JonnyCat

I was talking about how little time they spend picking who gets to attend school. How many of the prospective attendees of the MLB camps are serious about attending pro school? If it's all of them, then the system has a better chance of working. But if not, then the chances are lower. TMIB pointed out that it's probably not just prospects that attend the camps. And you never know who is going to attend the one day camps. You may only have a small group of qualified prospects to chose from. I just think they are limiting their choices with this new system. Under the old system of paying your own way, there was already a limited pool of attendees. When I attended Wendelstedt in 2013, there was only about 160 students, and at MiLB school in 2015, there was only 88. It seems like the new system even further limits that pool. To be sure, under the old system, especially at my time at Wendelstedt, many of the students were there to learn and not necessarily want a job in MiLB. At TUS, most of the students wanted a job, but probably about 25% did not. These are just my observations and a small sample size. I get that MLB wants to now only train people that may become MiLB umpires, and maybe they feel their new method is better to realize that goal. IMO, it's shrinking the pool even further of qualified and motivated potential umpires.

Yeah, me too. Under the old system prospective umpires had to make an effort to attend the schools. It showed a certain level of commitment, and you had 4-5 weeks to show off your skills. Now, I'm wondering if you may have students that do well in the short time frame, but may not have the mettle for the actual school. The camps are basically picking the students with little evaluation time. I guess time will tell if the new system works in the long run.

I like this tactic. IMO, good game management.

I would handle this in a couple of ways depending on the situation. At the first hearing of it, and if it wasn't directed at anyone, just dumb kids talking and loud enough for the stands to hear or if it was inapropriate, I would not issue a warning. I would just say loud enough for everyone to hear something to the effect of "Hey, knock it off with the profanity," or something along those lines. In that situation, if it happens again, I will then say something like "Hey, I already told you to knock it off, if you don't stop, then someone is getting dumped." I will even go as far as telling the coach that If I can't identify the culprit, then I'm going to dump him. But you must be loud and vocal so that everyone knows whats going on and what will happen. Of course you run a risk of a kid doing it in hopes he gets his coach dumped because he's not getting any playing time.😁 If it was egregious from the get go, then I'd either dump the culprit right then and there, or I'd go to the second step as described above right away. The problem with warnings are that you must follow through, otherwise you look weak. If I'm going to issue a warning, I'm very specific about the consequences that will follow. So if it does happen again, and I do dump someone, It's just what I said I'd do. I'm not a fan of umpires saying "that's a warning," and leaving it at that. What does that mean? Double secret probation? I'll warn you again? If I issue a warning, I'm telling right then and there what the consequence will be. I almost never say the word warning. I'll usually say things like "If I hear that or if that happens again, you'll be ejected." That way there are no ambiguities. Now that being said, these situations often have variables, and many ways to handle them. I don't normally have issues with profanity. When I do, I just give them a stern directive to not do that. One of my collegues like to say things like "Hey, if you do XY or Z, by rule, I'll be forced to eject you." That's not a bad tactic, and it works for him. BTW, I've never ejected someone for just profanity, I just tell them not to do that. Unless they call me a F*#Khead, or something like that.😅

If I'm getting my plate brush out, unless there are no runners on, I will call time 100% of the time. As soon as I grab my plate brush, and start walking out in front of home plate, I'll throw my hands up and call time. It takes no extra time to do this, and prevents any possible shenanigans. I can't understand why we even have people against calling time in this situation. It does no harm what-so-ever, and can prevent a SH*#storm. I'm not opposed to someone not calling time, I'm just opposed to those saying you should not ever call time to brush off the plate.

Agreed. I have the same thing.

I try and call more of an egg shaped zone. Around the thigh area, you can get away with calling the channels, maybe a ball inside and out. I try and use more of the upper part of the zone, as well. IMO, the high strike is not called enough. A high strike in and out will often get more chirping, as opposed to right down the middle, in my experience. Same on the lower pitches, hence the egg shaped zone. I didn't invent this egg shaped, I learned it from other people and it works well for me. YMMV

