JHSump

I think the ESPN "article" would have been more interesting if it explained exactly what they thought the successful catchers were doing to "frame" a pitch. Pulling just says to me the catcher thinks it's a ball (or he has no clue what he's up to, if he pulls pitches that are obvious strikes). Sticking borderline pitches is a good strategy, I think. A subtle wrist movement might be successful. It might also be successful to try to catching the ball in the webbing, or edge of the "pocket," while keeping the center of the mitt in the strike zone. Getting as close to the plate as can be comfortably accomplished, and catching the low ball as far out as possible (toward the pitcher), fingers up, can be successful. But, exactly what are these "good framers" doing?

I can't quite make out what is said. It sounds like "That's a balk right there." Do I have that right?

Could make a big difference if Bobby Fastdude is R1 and Joe McSlowboat is BR!

@cyclonehokiece All the managers seemed to understand the issue at the credentials meeting. The games start on Saturday. We shall see what happens there! I am hoping all the jewelry will be taken care of. If anything interesting happens, I'll report back.

Take these words to heart. A better summary of how to act as a umpire I have not seen.

So, @Jocko we had the "credentials meeting" today. At this meeting I can address all the managers, and I am asked to discuss rules that are important (e.g., approved bats). I brought up the breakaway necklaces, telling them the rule on jewelry had changed. I explained that they should check with their players that their necklaces are indeed breakaway. And, I explained that at the plate meeting we will ask if their players are properly and legally equipped, and this question, in part, is about the necklaces. Finally, I explained that the jewelry rule is about safety, and when they answer "yes" to our question, they are taking responsibility for injuries caused by necklaces that are not breakaway.

"If I can't get a read, I will use the S.W.A.G. method. " @Jocko Today I learned what SWAG means --- sorry, I had to google it. I think I will try this acronym on my partner today, when we pregame this very situation.

@Thunderheads They probably should have, but did not. Here is the full rule: 1.11(d)(2) Players on the field or in the dugout area shall not wear jewelry of any kind, for safety reasons. This includes bracelets, necklaces and piercings of any kind. EXCEPTION: Players may wear breakaway sports necklaces. Medical or religious tags or medallions may be worn and secured by tape if deemed necessary by the umpire-in-chief. PENALTY: When a first time occurrence is noted, a warning shall be given to both teams, which applies to all players. Upon the second occurrence, the manager and player(s) will be ejected from the game. @Jocko During all-star tournaments DYB actually makes us check equipment before each game. So, we check bats (metal/composite bats must say "Approved for Dixie Youth Baseball" among other things), batting helmets (must have a chin strap if there are snaps, among other things). We also used to ask if any player is wearing jewelry, and then tell them to take it off. I still went through LEGS at the plate meeting, anyway. And, I still plan to. ("Are your players legally equipped?" is the "E" for "Equipment" in LEGS, for those of you that don't recognize LEGS.) Now...? At the equipment check, I am tempted to ask all the players with braided necklaces to yank on them! As @ALStripes17 suggests (or may have suggested). But, of course, some kid may destroy his non-breakaway necklace. And, it's a pretty hefty penalty for violating the jewelry rule, similar to Fed but worse: at the first violation give a team warning --- to both teams --- then at the next violation, eject the player(s) and the corresponding manager. I am the UIC for my local District. So, I'm now thinking I may explain this rule to the managers at the pre-tournament Credentials Meeting. And, then we will ask about equipment at the plate meetings, and be covered, as Jocko suggests. Then, if we spot a violation we can address it, as suggested by @cyclonehokiece

We are starting our Dixie Youth Baseball District Tournament soon, and I have a question about sports necklaces. DYB has changed their "no jewelry" rule to say "breakaway sports necklaces" are allowed. My question: are all those colorful braided necklaces I see players wearing of the breakaway sort? Or, are some not? Anybody know? If some are not breakaway, how can I tell?? Have each players yank his apart for me, before each game? LOL

Cool! "Is this heaven?" "No, it's Utah." (With apologies to Field of Dreams)

6 stitch. With a traditional mask.

Hahaha,,, @Jocko and I are on the same page, we just said it differently.

Rule #1: "Baseball is a game..." Monopoly is a game. Ask yourself: Do you play games with your friends or siblings? Do you worry about how you might act or should act when playing with them? Probably not. You just play the game. Why should baseball be any different? When I see parents, coaches, players and fans going off the deep end, I wonder how they would act when playing Monopoly? Would they scream? Would a parent yell at his or her child if he made a mistake. Would a "coach" laugh at his player when he makes a mistake? I have seen such things happen, as I am sure you have too. But, not in a game of Monopoly. And, when I umpire, I think of myself as overseeing a game. If I know players or coaches, it does not matter. I expect they want to win the game, but I also expect they want me to do the right thing to provide a true game of baseball for them. Even if they don't actually want that, I provide a true game for them, because that is what makes the most sense given that baseball is a *game*. So, I suggest your questions arise from thinking of baseball as something other than a game. Maybe thinking about is as I do will help you. It certainly helps me in being totally objective. It also helps me avoid conflict during a game. (Of course, there is still the question of why some participants often think of it as more than just a game.)

@Jocko that was great!

"Field of Nightmares"

Wolf of the Diamond?

Wow! Sounds like it was a travel ball tournament (3rd game of 3). What age group, or level of play or program (USSSA, etc)? Was there a time limit? Just trying to wrap my mind around the whole picture.

