misplayed that ball. Somewhat of a lackadaisical effort to get to the ball and no last minute lunge to catch it, so I believe he thought he was under it right up until the moment he realized he wasn't. At that level, that play should be made with ordinary effort all day long. But, they did not give him an error on the play, so what do I know.

Ed "the Babysitter" Hickox must have found his syringe for that vaccine. The gall of him for calling the batter back to LEGALLY complete his at-bat. Who does he think he is interjecting himself in the game like that?

Nice to see Bob hustling up the line, moving inside to get a view around F2 and then cutting back like Barry Sanders when F2 changed position. And, nice to hear Rex Hudler immediately coming to Bob's defense.

I think there's a difference this situation and the two you describe. In terms of whether to call the batter back or not, I think in MLB if no one in uniform for the team can count to 3, then I don't think the umpire should have to help them out. Don't get me wrong, I would love to just let the guy who thinks he is out on strike two continue to the dugout. I love outs as much as the next guy. But, a lot of times on the field the things we want to do are in conflict with the things we should do. On taking first base on ball three and the umpire allows it- the offensive team obtains an unfair advantage. On a batter staying in the box following ball four and the umpire allows it because the "batter can't count to four," - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage. On a batter striking out on strike two because neither he nor his teammates "can count to three," and the umpire allows it - the defensive team obtains an unfair advantage. Even though in two of the three examples a player "screwed up," we have knowledge of it and the ability (and IMO the obligation) to correct it. You are certainly free to do what you deem appropriate. I am going to fix it.