This is not directed at anyone, just my opinion. I'm big on crew communication, and I don't think you can over communicate with your partners on the field. Even with guys that I've worked many games with, I still like to communicate. It just seems to keep everyone in the game and focused. I can always tell when one of my partners is loosing focus when they start to signal less as the game goes on. It's almost 100%. It's a good indication that we as a crew need to tighten things up and re-focus. Signaling keeps my head in the game. Do we "need" to signal time plays? No, but by that logic, why signal at all? If everyone knows what they are doing, then why bother? My feeling is that it's just a reminder that keeps everyone engaged and on the same page. If there is no harm in it, then I say just do it. Sometimes we just get too rigid and set in our ways that we adhere to a strict protocol that often times doesn't really matter, we're just being stubborn, or worse yet just an asshole. And yes, I've been that guy with time plays being refered to as timing plays. I tried to correct people everytime I heard it, but I decided it was futile and I was coming across as a pedantic jerk. Here are some other things I don't give a SH*# about on the field, and that I don't think harms the game or our "professionalism" on the field. Feel free to add to my list. 1. Base umpires carrying indicators on the field. Carry one or not, I don't care. Some PU's I've worked with insist that you must carry one, or others say "not on my field." If it keeps you engaged in the game, by all means. If it becomes a distraction, then maybe that's something we address at the post game. 2. Wrist watches on the field. I don't carry or wear one, but if someone does, I don't care. I don't think it "looks" unprofessional. And especially if you have strict time limits, just wear one. Nobody cares! 3. Calling, or not calling time to brush off the plate. Whatever you want to do, I don't care. But don't ever tell someone not to call time to brush off the plate. What the F*#Ks the harm in calling time to brush off the plate? It adds no extra time to the game, and sometimes it staves off problems. Why is calling time in this situation even a problem? 4. Not addressing the fans behind the fence. I'm not a fan of it, but in some rare situations, it should be done. It can be effective in the right situation. Technically yes, we don't have jurisdiction outside the fence, but most people don't know that and regardless what the rules say, we are the perceived authority on the field. Sometimes that perception can be advantageous and work in our favor to mitigate problems. 5. Wearing your association's patch or logo. Put that in the category of "Nobody F*#King Cares!" I'm sure there's others.

Often times, parts of officiating are not a one size fits all approach. Sometimes you do what you have to do and what works best for your game and situation. I think sometimes we as officials are very stubborn in our ways and reluctant to think of a different approach to certain situations. I do realize that some procedures should be set in stone, but often times there are better ways to handle a situation than the "accepted" norm. I appreciate your thought process on this one. To paraphrase a welder I watch on YouTube, "this is not a how to do it repair video, this is how I did it." 😄 Sometimes the "wrong" approach turns out to be the right one.

I agree, there shouldn't be 8u "tournaments." They probably don't need umpires either. However, that is the expectation from the parents, coaches, and tournament organizers. Regardless if it is misguided, that's the expectation. And with that expectation, the organizers should provide proper officiating. And you get proper officiating with good pay, no abuse, and support from the tournament. If you're going to have these "tournaments," then you should provide the necessary officials, including 2 on every game. If the conditions of the work environment are good, then I have no issues working those games. If not, then well that's why there's a shortage. Yes, there's too many games and probably shouldn't be. But that's not the reason there is a shortage of officials.

Understood, Its a problem in most areas. However, if the pay was much better, and the abuse wasn't there, then we'd have lots more umpires. Sadly this is lost on most associations and organizations. JMO.

Anybody can ask for time, players, coaches, managers. It is up to the umpire to grant the time request. Umpires should only grant time when play is considered relaxed. Relaxed is typically when any play is over, the offense is not trying to advance, and the defense is not trying to put anyone out. Usually when having only one umpire, calling time lets him get back into position without the risk of missing something when his back is turned to the field. In this case, seemed like the proper procedure, but I wasn't there. Did anything come of it? Arguments, or just play on? And this is a byproduct of 8u tournaments. Coaches do not know the rules, or bother to learn them. However, there could be a tournament rule that says this. Knowing the rules, and any modifications is incumbent upon managers, coaches, and umpires. Another however, often at the lower levels, you won't get the most experienced umpires. And shame on the tournament for being too cheap to pay for 2 umpires.

I've said this for many years, I wish all youth baseball would follow NFHS rules. IMO, it would provide better consistency, especially for those moving on to HS. No need to have multiple rule sets. Do I like every FED rule? No, but it's the best out there for safety and sportsmanship.

Okay, so 14u Babe Ruth. The umpire allowed the player to use the bat and then later removed it. Is the penalty in BR to eject the player for illegal equipment? Or is it something else? Sounds like the umpire wasn't sure of the rule, and then after pondering it, maybe thought that by removing the bat was the best course of action. What if the rule was simply to remove the bat? Surely you wouldn't want a kid to get ejected if it wasn't warranted? Correct? My sincere advice. Get yourself a BR rulebook and study up on the rules. And when something like this happens, help educate everyone at the appropriate time and through the appropriate channels. I'm not saying you're stewing over it, but many people who do, come on this site to complain rather than learn. Again, not saying you're doing that. But we have to be cognizant that there is a huge shortage of sports officials. The umpire may still be learning and it takes quite of bit of time and dedication to master this craft. I always tell people to be part of the solution.

The pages have been loading real slow for me lately, both on my laptop and new desktop. Not sure if others are having the same issue. Just FYI. Thanks.