scrounge

Then he using that power and position to gain an advantage as coach is shameful...that's an issue for the league director to handle, unless the league has a clear and unambiguous rule about using the specified jersey (heck, even FED isn't that strict).

WHAT ARE YOU DOING, WEGNER?!??? Sorry, had to channel my inner Hawk. Also, this is a situation that I would have no problem using replay.

where????? this article by Jayson Stark????? It's in the Free For All forum.... http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/53363-ummmwhat/

I'm not really all that opposed to replay being expanded, depending on the details. The game evolves, technology evolves, and it's ok. Who knows, what Pud Selig calls "vast" might be pretty underwhelming. Maybe it's just they'll get 26" TVs and HD feeds!

Just speculating, but I'd bet it was the 'game as extension of the classroom' philosophy, requiring the head coach to visibly be the leader of the team and not be able to delegate that. Frankly, for a school game I agree.

This post rustles my jimmies. The post you're responding to didn't deserve mockery. Is your position: Balk shouldn't be called because you will have a SH*#storm. It's really hard to make this call, so while it should be called, we shouldn't criticize anyone for not making it. It's a bad rule, so you will not enforce it. The rule wasn't violated. That seems like a grossly oversimplistic summation of MidAmUmp's excellent post above, in which it appears to me that all those questions are answered in full context with detailed explanations. I'm not saying I agree 100% with everything he said, but the points were clear to me.

I'm going to commit a tiny act of blasphemy, but.. Other than the ex-player thing (and many umps ARE ex-players, just not ex-professional players), there are some nuggets of things that I don't have a massive problem with in that list.

If you're cutting it that close, then get out of the assignment. You should not be accepting games where you will be showing up that close to game time in the first place. Anything above ZZZZ level rec ball should not have Smitty get out of his car with slacks already on. The only possible exception to this would be if you live literally right next to the ballpark. Even then, you would still be Smitty. Lighten up, Francis. Stuff happens sometimes. No one's saying make it a habit or go to work in your pants, but showing up to the occasional game dressed is Smittyville but hanging out in a parking lot in your tighty whities is the height of professionalism?

The mitt does have something to do with whether the ball is a strike or not. It's called timing. Timing is defined as the proper use of eyes, which means seeing everything happen before making a decision. If you are taking a snapshot in your mind of the pitch being a ball or strike as it crosses the plate, you are not seeing everything happen. A lot can happen between the plate and the glove that can change a pitch from a strike to a ball. See the ball out of the pitcher's hand, through the zone, into the glove and how the catcher catches the pitch. A pitch is a strike until proven otherwise and at any point along that path it could prove to be a ball. Yes, catchers frame pitches...badly. That's an automatic ball. If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the knees and the catcher catches it in the dirt, it's a ball. If a pitch crosses at the bottom of the letters and the catcher catches it at the waist, it's a strike. If a pitch is a ball or 2 off the plate and the catcher gets to it and sticks it, it's a strike. If a pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back into the center of the plate, it's a ball. Appearance is part of the equation. You have to see how the catcher catches it and take that into consideration. If appearance didn't matter, we'd all turn our hats around backards and wear shorts. Philosophically I understand some of what you are saying. But you lost me twice: 1) "A lot can happen between the plate and the glove to make a strike a ball." By rule nothing can happen between the plate and the glove because the ball is no longer in the strike zone. The strike zone exists above the plate, not behind it. 2) "A pitch catches the corner and the catcher pulls it back to the middle of the plate, it's a ball". I am stunned that someone with your credentials is advocating taking a pitch that you clearly saw meet the requirements of a strike (any part of the ball passe through any part of the strike zone), and calling it a ball because of something that the catcher did. I'm not saying that a catchers movement never effects my zone. But I would never look at a pitch feel that I saw it cross the zone and then call it a ball anyway. Again, I think we need to know the level and quality of ball you're talking about here. Maybe I'm wrong, but everything I've read (explicitly and between the lines) indicates you're talking about youth/rec ball. Of course at that level you wouldn't use the mitt much - or at all. Anything above JV or above-average travel and you would - or should. It's not SOLELY about perception and acceptance of your call. But it's most certainly not blind to those considerations. 1) I hope and think you didn't mean that as sanctimoniously as it came across, but I don't think anyone meant there was something physically that would happen with the ball between plate and glove (and what on earth could it be anyway). The point as I understood it was that you're cutting off potentially useful information too early. Again, I suspect you're not truly making up your mind over the plate but rather a few feet in front of it. 2) Again, perception and acceptance are factors. You might not agree, you might not like it, but it's a reality. You can fight the glacier, but it's still true. And again, level is important. "Catches the corner" doesn't sound very clear to me - sounds more borderline. And borderline calls are precisely the ones that benefit from more information. Information like where the catcher set up, how he caught, yes - how it looks. Maybe it didn't catch the corner, maybe it did. But if the catcher feels the need to jerk it back into the zone, he's telling the entire world that he didn't think it was a strike either. I understand you won't call what you see as a strike a ball. That's kinda the rub - maybe you're cutting off useful information too quickly and seeing strikes that are really balls in the first place.

