KyleUmp

We, as umpires, are part of this problem. We don't eject nearly enough and often far too late for the ejection to have any preventative impact on a game. I found this especially true when I was umpiring youth/travel games. As young umpires in local rec leagues, we are taught that ejections are a last resort, try to keep everyone in the game, etc. That's all crap. The rules are very clear when it comes to what is allowed and not allowed in terms of arguing judgment calls, who is allowed to question an umpire, etc. We need to deal with situations as they come up and not allow them to snowball all game. I've never worked a game, at any level, where a coach or a player complaining about balls and strikes (for example) in the first inning or two got better as the game went along. It always gets worse until you do something about it, whether it be a warning, ejection, whatever. As a sidenote, we also have to mean it when we issue a warning. A warning is just that, a warning. You are warning that individual that if they are doing continues, even one time, they will be ejected. I think that umpires are too liberal with their warnings. If you warn someone and they continue to do what it is you warned them to stop and they are not ejected then what is your warning - or future warnings - really mean?

Let it go! I found it useful. I don't post here often, but read as much as I can. I'll have to agree that if you're going to have a "transaction experience thread" it would only make sense to report on negative experiences as well. Bringing up a negative experience but then not revealing a name is akin to running around telling people you have a secret but you're not going to tell them. If you don't want to divulge a name because you don't feel it's needed then I think that's great, but then why bring it up at all is a fair, albeit rhetorical, question? I don't see how the comment, framed as it was, was useful. If someone has a truly negative experience then I don't think it's wrong to share that experience with others. It adds to the legitimacy and usefulness of this thread, in my opinion.

The NCAA doesn't say anything regarding belts other than they have to be black. To each their own, but as an NCAA umpire I wear a 1 3/4" patent leather belt. They're more substantial (especially to hold up ball bags) and they just look better. They also hold their appearance over time versus a regular leather belt. You can get a 1 3/4" Boster leather patent leather belt from Honig's, for example, for about $22. If you're trying to save $8-$10 and buying an inferior product then you're going to get what you pay for. Just my $0.02. By the way, someone mentioned buying two sizes larger than your pants if purchasing a Boston leather patent leather belt. Couldn't agree more.

Brand new, never worn face masks. Asking $70 per mask (includes USPS Priority Mail shipping). Selling both or individually. Feel free to make me an offer. Wilson WTA3009 WV Soft black Amara Suede padding High profile cage Rubber dipped steel Wilson's WTA3009XBLA Dyna-Lite umpire face masks are lightweight umpire masks made with a soft Amara suede padding. The A3009 umpire mask has a wider angle for increased visibility. Wilson A3009 umpire masks have an extended throat protector and come with a harness. This Wilson umpire face mask is available in black only. Wilson WTA3077 BLST Durable steel cage featuring a two-toned, black Polyurethane Synthetic and tan leather pad. Features: Steel cage material Low cage profile Rubber dip cage finish Two-tone: black PU and tan leather pad material MLB & MILB OFFICIAL GEAR 1 year manufacturer warranty

SOLD

That's an amazing deal for the chest protector alone. Very nice.

Not to take the heat off of Haid because he certainly deserves it, however in re-reading the entire thread I rescind my comment. My comment was made in a vacuum and without context to the question being asked. Anyway, sad to see this thread spiral like it has. The NCAA has made a couple of errors on the this test. That's for sure.

For the condition of a batted ball passing a fielder, your assertion is correct - more or less. For the condition of a batted ball touching a fielder, your assertion is incorrect. JM In the question referenced above the ball did not touch the pitcher. It deflected off of his glove.

The pitcher is not a fielder.

I ordered these about two weeks and just sent them back yesterday. I wanted to like them but I just don't. I really like OfficiallySports, however these shirts are, well...$11 shirts. I will leave it at that. They are not of comparable quality to McDavid, Nike, etc. They are certainly priced right, but as with most things you get what you pay for.

Yes. This is the type I am talking about. Thanks for sharing! Still open to other suggestions and ideas.

Sleeveless is no good for me. How do you like the Honig's CoolSkin? I've asked a couple times here but have not come across anyone who owns one.

With McDavid no longer producing the short sleeve mock neck undershirts where are you guys turning for your mock neck wicking shirts? I prefer the mock neck over the crew neck and there don't seem to be many quality options.

Rule you cited is 8-5d. The AR pertains to a runner making contact with a fielder attempting to field a deflected ball not the runner being hit with the deflected ball. Applicable rule is 8-5k Runner is out when: Emphasis theirs. I see no where in that rule that states the runner is out when hit by a deflected ball and the infielder has an opportunity to field the ball. Thank you for correcting my rule citation. I was half paying attention at work while responding. The pitcher is not considered an infielder for the sake of this situation.