@Jocko Some of my partners comment on my 9.01( c ) sticker (back window of my umpire transport), and that gives me the chance to bring up UE. But I have yet to meet a lurker! @maven your video clip reminds me that for a prospective grad student open house, I wrote on my name tag "Qui Gon". One of my grad students wore the tag "Obi Wan". While giving a tour of one of my lab rooms, I noticed one visitor break out in a big smile when noticing our tags. But, they went to another grad school, oh well.

There are probably plenty of things to call that (e.g., dumb mistake), but "interference" is not one of them (nor is it "obstruction").

Thanks! I've been working on my "back look." I'm glad to see all that work is paying off! It was not a final, but I have one tomorrow (4-man --- I've been studying tonight, I am U3, i.e., near 2B at TOP).

Well if you're going to invoke the speed of light, we have to start to get into Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and point out that simultinaeity (i.e. a tie) is an illusion of the reference frame one happens to be in--a stationary and moving observer will perceive the time of the events (see feet & hear ball) differently. So the coaches' tie is my clear out. Someday I'm going whip that out on a coach just to see his eyes glaze over. Alright, it is time for the professional, Dr. Ump (aka @JHSump ) to settle this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk LOL I will take the challenge @cyclonehokiece Technically, the coach and the umpire are in the same frame of reference since neither is moving with respect to each other --- assuming you are set for the call and he is standing still. So, sorry @stevis, but relativity does not come into play. And, while it's true that light travels much much faster than sound, at a distance of about 10-20 feet from the base, the difference in time of arrival of the sound and the light at the umpire is about the sound travel time: about 3 to 7 meters divided by 344 m/s, or at most about 0.02 seconds. That's the physics. I don't know too much about physiology and neurobiology, but my guess is no human can distinguish such a difference in arrival time. Anybody know? So, if you perceive a tie, it could be that the foot hit the bag before the ball hit the glove. Or, it could be the other way around. But you can't rely on physics to help you figure it out. What should you call a perceived tie? IMO, that's not a question for physics or physiology. It's a question for UE! (You mean to tell me I'm not the only Ph.D. physicist here? Guess I should check that "day job" thread.) I'm sorry, when have you ever seen a coach standing still? Especially at a close call? We umpires however are perfectly set, natch. Although of course we're all on the non-inertial reference frame known as Earth so it's all an approximation anyway. According to this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference) the brain can distinguish sub-millisecond sound arrival time differences between the ears. Not sure if that applies to comparing visual and aural inputs though. Cool! We need to work a game together I will have to look at that wiki article.

Last night, 3-man, HS district playoff game. My partners and I are walking off the field at the end. We are almost to the umpire's locker room beyond the left field bullpen, when a young woman runs up to me and says, "I don't understand one thing. Why did the game end after 7 innings?" As I turn my head I notice she is carrying a large video camera with the logo of a local TV station on the side. Turns out she had never covered a HS game before, so didn't understand why the game ended before the 9th inning. (There is a minor league team in the same town --- stadium just up the road from this field.) I guess she figured the only people she could ask about this, and get an official answer, was the umpires. After I cleared up the 7-innings issue, I asked, "So, did you get some good video?" She says, "Well, I got the comeback." Anyway, this encounter alerted me to watch the news last night. The video is at: http://www.wdbj7.com/video/Floyd-County-takes-on-James-River/26220324 I am the devastatingly handsome U3 who indicates "fair" on some hit down the left field line, early on. Comments on my resemblance to Leslie Nielsen welcome. She did not capture my dancing, unfortunately. Some of you, I know, will recognize Kiwanis Field, a former minor league stadium, which opened in 1932 according to Wikipedia.

Well if you're going to invoke the speed of light, we have to start to get into Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and point out that simultinaeity (i.e. a tie) is an illusion of the reference frame one happens to be in--a stationary and moving observer will perceive the time of the events (see feet & hear ball) differently. So the coaches' tie is my clear out. Someday I'm going whip that out on a coach just to see his eyes glaze over. Alright, it is time for the professional, Dr. Ump (aka @JHSump ) to settle this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk LOL I will take the challenge @cyclonehokiece Technically, the coach and the umpire are in the same frame of reference since neither is moving with respect to each other --- assuming you are set for the call and he is standing still. So, sorry @stevis, but relativity does not come into play. And, while it's true that light travels much much faster than sound, at a distance of about 10-20 feet from the base, the difference in time of arrival of the sound and the light at the umpire is about the sound travel time: about 3 to 7 meters divided by 344 m/s, or at most about 0.02 seconds. That's the physics. I don't know too much about physiology and neurobiology, but my guess is no human can distinguish such a difference in arrival time. Anybody know? So, if you perceive a tie, it could be that the foot hit the bag before the ball hit the glove. Or, it could be the other way around. But you can't rely on physics to help you figure it out. What should you call a perceived tie? IMO, that's not a question for physics or physiology. It's a question for UE!

I think this might be the case, also.

I couldn't answer as anything else. Let me ask you this: if it weren't here, how could I reply? As @maven may already know, there is a philosophy paper that suggests there is a 1/3 chance we actually do live in a computer simulation. It's come up in some cosmology discussions. Well that joke went flying right over your head. <s>why is everybody here so OLD?!</s> Why are you so YOUNG?!