MadMax

But but BUT! At school, we’re taught, so as to be a “good and proper umpire”, to BELLOW to the pressbox, “THAT RUN SCORES! THAT RUN SCORES! SCORE ONE RUN!!”* with BIIIIIG emphatic gestures. If you ain’t doing it big, ya ain’t doin’ it right. … according to the pros… at school… and in evaluations. So! That begs the question… Is #50 a deficient or inferior umpire because he didn’t “come up big”, and emphatically signal the scoring of that run? Hmmmm? BONUS: We need someone to clip and create a meme of #68 starting the/his explanation with, “It’s a time play.” We can post that meme on every thread misusing “timing play”.

"Ground rule" double. ... and 50 Chuck'E'Cheese tokens for a perfect Skee-Ball roll.

All this crap will disappear when we – the umpire community – stop equating value to these things, insofar that they mean “you’re a better umpire than __________ because of them.”, and treasuring compliance to their edicts – which are simply opinions – as a virtue.

Don’t be absurd! Those aren’t black. If ya get the call right in 115° heat, or during a steady rainfall, and you are in an existential quandary (“Why am I here??”), does your style of footwear really matter?

Your “foot Ferrari” is this guy’s foot fryer. No thank you. If we’re equating to cars, and polish-&-patent is a gleaming black sedan, out here in the wild? Gimme a land rover with the top off, if ya please. If I gotta stand out here for 2-3 hours while you scrutinize the strike zone, then I’m going to need something comfy. #PizzazBeDamned

This is definitely a game our colleague Clarence Callsafew will be on!

Really, really nice unit. Don’t let the “soft” cladding fool you – there is a hard plate inside it. The soft aspect of it results in a lighter unit, less bruising on your shirts when impacted, and tends to smother the ball. The shoulder ailettes are also pre-shaped, unlike the later versions that were as flat as brake pads.

Ding ding ding ding! 🛎️ You're on to something (pardon the pun)!! I made this one addition, if you please. Absent video, I concede, it might be challenging to visualize, but I cannot see why we're giving the PU on this sit a pass for MSU. 💩

So true. However, the MLB Umpires are performing the U2 with equal opportunity, not assigned specifically or selectively to that U2 role because “that umpire” is more proficient / “better” / longer tenured / or he’s someone’s Tuesday night drinking buddy. As a consequence, it behooves MLB to train all Umpires (at that level) to a baseline, effective curriculum of how to operate at U2. Of course, with experience, some Umpires will introduce or experiment with adjustments or enhancements, and – here comes the essential component, failing or lacking in the amateur world – they share these practices with their colleagues, enriching the entire group. Where is this in the amateur landscape??!! Or, to ask it more crassly, why do I have to spend $400 to attend a 4-man camp??!! I was educated (“trained”) on U2 by two of the best – in my professional opinion – because not only did they have the knowledge, but they had the demeanor and wherewithal to be great educators-of-this-discipline. One was a long-time amateur and association head; the other is an ex-MLB / current NCAA CWS CC. The two gentlemen imparted their wisdom and practices on me, such that not only have I worked some two-to-three dozen games at U2, but I’ve also been requested to train others beginning to perform the U2 role in 4-man and 6-man deployments. I’m not saying this to one-up you; I’m saying this to expose the uses and need for it in the amateur game, and the contempt I hold for our compatriots who withhold this knowledge behind a power trip, or some fleecing “pay to play” scheme. Envy and contempt. Envy of the prestige of working that level / role; contempt for the guys working that level, believing that they wouldn’t make “that” mistake. The Professional context is wholly separate from the amateur context, and in that environment, the Umpire would be a fool to Eject the Pro player who gave him grief, and he’s not a lesser umpire because of it… unlike some of our colleagues mistakenly believe.

A mnemonic (memory aid) for this: Are there any letters from “choice” in Balk? No, so there is no choice in a Balk. Are there any letters from “choice” in Catcher’s Interference (CI)? Obviously. Thus, there is a choice available in CI. Consider, though, that in the pro game (both uppercase and lowercase), we (umpires) are taught to enforce the penalty of CI, unless it is satisfied by the outcome of the play. We enforce it, and then we allow a manager to inquire about (the) option(s); the managers are paid pros, and the burden is on them to know (the rule). However, in the amateur game, it is best practice to mention that an/the option is available. We should still enforce the penalty first, though, to make the rule’s application innate upon ourselves, but after that enforcement, be accommodating and thorough in discussing the optional outcome. You’ve got plenty of time. Once you apply the penalties of Balks and CIs, you start to recognize and realize the differences between them.

Let’s read these elements again… and again… and now mentally picture them in our heads… and then read them again… and one more time… … and then ask yourself, and all of us, how is this recreating / imitating / portraying being intentionally or deliberately engaged to the rubber? Just… how??! If F1 truly was engaged, why would he… wouldyalookatthat?… be “going to step on (the) rubber to get sign”??? It’s a really simple explanation – this was a PU, deficient in either rules knowledge or applied training, who was keyed-up to call a Balk (for any of several reasons). Unfortunately, it’s also an occurrence of “viral umpiring”, because not only is the PU afflicted, but now the BU is, at least, confused or questioning his own rules knowledge, and so are the coaches. Call Dustin Hoffman, we have an Outbreak.

