yawetag

Coach, you see the 5th pellet to the left of the plate? Nope... the 5th. Coach, the 5th. From the left, coach. Yes. That one. See that pellet? He drew his line three pellets more to the left. Three. Yes, three. To the left, coach. Left. No, coach, your other left. Coach, three plus five is eight. Yes, coach. Eight pellets. You got it."

How about a way to tag your own post with the ruleset being used, similar to the tags that get added to some topics? That way, if I give Fed, I can tag it as such. Have this ability through the whole forum, but make it "strongly suggested" in the Ask the Umpire section. Now, the issue would be people actually using the tags. Secondary proposal: section admins that only have rights in the Ask the Umpire thread, solely to keep order there and add tags as needed. Tertiary proposal: One, two, three.... Not it!

I agree. I don't even think the "yelling" was at anyone in particular or that egregious. If I hadn't seen the previous play and just cut to this, I wouldn't have even thought he was yelling (if he even was).

Enquiring minds want to know: How would you have ruled when Eddie Gaedel came to bat?

Agreed. PU should only go that far out in this situation if there's 2 outs. Anything less and you have to stay close enough to be there. He could still see the play from nearer the plate and would have set himself up perfectly for the play there.

Did you mean "in front of the infielders" at the end there?

If that's what robot umpires look like, I might be okay with one.

We had a discussion on this in another part of the forums:

@Aging_Arbiter, only in the US Government does 40% + 30% = 60%. Hopefully you saw my statements as a kind joke, not as an insult. You look good for 52 - I would have guessed mid-40s from your photo.

Glad to see umpire positioning has evolved over time. Also: This is the photo I expected for @Aging_Arbiter.

If it's something this obvious, then I'm agreeing with @noumpere. If some fielder is looking at me, without the ball, and saying "I think he missed 2B," then I've responded with "OK."

But was a protest lodged at the moment the umpire made up rules?

Honestly, I had no problem with navy blue. To me, it was always the fact that we had no choice in Missouri. Well, we did: navy polo or light-blue button-down. Yes. Seriously. To me, states should have a "suggested" uniform with the ability to alter that so all officials match. Something like: "[state organization] requires the following uniform for all baseball umpires: black shoes (with protective plates for the plate umpire), black socks, charcoal grey pants, and black belt. [state organization] suggests umpires wear navy blue ball bags (plate umpire only), polo shirt, and cap. However, different color shirts, caps, and ball bags may be worn as long as all umpires on a field match." This way, newer officials don't have to worry about buying 16 different shirts - only get navy blue. Veterans know they have to always have navy blue, but can work different colors with other veterans. If there's a patch to be worn, allow it to be attached magnetically, so that it can be transferred easily between the shirts.

If it's a required piece of clothing, then I don't have much of a problem with it. If I'm just told what to wear, with no mandatory provider or website, then I don't want the logo very visible. A small patch above the back pocket or a small stitching in the same color as the cloth - those are fine. This white-on-black in a very obvious position (everyone checks out our back-end, right?) is too much. Had it been stitched in black or a small black patch (I think it's Honigs that does it with their umpire pants), that's perfectly fine. I'd send them back, too, unless your whole crew has these exact same pants.