grayhawk

My mind just doesn't work fast enough to screw a team over on purpose in a situation like that. I just try to get 'em all right.

I took your original post as your instructors saying to not greet the sub-varsity coaches before a game. If that's not the case and you were simply asking about uniform/business attire, the business attire stems from a situation where a dressing room would be provided. It's possible that by walking to the field in non-uniform attire will get you a changing room, but I've never had it happen. It's more that you look more professional in business casual than in your uniform. Sorry for the confusion. I absolutely greet each head coach before the game - they are my first priority when I arrive on site. This is taught in the association. I also email the athletic director for each school about 3-4 days before the game to provide my contact information and which game I will be officiating. Most of them reply with a confirmation.

It's not necessary at any high school level through my association, but I still do it -- no matter the level. To me, the lower-level coaches demand just as much respect as the higher-level ones. In fact, that Freshman coach might be the Varsity coach in a few years -- and he might remember that respect you gave him several years ago. How is it more respectful to greet a coach in "plain clothes" rather than in uniform? I ask because as I said, I believe there is an expectation at some levels to do this. Is it because we are meeting each other as "coach/person" rather than as "coach/umpire?" Does him seeing me as a regular person help prevent barriers from being raised? If the school provides a facility to get changed in, I think it makes sense to arrive in my regular clothes (on weekdays, it would be in a suit, which I wear to work). If there is no facility, I would think the schools would rather us NOT be changing clothes in their parking lot. I know there have been "incidents" where certain officials have bared too much and complaints have been lodged.

Interesting technique (yep/yes) and certainly something I would consider. I certainly would never speed up my actual verbal just to keep the batter in the box. If he is trying to buy the ball, using normal timing and having him have to walk back tells everyone there that I won't be influenced.

Interesting thread. When I started umpiring high school last year, I remember either reading something or being told to arrive at games in business casual attire and going to introduce ourselves to the coaches before changing into our uniform. I asked our instructors about this and they said for the freshman and frosh/soph games that first year officials do, it was not necessary. Because of this, I would bring my uniform to work and change in the bathroom there before driving to the game site. I would then park in an inconspicuous location and put on my gear and walk to the field and introduce myself, and then start my pregame tasks (sign the voucher, check equipment, walk the field, etc.). Personally, I felt it was more professional to arrive clothed rather than be putting on pants, etc in public. If there was a locker room provided, I could definitely see changing on site. It just seems a bit undignified to be changing clothes in a parking lot. JMHO. This season, I will be doing mostly JV games. We have a new "Virtual Crew Chief" program and this is something that I will discuss with my VCC. He is also a college umpire, so I it will be interesting to hear his thoughts about how to approach this at different levels.

Saw a guy rocking one of these recently:

Yes, this is exactly the same thing. He is still the catcher because he played that position on defense the last time his team was in the field. I'm not sure what is so difficult about this for some people. I think the difficulty is that this is a rule interpretation - not a black letter rule. There is no rule or case play that specifically says that a player retains his defensive position when someone pinch-hits or pinch-runs for him and then he re-enters. As I said earlier in this thread, if that is the accepted interpretation, that's fine by me, but it's not exactly spelled out specifically in the rules.

I know what you mean Dix. I almost broke out my jacket for my third plate on Saturday, but decided I would have been too hot, so I stuck with the short sleeves. It really sucks that there are no more tournies until January 7th. I may have to try and pick up a scrimmage during the holidays so I don't go into withdrawl. If I didn't like your posts and replys as much as I do, and being a snow-bird, I would have had to reply to this in such a way that I surely would have gotten ejected!!! But, instead, I'll just say that I'm one of the envious ones that would love to have your baseball season. What's a "season"? B) ... Too far?

I wouldn't exactly call it nontraditional, but on a declared infield fly where the ball is not caught, it''s a good idea to verbally reinforce that the batter is still out after the ball hits the ground: Ball is hit high to F4, and at the apex the umpire decides it is an IFF and calls it, "Infield fly, batter's out!". Ball is dropped and the umpire declares again loudly, "He's out! He's still out!"

I know what you mean Dix. I almost broke out my jacket for my third plate on Saturday, but decided I would have been too hot, so I stuck with the short sleeves. It really sucks that there are no more tournies until January 7th. I may have to try and pick up a scrimmage during the holidays so I don't go into withdrawl.

I'll send you a couple from SoCal Rolando. I have a high school patch and a LL District patch.

I think they did it this year because the bat rules have been simplified to the point that coaches can actually understand them now.

Honestly, Mr. Bologna, I've never heard that before. If dofting one's cap is some sort of insult, I'll have to remember that. Now I can see other articles of clothing, for sure. But a hat? I dunno. And Mr. Bologna I hate that crap Are you related to either "I-Zheet M'Drurz" or "Hous Bin Pharteen"?