Just to play devil's advocate, let me ask this: why? From MLB's point of view, is there any material benefit to changing it? The supply seems to be vastly in excess of demand, their needs are in the handful of new umps at most per year, they're getting an acceptable performance in the minor leagues for the compensation and investment being made. The system might suck....but every year, hundreds line up and dutifully pay for the small chance of being considered for this awful system. So again....without saying it's right or preferable or what I'd like to see...why should they change?

Fascinating

Yea....not a good situation... http://wqad.com/2013/05/13/umpire-arrested-at-high-school-baseball-game-for-assaulting-officer/

Since I've stopped using the mitt I've felt much stronger in my calls. If the catcher catches the ball low that might mean that the ball dropped at the end due to lack of velocity. His pitch might have just had a little quirky drop to it based on the spin of the ball. If I wait until it hits the glove then I process all these questions: 1. Where did the pitch appear to cross the plate?; 2. Where did the catcher catch it?; 3. How fast was it going?; 4. What kind of pitch was it?. How can I confidently know whether it was a strike when IN THE ZONE. That's when it's supposed to be called so that's where I look. I've found that I am much more consistent when I simplify it and call it the only place that matters. What level of ball are you doing? What you're describing sounds like youth/rec ball...and may be entirely appropriate for that. You can't use catchers at really young or really bad levels. That lack of velocity or arc balls is common at those levels, but much less so at the high JV and up that others seem to be describing. As to that quirky drop...well, that's just not physically possible. There are no forces on a ball that magically appear at the end of flight. Also, yes, ALL of those questions are good questions. And if you've got good timing, you've got ample time to process them all and make a full decision. You may think you're focusing only on the plate, but I bet you're actually making the decision a couple feet in front.

Did he mean by "stepped forward" to actually be "started his pitching motion"?

If you're talking about a single, centralized replay official like the NHL uses, I'm fine with it. And frankly, I'm ok with managers having one challenge per game as well. If they're wrong, make it an extra base award or an out, whichever applies.

eh, all you ice cream salesmen/milkmen look alike to me!

Had a middle school coach who was incredulous when I called this a balk a couple days ago. It was like a mid-summer travel tournament, this guy was an uptight jackwagon from the start, the kind you can just tell even from the plate meeting. 2nd to last game of the season, so you'd think he and the pitcher would know by now. Pitcher in windup with R3 and R2, he steps back with his free foot, starts to pivot on his pivot foot, then steps back with the pivot foot and stops. Easiest balk I've had all year, but head rat is apoplectic. And after he heads back to the dugout, his pitcher asks me where the warning was. He said he got a warning the last couple times he did it. REALLY, KID? Maybe you should have....hmm, I dunno....listened to one of those warnings. It's a school game at the end of the year, not an instructional rec league game. And his opponent got a balk in the inning previous...guess you weren't watching, huh kid.

You suck. This post should be deleted. The young dude comes here, lays it all out in an effort to learn, and all you have is this mindless, idiotic flame? Waste of bandwidth.

As a general rule, never ever read the comments of an internet article. 90% of them are from the dregs of humanity or fake trolls just trying to get people worked up. These two groups are by no means mutually exclusive. As a general rule I agree. However I've seen Steve Wulf's work for a few years. He's very involved with youth sports and trying to keep them in perspective. The article also showed that even someone who should know better, the author, kind of lost his mind when a call didn't go his way. Shows how easily it can happen. I think this is a great article. Oh sure, I liked the article too. I just meant the comments at the bottom of an article are generally worthless, not the article itself.

As a general rule, never ever read the comments of an internet article. 90% of them are from the dregs of humanity or fake trolls just trying to get people worked up. These two groups are by no means mutually exclusive.

At 12U or lower, or any rec league level, I'm probably ignoring the drop on a strike that isn't borderline. Higher than that, if it's truly belt high and the catcher didn't even move the glove but just flubbed the catch, I'm still calling the strike but anything else and probably not. Adult? Eh, screw them - if you're going to be a weekend warrior reliving the glory days, you better catch it if you want the call!

This is disgraceful, and your resorting to cheap, personal insults only magnifies the fact that you are advocating the wholesale and willful breaking of the rules for that game simply due to your own sensibilities and opinion.

It can be a useful, not perfect but better, tool if they actually use it, but it's unfathomable to me as Jeff points out to have it but not use it. Football gets the same video feed as the booth, I think basketball and hockey do as well. What's so magical about baseball that prevents that?

I've watched it 5 times and I can't tell. I guess I'd say safe if I absolutely had to make a decision but I have no real idea. So I'll trust the guy that does. Plus he's originally from my association, so this is a no-brainer!

So they may never have seen the close-up replay, the only one that shows the change of direction from the railing? If not, no wonder they didn't change it. And what's the point of replay then if the definitive angles and shots aren't used?