Jump to content

Richvee

Established Member
  • Content Count

    4,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Richvee last won the day on September 27

Richvee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,215 Excellent

About Richvee

  • Birthday 09/30/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sussex County, NJ

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    NJSAB, Skylands Umpire Association
  • Occupation
    optician
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    Baseball only. Mostly 90'...Travel, HS, and adult
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

12,790 profile views
  1. Oh, I agree. I’m not implying the strike three call was in any way a pre determined “make up call”. No way. I doubt at that point he even knew he was wrong on the foul call. Lost a little focus. I agree. I’m just glad it turned out the way it did.
  2. I know we don’t like the term “make up call” , and I get angry when I hear it, but these two calls did work out. I’m a Yankees fan and wasn’t upset with the missed strike three call on Sanchez. The backlash if he would gotten a game winning hit after the erroneous foul ball call would have been brutal. Rarely do 2 wrongs make a right, but in this case ........,
  3. Under FED rules,( high school ) your no call is probably right. Basically if you drew a line between F3 and F4 , did the ball hit R1 in front(interference), or behind ( play on) that line. Under OBR, this is interference , as the ball had not gone through or by an infielder.
  4. They do come in bunches, don’t they? I had a relatively impact free season, until Sunday. HS sophomore showcase. Pitchers not familiar with catchers, kids throwing low 80’s, all added up to 2 to the mask, 2 off the shin, one direct off the knee, 2 off the foot, and one to the gut. All in 9 innings.
  5. I’m with you. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. What you describe is how review should have been instituted when we went beyond HR calls. Teams should have never been allowed time to watch a play on video before challenging, it should have never been used to see if a guy’s spike came 1/16” off the bag after sliding in safe to a bag. They went from boundary calls to microscopic calls in one off season. I blame ESPN for relentlessly pushing the replay review agenda, just like they’re pushing the electronic strike zone agenda now.
  6. I was with you 100% until the penalty thing. I don’t see the need. Two wrong, you’re done. I like the idea pitcher/catcher/batter the only ones who can challenge a ball/ strike. Leave check swings out. ( maybe define it better).
  7. This should be the case for ALL replay... Not just our contrived ball/strike replay. You saw what the umpire saw..If you disagree, challenge. You don't get extra help of watching the play again before you decide.
  8. I like all your upgrades. Depending on the mask you’re looking at, give serious thought to upgrading the pads to team Wendy’s or Wilson memory foam. Personally nothing beats TWs. If go with a Wilson Gold, be sure to upgrade the harness with an all star or one from @Razzer Can’t get better than F3 shins
  9. I’m against it. I don’t think we need it. That said, can we incorporate it somehow to allow a couple challenges per game for obviously missed pitches? I know that’s opening Pandora’s box, but I don’t think we need the technology for every pitch. Borderline is borderline...if a human or computer calls it. ...let it be. Bad misses, let’s say a strike call >3” out of the zone can be changed if challenged ,. 5 seconds to challenge, and immediately a B or K appears on the scoreboard.
  10. There’s still a margin of error in the tracking system. Not to mention the inability with the current tech to accurately adjust up and down for each batter instantly. It’s not ready yet.
  11. It all goes back to the common misconception by most that because it’s a computer, there’s no way it can be wrong. Why people believe all technology is 100% accurate is a huge pet peeve of mine. ,
  12. It's far from pointless, Mr. @Senor Azul. I'm also concerned with all the pointing and calling "play" when it's to start the clock, or to actually put the ball in play. Some of my questions on 2 of the bullet poits in the NCAA memo... • For the first pitch of an at-bat the timer shall start when the plate umpire signals “play”. The umpire should signal when the pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle surrounding the pitcher’s rubber, the catcher is in the catcher’s box, and the batter is in the batter’s box. That's not when you put the ball in play. So are we pointing to start the clock when the pitcher is in the dirt circle, and then again pointing to put the ball in play when he intentionally contacts the rubber? • Following an umpire’s call of “time” or if the ball becomes dead (for example, after a foul ball or a pick-off that goes out of play), the timer shall stop and start again when the plate umpire signals “play” after the pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle surrounding the pitcher’s rubber, the catcher is in the catcher’s box, and the batter is in the batter’s box. So after a foul ball, I'm signaling "Play" before the pitcher engages the rubber???
  13. Love how the announcers now change their narrative. Live umpire, we hear, "That pitch was clearly out of the zone, terrible job by the HP umpire, blah blah blah" Now it's all laughs.."Hahah..that pitch looked outside, but I guess not, hahaha, we must be wrong"
  14. If I have a batter running to first on strike 2, I’m verbalizing “strike two”. Just like I verbalize “batter’s out” when he runs on a D3K with 1b occupied <2 outs.
  15. I read Gil’s take and I guess it make sense. The actual fielding of the ball and throw never happened since the INT happens “time of kick” and that’s the end of the play. Much the same as a SS who completes a play to 1B after being interfered with.
×
×
  • Create New...