I figured that this topic would get differing opinions because this is a mechanic that has changed over the years. In the 2005 ALCS, AJ Pierzynski from the White Sox swung and missed for strike three on a low, outside slider. Angels catcher Josh Paul, thinking that he caught the ball cleanly, rolled the ball to the mound figuring that the inning was over. Pierzynski turned briefly towards the dugout and then ran to first as the Angels were running off the field. Pierzynski was replaced by a pinch runner who stole second and scored on a base hit and that was the deciding run in the game. After that fiasco, pro mechanics were changed to provide for a verbal call. If home plate umpire Doug Eddings had given a verbal, "no catch" or something similar, both Pierzynski and Paul would have known his ruling. I know some folks will take the position that F2 already knows whether or not he caught the ball cleanly. That may be the case but there are times when he DID catch it, but the PU was blocked out and the BU didn't get a good look at it either and the ruling is no catch. In that case, should F2 tag the batter anyway? Absolutely. Is there any harm at all in PU verbally informing BOTH the offense and the defense of his ruling? Here is what Jim Evans teaches in "Maximizing the Two-Umpire System": "If the catcher does not legally catch the ball, the umpire should signal the strike and then indicate physically and verbally that the ball was not legally secured. By pointing to the ground and verbally stating, "Ball's on the ground!" or "No catch!", the umpire is giving the batter a fair chance to advance and, also, informing the catcher that he may have other obligations to fulfill in order to retire the batter." For those that went to Harry's school, I would be curious to know what he teaches. My vote is definitely to give a verbal because it equally informs both the batter and the catcher of your ruling. In many cases, neither can see us giving our "safe" signal or other nonverbal signal, so adding a simple, "no catch" lets that both know what your ruling is.

For those that vote, please reply with your reasoning for your choice. I have heard both sides of the debate and would like to hear your thoughts.

Jeez, what a worthless thread this is! I can't believe anyone with an IQ above freezing would even think about posting something so idiotic! I kid! I kid! Seriously, great thread and I agree that when things start to get heated, it's best to just take a step back and kill 'em with kindness. You get folks from all walks of life on internet discussion forums, and sometimes those personalities just don't mix well. Honestly, umpire boards are pretty tame comapred to some of the sports or political boards I have read/posted on over the years. The great thing about this forum is that pretty much everyone here is an adult, so we don't get the teenage/adolescent factor. The few youngsters we do get are, dare I say it, more mature than your ordinary kid because they chose the dignified avocation of umpiring! We just have to remember that we are all here for similar reasons (mostly to learn and become better umpires, or to help others become better). Often, there are differences in the way things are handled depending on which region of the country, or which country you are from. While it's natural to prefer that everything be done the way we were taught, sometimes there is a better way. The good thing is, we can all choose what we adopt, and what we don't (as long as it's okay with whatever association you are working in).

Curious to know how folks feel about using a verbal in a U3K situation.

Can you point me towards a rule or case play that uses the term "LAST to play the position"? All I can find are rules and situations where CR's can be used for catchers and pitchers, not for catchers or pitchers who have left the game and have re-entered as pinch runners. I was in the "illegal" camp on this, but I can accept the interpretation that grants the "ex-catcher" catcher status when he re-enters the game as a pinch runner. However, as far as I can tell, this is an interpretation and it's far from black and white. I'm with you Rich. I was thinking that once the catcher left the game that he lost his status as catcher. I just don't see anything in the rules that makes it clear that a re-entering starter that was removed in the same inning while on offense keeps his defensive position. If that's the accepted interpretation, that's fine. But it's certainly not explicit in the rules.

As an Angels fan, I have to say Santa came through BIG TIME this year! Not only did they get the best player in baseball, they also signed a very good pitcher and took him away from their division rival in the process. I was happy to hear they signed Wilson for less than what they paid Weaver too. With Pujols (37 HR), Trumbo (29), Wells (25), Morales (34 in 2009), Hunter (23) and Kendrick (18), you have some serious power in the lineup. Add Chris Ianetta who batted .238 and had 14 HRs and that's a major upgrade at the catching position too. Look out Rangers! Chris, am I reading correctly that the Official's Locker room is your invention? If so, you should think about marketing it to surfers. I drive past these guys all the time on PCH changing out of their wetsuits and shorts with towels around their waist.

Thanks - works for me! I can certainly imagine that if multiple throws were allowed that things could get out of hand.

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception Look at the intent of the rule, it's to penalize the batter for interfering with the catcher making a play on an advancing runner. If the PU deems the batter interfered with the catcher's throw then there is interference. When F6 cuts the ball the play on the advancing runner the catcher was making a play on is over and no out resulted from that initial play hence the interference stands, batter out R3 back to third if less than two outs. Jim Evans talked specifically about this situation at a clinic in October. The intent of the rule is the initial throw/play, not subsequent plays. What if the "play" in your scenario was to get R3 by throwing to F6 and then catching R3 off the base or trying to advance to home? In that case, they retired the runner they were trying to make a play on (R3). With this scenario and nobody out, you can bet that the DM is going to say the interference should be ignored because the play they were making resulted in an out. Is the intent of the rule to only allow one throw? I think I have read an interpretation somewhere (BRD perhaps) that says that if the "initial" throw retires the runner, then you ignore the interference. Seems to me that if the defense had a specific play on that would take two throws to get the out, why not allow them to complete that play?

Please address 6.06 ( c ) Exception

Play stands. There is an exception in 6.06 ( c ) that if ANY runner attempting to advance is put out, then the batter is not out for interference.

I'm hoping to replace my Spot Bilt plate shoes with some Reeboks. I also want to get my first pair of poly wools. And what the heck, a copy of J/R as well.

This is a strange play because the defense would have been better off NOT getting the out on R1. If R1 is safe, then interference is enforced and R1 is out (because the batter is already out). Since R3 cannot advance on interference, his run would not score.