umpire_scott

Pitch comes in on inside corner of the plate. Batter is crowding plate, turns and checks swing. Pitch comes in on hands. I hear sound that sounds like ball hit handle of bat. Ball goes down and then rolls into the field of play. I immediately point towards fair territory. The batter act like it hit his hand and starts to walk towards 1st base. I continue to point towards fair territory and the DC notices and tells his F2 to throw to 1st. They do and record the out. The OC of course is incensed saying his kid got hit in the hand. I tell him I had it hitting the bottom of the bat handle. The batter has now taken his batting glove off and the 1st base coach is showing the 1st base umpire a supposed mark on his hand. He asks if I can get help. The TD encourages us to pacify the coaches and get together when they ask. So I call my 1st base umpire over and he says he had the exact same thing I did and that he did not see anything discernible on his hand. I reiterate the out call. The HC is beside himself and demands that we call the site director over to look at his kids hand. I finally tell him my call stands and it is a judgement call based on what I saw and heard and I'm not changing it based on the appearance of his hand, which I never say anything either that was obviously caused by being hit with the ball.

What do you mean by 3BLX as opposed to "slightly up the line"? I was about 3-5 up the line towards third base and 3-5 feet away from the line towards the fence. I felt that I had the best possible angle to see both. Should I have been directly in line with the first base line, but a few feet towards the fence? Oh wait when you say 3BLX you mean I should have been on the other side of the LH batter's box? Disagree that all three could have been easily avoided. In #1 even if I didn't balk the first instance that does not change the fact that on the second one the dipSH*# coach wanted an out after his pitcher balked and I waived it off due the batter influencing it. He stated that I could not call time if it was not an actual balk. Once that out was not allowed he was completely unruly, The only way he does not get tossed is if he gets out of the inning unscathed, which we had nothing to do with. As for #2 regardless of where I was I saw the play. The coach never questioned my position. He said I was not looking at home plate which was patently false. Don't see how this ejection could have been avoided. As for #3 it was a weird situation. I mentioned the count at least twice after the appeal. I do not know why they had it wrong. No one else did. If me explaining why I think his batter may have missed the count aggravates him then he has a problem. Which was evident as a player in the next half inning when coming to bat said "our coach is a real idiot. He gets ejected for stuff like that all the time". Honestly it was somewhat of a tame response to eject someone. He didn't yell it or anything, but as it was personal ". . . you made an ass out of yourself" I sort of felt obligated to eject him.

EJECTION #1 - My partner had the ejection, but it was well deserved. Batter in the box R2, RH pitcher. Pitcher comes set and then starts his pitch. Batter holds his hand up but does not verbalize time or ask for it and then quickly puts it back down. Pitcher stops his motion. Balk is called. Runner advances to third. Coach tells his pitcher to just follow through with the pitch. I know that the batter cannot cause a balk, but it was determined that his action was not sufficient to cause the balk as he did not verbalize time or step out of the box. In retrospect I think I should have waived the balk off, but I didn't at the time. A few pitches later the same thing happens except this time the batter verbalizes "time" and steps out of the box. I call "time" and state "no balk, batter actions caused the pitcher to react". In the meantime R3 starts to break for home. DC yells at his pitcher about it and R3 heads back to 3rd. Pitcher throws to third and he is tagged out. I immediately say "no play ball is dead, time was called". DC yells that I can't call time while the ball is in play and that since it wasn't a balk there was no reason to call time. I correct him but to no avail. After a short time he finally goes back to his dugout. Next batter hits a gapper to score the go ahead run and comes out of the dugout yelling that we cost his team the game. My partner gives him a warning then runs him. How can a coach really think that the ball is still live when a pitcher committed a balk, but the infraction was waived off due to the actions of the batter? EJECTION #2 - 14U AAA game. Very competitive, teams don't like each other much. HT is up 4-3 bottom of 6. One out R2 and R3. Batter lifts a fly ball to CF. Catch is made and both runners tag. I have a play coming into home and R2 is going to third. I know I have a timing play as they have no shot at R3. So I'm slightly up the line to get a good angle to have a clear view of R3 coming home and can still see the timing of R2 coming into third.as I see R2 begin his slide I turn and look at home and see R3 about 3 feet from the plate. I then turn to my partner see what his call is. He calls out. I point to HP and verbalize "run does not count". Third base coach (also head coach) comes running at me screaming at me that I was not even watching the play. I sternly told him that I was looking right at the play and called it correctly and then quickly ejected him. Or rather confirmed his ejection of himself. The true ejection happened as he was maniacally running at me and screaming. I'm not perfect, but when I do everything right, as I was trained, and am 100% certain that I got the call correct and they come running out like that it really pisses me off. Because he was so convincing that his fans were chirping about it to. EJECTION #3 - I'm on the dish and on the second pitch a ball comes in low and away. Batter squares to bunt and looks like he begins to offer but then pulls back, F2 moves blocking my view. I don't have enough to say he clearly offered at the pitch so I verbalize ball. F2 asks me to appeal to my partner at first so I do and he strikes it. Count gets to 2-2 and then the next pitch is a ball making it full. Batter drops his bat and heads towards first. I return him stating that it's three balls. He looks incredulous. So I tell him that the bunt was judged an attempt and therefore that ball was changed to a strike. Third base coach (HC) asks for an explanation. I explain that "I assume your batter didn't realize or forgot about the appeal on the bunt attempt". Coach says "so you assumed the count". I try to say no I assumed your batter didn't know the count for the reason I mentioned. He says "Well when you assume you make an ass out of yourself". Goodbye coach. Three silly ejections that came out of nowhere.