I am starting to wonder if that's my problem as well. I've never worn a jock and cup, always just used the built in version. My pair of Smitty's with the cup pouch arrived at the office this morning. I will try it out tonight and report back. Don't expect a better result. I have the Smitty tights. Love the tights...hate the pocket. Cup still floats away from you. I have tried a jock over the TOP and that doesn't work well either. I use the McDavids shorts and have great success with them as a cup holding device only. Has anyone tried the Honig's line of compression gear? I've never had a real problem with the cup floating or anything. Like I said, haven't known anything different. If you wear shorts underneath and not full length then what do you have that protects your legs? I wear leggings regardless of whether I've got the plate or on the bases. I've thought about wearing full length leggings and then getting a jock, but that seems like overkill.

I am starting to wonder if that's my problem as well. I've never worn a jock and cup, always just used the built in version. My pair of Smitty's with the cup pouch arrived at the office this morning. I will try it out tonight and report back.

Not according to the 2011 BRD. Childress has FED, NCAA, and OBR all with the runner being safe. (#313) Can you guys provide an NCAA rule reference for the runner being out because he interfered with the fielder's chance to make a play? 6-5 (d) A.R. 2 A runner is out when: d. The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared out; A.R. 2—If a batted ball is deflected by the pitcher and another fielder has a legitimate play to retire a runner, the fielder is protected and a collision by a base runner results in interference.

I hate my McDavid's, but I've never worn anything else. I would really like to switch but don't really know what I want or what's good. I am starting to think I might be better off with a comfortable pair of leggings and just wearing a jock instead of relying on the built in cup pouch.

The test is now available for review. Tell me what you think... Question #55 The catcher and his coach are engaged in a heated argument in the dugout. The coach sends his starting catcher to the locker room. On his way to the third-base coaching box, the coach tells the PU that S1 will bat in place of the starting catcher in the fourth spot in the order if S1 comes to bat in that inning. a. S1 is now "in the game, " and the PU should write his name in the lineup at that time. When he shows up to bat, the PU can point him in the game for the benefit of the opponents and the official scorer. The substitution becomes official when the PU writes his name on the lineup card. b. S1 is now in the game, and the original catcher is out of the game when the coach announces his substitution to the PU between innings. c. The coach cannot project a substitution. The coach must wait until the starting catcher's spot in the batting order comes up before announcing his substitution to the PU. d. S1 is not considered officially in the lineup as the fourth batter in that inning. However, should the coach change his mind before the fourth batter comes to the plate that inning and send S2 to bat, S1 is no longer eligible to enter the contest. According the 2012 Newsletter - Test Your Rules Knowledge Quiz - they have this very question and they say, verbatim, the answer is B. Did anybody else catch that?

You can assume the on-deck hitter is in the on-deck cirlce.

I will echo this with one exception. Please don't wear a regular uniform shirt with long sleeves underneath. Please.

Forget the "last warning" business. You were doomed when you let multiple people come out to home plate to argue with you. Sounds like lesson learned and also sounds like you got away with it relatively unscathed. Anytime I hear a guy telling war stories and they say "I've only had two ejections in 10 years" I picture an umpire who just wears the coaches, wears the players and has absolutely no game management. The idea that no ejections must mean no problems thus a great umpire is falacious. To me it means they aren't managing their games very well. Sure, you can go through a season without dumping somebody, but years? It doesn't happen.

To each their own on how they handle ejections, but some of the advice here is... counter-intuitive. Game management is just as important, if not more important, than rule & mechanics knowledge. Ejections happen and little thought should be put into how many you've had, etc. Every situation is different and mutually exclusive. Not ejecting a coach/player can be just as bad, if not worse, than being a quick trigger. Most game situations that spiral out-of-control could have been prevented by more effective game management. That game management often times involves an ejection and, when needed, an ejection can actually save a game from getting out of control. This is especially true at the youth level.

Has anybody tried the Honig's CoolSkin compression tights? I have always worn McDavid's and while I don't really care for them I have yet to find something I like better. That being said, I can't say that I've really looked for an alternative either. http://www.honigs.com/sub/93/HA82

I couldn't agree more. In the state tournament (MN) last year guys were wearing black. I'd like to see them go to "if you match" wear what you wish. It was great to see them loosen up the uniform restrictions. I've heard that State Tourney applications are through the roof since the championship games got moved to Target field. It should up the ante, but I fear that it won't. There was a guy last year in the championship last year who never worked three man. Good for him to get a championship, but it seems like they could have worked him in some three man consolation games first. oh well. yeah, I threw my heather gray away...I'm on the edge of throwing my blue away too...it's very out dated. This is off-topic, but this very situation happens in high school playoffs around the country every year. It's a bad situation. I watched a regional final playoff game last year here in Ohio and they worked three man. It was awful. Missed rotations lead to no coverage at third for several plays. The list goes on. It was bad all the way around.