And amateur guys wonder why those of us who do upper-level stuff are reticent about teaching / mentoring others on actions / movements / mechanics of an… advanced(?) method. Especially when they (the potential trainee) enter the interaction armed with “what they saw the Pros do” or “on TV”. Ya get into that whole “forbidden fruit” realm, where what the Pros do becomes the thing you/they (the trainee) cannot do, and you’re the mean, arrogant instructor who either doesn’t know anything, or is “keepin’ them down”. Then ya get a percentage of those trainees that tell themselves, “Well, I’m gonna do <this> anyway!” We keep losing or ignoring context. I do admit, I myself am sardonic with Little League, especially on this topic (mechanics, actions & movements, et. al. and training therein). It’s because I’ll be on a complex somewhere in middle America, and I’ll encounter the aged LL umpire and the younger, learned-off-MLB.tv-channel umpire, sometimes not only working the same complex, but even working the same game 😱! Inevitability, the friction and discord starts, and it’s often on the most inane of things, such as “how to take a play at 2B”.

I thought for sure – for sure – the big step was going to come from the GameChanger camp. I’m not making this up, and by divulging it, I’m certainly eschewing any chance of royalties (which is where the money is, am-I-right?), I have a proposal drafted up that outlines GameChanger broadening / modifying their App so as to output to a USB-&/or-HDMI stick (think Amazon Fire) so as to display onto any typical TV. With how inexpensive LCD/LED displays now are, the thing can housed in a plexiglass box, or hung on the chain link fence, etc. No longer are we (the participants & baseball/softball public) served and disappointed by a pitiful, ancient bulb-based board that looks like it’s straight out of a Mad Max or Fallout episode, and the controls for which are long gone to the ages, or resemble a training calculator from the 1960s. Maybe I can inspire my app-wizard colleague @cgroom. 🤔 In no way am I pickin’ on you, @boyinr, you simply were the first to mention gear bags… So… <ahem> Gentlemen colleagues, if money was no barrier, you are liars if you tell me, with a sincere face, that you’d still maintain your own gear bag. If money was no barrier, we would, as a collective whole, to a man, employ a “porter service system” ala Old Dominion & DHL. Music acts (bands, etc) know they have made it big when they stop living out of a van and busking at the corner, and instead have roadies to handle, prep, and transport all their gear. Do ya think Pete Townshend cares what particular cases hold and transport his 78 guitars to each show? No, but he needs, expects, and appreciates all 78 guitars to be there. Why do you think we tip clubbies generously if they do our laundry, and set up the umpire room for us? If such service existed (at all levels), then understandably, it would need to have modular simplicity and ruggedness. Modular travel cases – which is why I find it utterly laughable that the loathsome Wilson Gear bag is the “official gear bag of MLB”, when in reality, not one MLBU actually uses it, because they don’t fit the service travel cases. The “Golden Age” of gear for us? We’re not there, yet. We won’t achieve it until and unless the current Exclusivity is ended.

Here's the thing, @The Man in Blue... on this play in the original post, there's INT. The Batter popped the ball into the air, and hindered – whether intentional or not, in this case, is irrelevant... in this case – the fielder's attempt to catch it. There. Call INT, Batter is out, move on to the next. Done. On the proposed variation of play, in which the batted ball hits the ground, is where I interject my skepticism, cynicism, and criticism (yup! All three -isms!). My issue isn't with the rule per se, it's with the imperative – "We must call INT...". If a batted ball is obviously foul, and the BR sprints out of the box, up the line, and contacts the F1 who's reactively headed towards that batted (foul) ball, are we calling OBS and awarding BR 1B?? In that same vein, say we have a batted ball that is headed towards and ultimately into the stands... are we calling INT on the 1BC for contacting / impeding the F3 at the moment the ball left the bat? No, that would be absurd. We observe INT occurring, and we apply the penalty if warranted, but we – here's the big part – determine where the ball ultimately goes, and if the INT affected / changed that outcome. If we didn't do this, then that incentivizes one of the two parties to engage in these... contestations... so as to draw a call. If the imperative exists, then you better believe that a F1 will "steer towards" a BR on any batted (ground) ball in the vicinity of home plate or up the 1BL, regardless of it being Fair or Foul. We see eerily similar antics with Runners steering / going out of their way so as to draw an OBS call (typically during a rundown). So, on this proposed play, I've got this ball going definitely Foul. And in my judgement, that outcome is unaffected by any/the contact that occurred between BR and F5. I completely agree, that if the batted ball's status is still undeterminable – ie. "maybe" – with a chance of being / ending Fair, and the ("protected") fielder has that opportunity to make it Fair, we should call and apply INT.

@dumbdumb, we should know by now that the Professional game (uppercase P) is an entirely different environment and set of protocols, expectations, and morés than most of us will ever experience.