Why would you assume that runners would try to advance if the umpire made a clear IFF (batter's out) call. With the IFF call, the runners shouldn't have thought that they were forced to advance. Because F6 did not make the catch and at this level I've seen it happen before. Nine times out of 10, even if IFF is announced over the PA system if an 11U rec ball kids sees the ball hit the ground he thinks he has to run.

Was at my son's 11u game today. Bases loaded and there is a pop-up to F6. This is 11U Rec ball. F6 wonders over towards the ball. PU is working solo and I don't see any indication from him regarding IFF. Ball drops and F6 throws to 3rd to retire R2, while R3 scored. Before the next pitch I see PU talking to the OC. He then says it was IFF and returns all the runners and calls the batter out. This was clearly a ball that "should" have been caught "with ordinary effort". F6 just botched it without intent. But I did not hear any mention of IFF. Now maybe PU did call it but not very loudly. Since the spirit of the rule is to prevent cheap DP's and if IFF was called then it should have been a DP (BR and R2) would you have possibly done what the PU did?

I am interested in knowing what your response would be if F2 goes back to his coach and says that you told him his teams strike zone was going to the be size of an apple, and the coach comes to you and asks whether you told his catcher that or not?

I think it is more about how you say it versus what you say. I don't know how I would spell what I say? I guess it would be "hiiiike!" But whatever you say make it loud and distinctive so that there is no doubt it's a strike. And I think you should keep it consistent. If you waiver in your delivery it might indicate you are unsure of your call. I personally don't like the "HA!" that seems to be very popular.

I agree to a point. But this was a 15 year old kid and yes he was an arrogant dipstick. I don't know that he had the maturity or attitude to establish a relationship with. This was the only time it was this egregious to me as well. I would worry about telling a catcher that you were going to shrink his teams strike zone. What would your explanation be to the coach when he came out and asked you about it? I simply said to him "if those are going to be your answers then we are in for a long day. I do agree in general that I need to do more in establishing a relationship with catchers. I don't generally have adversarial relationships with them, but in some respect I may be too professional and not establish a rapport that has them on my side.

Except in this case it did cover it. . . twice!

How could he step on the players foot that was on the base and not step near the base? Right. I forgot about those F4's with the size 47 shoe.

"Inadvertent" means unintentional. So you think the rule protects a pitcher if the batter accidentally distracts the pitcher but doesn't protect him if the batter purposely distracts him? So by your logic, and I use that term loosely", if the batter sneezes and causes the pitcher to stop his motion "no balk", but if a batter starts dancing and singing while in the batters box and the pitcher stops his motion, "balk". I like to argue to, but come on. This is common sense.

So what would you say to the F2 that throws you under the bus? I had a ball 4 inches inside. I had just spoke to the coach about arguing balls and strikes. So the coach asks his F2 where the pitch was . I quietly say "catch help me out and tell him where that pitch was". He shrugs his shoulder to his coach and says to me "looked right on the black to me".

How could he step on the players foot that was on the base and not step near the base?

I agree with all of this except "Batter's team losing by 8-Safe". If anyone is losing by 8-out! In reality I don't really even think about game situation when I'm making the call. I call what I believe I saw. Now if I look at a play and am just flummoxed at what I saw and it seems like it was a tie I may quickly consider what happened in the play. If the F6 dove to the ground and made a great play I may call the out. Where as is F4 lobbed the ball over to F3 and made the play that close I may call the BR safe. But 9 times out of 10 I just make the call based on what I believe I saw or heard happen first.

Exactly. So why are you trying to apply the definition of "catch" to what constitutes a tag? Because the "catch" happens before the "tag" in my situation. As least that's how I see it. When I think of the definitions/rules associated with tagging a base I see it as a fielder, already in possession of the ball, going and tagging a base. Not a fielder standing on the base waiting for a throw. In the OBR "tag" definition it implies that possession has already been established when the "tag" is made.

The problem is that using those definitions, as already mentioned, it's impossible to make a tag if the ball bounces to the fielder, or if the fielder picks up a ball, or any multitude of things that renders a ball no longer "in flight." In short, you most certainly can possess a ball that was not caught. I'm not following your thought process here. A "catch" and a "tag" are two separate things. If you already have possession of the ball then you can most certainly make a "tag" without having a "catch". But on a play when you are having a ball thrown to you and you are standing on the base, how can you say that you can "tag" the base without actually first "catching" the thrown ball?

In all seriousness this would be no different than what the offense is doing. So I could have my F3 go and stand in front of BR without the ball. Now we have both teams making a travesty of the game in my opinion.

I didn't go back and read the OP, but for the purpose of spirit of the rule I think it is circumventing that in either case. A base hit to CF is clearly a situation where BR would have attained 1B. I don't know that purposely getting retired so that the balk is enforced to protect your R2 that was trying to score is fair. Just does not seem right to me. while it will likely never happen in a real game, this would be a good test question. Say BR fell on his way to 1B and hadn't reached by the time R2 is thrown out (for whatever reason). Also, while some things may not seem "fair," if they are within the rules, they are legal. And I applaud any player or coach that actually knows the rules well enough to utilize them to their advantage. Since the above question is within the rules and may well be an advantage, it's not an UNFAIR advantage. Which is the sole purpose of the rules anyway. So I'm a coach I tell my team "if you are up to bat and there is a runner on 2nd and you hear a balk called, still swing. If you hit it into the outfield we are sending our runner home as he is not at risk to be put out as long as you don't touch first base. So I want you to run down and stand just before the bag without touching it. Then watch the play at home. If he is out then stay there and wait to be tagged". So what if the defense also knows the rule and refuses to tag him?

Had a play the other day in a game where the RH pitcher threw over to first base. He did not disengage, nor did he do the jump turn thing. Here is how it went: DC: That's a balk he has to step off to throw to first. ME: No he doesn't coach. He would have to step off to feint to first DC: Well he has to gain clearance from the rubber in order to turn and he didn't. ME: He only needs to step directly towards first base, I had him doing that. So how is this to be judged? I know the rule simply states F1 has to step directly towards first base. But the jump step came into vogue for some reason. I assume it was because pitcher's were getting balked because it was judged that they had some movement towards HP if they didn't "gain clearance" from the rubber?

If you consider it a balk, it's too late to do preventive umpiring. Preventive means stopping something from happening - -not stopping it from happening it *again*. Your choices now are saying "I'll look" or "I missed it but I won't miss it again." I know the dictionary definition of "preventive", but in this context "preventive umpiring" is used more loosely.

Did you just get an ejection without even being on the field? That's correct sir! And I thought those that got them at the plate meeting were impressive.

The most common one I would say is definitely the coming set. F1 is in that gray area and I want to do some preventive umpiring and maybe just talk to him and tell him to make sure he is coming set. But what has happened is that before I get a chance the OC will blurt out "he's got to pause, blue". If I truly think he is close but legal then I have no problem saying "Joe he's close, but I've got enough". But when it is what I would consider a balk, but I want to preventive umpire but the coach beats me too it with a comment. If I say "it's close but I've got a stop" then I have to allow that all game now. I am not an OOO by any means. But I do think on pause/no pause I've found it better to just call it. The pitcher tends to clean it up and I look like I know what I'm doing. That's just me. Now the nature of the game can surely dictate that as well. In a competitive tournament or legion playoffs I don't even consider not calling it by the book.

What's all the fuss? He didn't even make it to the 45' line.

I'd be interested in knowing how many legion posts that have teams there are in the Boston area. In St, Louis County we have 1 million people and only 8 legion posts that have teams. That would seem to indicate that the teams would be loaded, but it's the exact opposite. The legion program is practically dead and so players are playing on select teams instead. So the only players left for legion ball are those that are just rec league players.

I did a freshman game between Vianney and Kirkwood earlier this year. There was not a JV or Frosh Legion team that would have a avoided a run rule against either Kirkwood or Vianney. I did all 8 STL County Freshman Legion teams at least once this season and none of them were any good at all. Tons of errors, no pitching and very little hitting. Even their own coaches were commenting how club ball has destroyed legion ball here. Pride for playing for your town is all fine and dandy. But the fact is that almost 100% of good high school players are playing club ball in the summer not legion ball. With that being the case then where do you think the legion players are coming from? The freshman Creve Couer coach had trouble even fielding a team he said. That being said I did do some good Senior Legion ball across the river in Illinois. Several of the players were back from college and playing. But the freshman and JV in District 10 and 13 was a step above rec ball in my opinion. And I just prefer better played baseball. Not saying I hated doing legion games. I do agree there is something cool about wood bats. On another note I did hear a coach predicting that if they didn't open up legion recruiting to outside of their own post that the program would not exist in 10 years. So much for pride of playing for you community.