MadMax

There has to be an angle that coach (henceforth TC) is working; in 95% of games, the coaches go with whatever the Umpire(s) direct what the ground rules are to be, unless it’s some one-off, highly unique-to-that-particular-venue characteristic. Example– we use all 15 MLB ST facilities in Phoenix for amateur games (adult, collegiate, and teenage), and the traditional ground rule is evoked of “do not mess with the tarp / tarp is dead”. Ball goes onto the tarp, it is deemed to be out of play. There is to be no elevating onto the tarp, etc. No coaches / managers have any problems or issues with these decrees; But baseball fields / parks / stadiums are not designed / constructed / laid out to be uniquely challenging to the participants – ie. this isn’t golf course architecture, where each course has its own signature layout and challenges. From the photo, you’ve got clearly defined sections, separated from the active playing field – regardless of immediate adjacency – that should be DBT, to make interpretation and playability as easy (and fair) as possible for all participants. So if this coach, who is custodian of this ballpark, is soooooo insistent that those bullpens should be Live, we need to ask “Why?” What’s the angle, here? Is he hoping to achieve triples and ITPHRs from balls bounding in there? Has he trained his players to pursue fly (foul) balls into there to catch them, and get easy outs? Keep in mind, too, that both teams should have submitted their lineup cards to the PU at the plate meeting, prior to the establishment of the ground rules. The umpire(s) (UIC, specifically) is the final authority on the ground rules, so the home HC can’t “take his ball and go home” just because he doesn’t get his way on the ground rules.

Ask the Yankees. If there's a "loophole" or a flaw in the system that benefits their hitters, they will use it to their advantage. Case in point is Aaron Judge; possibly the only spot you can get a strike past him, that he takes, is bottom of the zone. The Yankees' have griped about it for years, to any and all PUs (especially the "old guys"), that "that pitch" ain't a strike, no matter if it clipped the very front of "your OBR 3D strike zone". Now, because the ABS-Challenge Zone is a flat window, as opposed to 3D, the Yankees are going to point it out every chance possible. It's why Boone climbed all over Mike Everett about a week ago. Boone wants it established that those "close" pitches should be called Balls, and force the catchers to challenge, instead of being called Strikes, and forcing his hitters. Judge and Stanton have been getting most of theirs "right"; Rice absolutely bungled one the other night (it was middle-middle as you could get). That's why "we're agonizing". It's the game within the game... within the game.

1. And what, pray tell, is this new albatross? 2. Where (what body part) did he get hit? Prop bets and Umpire Bingo cards are at stake, here. 4. See #1 5. How close to the pitching plate (rubber) itself? Again, Umpire Bingo Cards... 8. What if he had whispered it in your ear? 9. But did you get the call right, and exhibit "proper" timing?

Davis is using Ripstop fabric for the construction of that jacket (It's a convertible* – "Connie" – is it not?). So, a camping store such as a Cabela's, Bass Pro Shop, Scheel's or REI is going to have Ripstop repair patches specifically for critical gear items such as tents and backpacks. Patch it from the backside (for strength) by closing the gash as closely as possible, and then, when you're able to, have a tailor/seamstress sew around the gash thru the patch, making a union of the two. You'll have a "thread scab", but it won't get any worse, and a supervisor won't be able to see it beyond 10 feet away. ... or maybe 5 feet. Some supervisors are... I won't say it. * - It's not a "windbreaker". Windbreakers are big and billowy, in loud 1980's colors. Connie the Convertible is svelte, sleek, and discreet.

What @Velho said above 👆, plus there are intersecting planes involved. Just because the Runner missed physically touching the base does not absolve him of not touching the base on the return journey past. There's a plane that passes thru the base (in this case, 2B) that constitutes "passing the base" that the Runner likely (or surely) broke on his way towards 3B.

Stunted growth. At 19 years old, it should have grown up to a full 6" by now.

No, but you took the bait first, thus you get... The Blue Fish Award. Now, you redeemed yourself with a might snarky repost. Well done, sir!

Your association has been influenced by or is inclusive of NCAA umpires. MiLB 2-man umpires are taught to go – silently – towards 3B in foul territory, solely in case of R1 being Safe and continuing to 3B. That's how fast everything happens in the professional game. If/when BU signals "Out" (of R1), then PU is to immediately stop and return to PoP. There is no (need to) cheat(ing) across the "front stage" (region between plate and pitcher's mound) so as to get back to the line for pulled foot / swipe tag; that is at least how it's taught (and supervised in MiLB). What that distills (or I suppose you could say "descends") into, at the amateur level, is PU typically gravitating towards 1BL, to (of course) assist on pulled foot / swipe-tag, but also to supportively observe the (amateur) FPSR at 2B. NCAA, however, knows the importance and particulars of (their) FPSR; therefore, they have directed (in 2-man) that PU is move towards the 3B side of the mound – in fair territory – and remain there, observing the entirety of the play at 2B (because FPSR violations can occur post-throw-to-1B). As an auxiliary responsibility, if R1 is safe, they are to take R1 on to 3B. In both MiLB and NCAA (specifically), TPTB put the onus of the call at 1B – safe/out, pulled foot, swipe tag, and ball-to-boundary – upon the BU; that's how much they invest on BU's to "process your AOR" in MiLB, or how much importance they place on (the particulars) of FPSR in NCAA. 🤔 As I've said often, I have issues with compulsories or imperatives that are arbitrarily given. As an example, what are we (PU) to do on R1-R3, with less than 2 outs? Are we not supposed to go to the 3B side of the mound – in fair territory, mind you – so as to observe FPSR at 2B? Oh, but there's R3. We have to stay at Plate for that. But isn't FPSR so freakin' important that you demand that we go to that "magical space" when there's R1 only? But the presence of R3 changes that... so we're supposed to infuse an entirely different approach or preparation based solely on R3's presence? This introduces a deficiency in the system... if you drill into a BU/PU team that PU is to go to "the magic space" to observe 2B, then BUs learn that they've got supplemental coverage (on it), and learn that they can "release" that play at 2B and turn to focus on 1B. See where the problem comes into it? When you've got R1-R3, you (as a BU) don't have that supplemental coverage, and you're going to be bit on the a$$ on it. While it may seem harsh, I understand MiLB's directive to put all of the burden on BU, from the outset. The pressure solidifies the focus into familiarity.

So you’re saying that F4/6 purposely maneuvered himself, seeking out the R1’s path of egress / avoidance, so as to draw a FPSR violation? When did he throw the ball (if ever) to 1B? If that’s the case, this isn’t unprecedented – this happens all the f#€king time in basketball (amateur especially), wherein an offensive player goes out of their otherwise normal, expected way to draw contact and a foul. It’s one of the 2 primary reasons I do not officiate basketball, despite having played college basketball myself. To whom was Ass-Co addressing his barbed message? “His” fielder(s)? I don’t think you missed an Ejection, simply because it wasn’t warranted based on how you did handle it, and what resulted – the HC chastised the Ass-Co, and the kids didn’t perform anything stemming from that message, or “gauntlet he threw down”. Some twenty years ago, I visited my Alma mater HS while they were hosting a huge football game, acting as the neutral site for two “city” schools. With my uncle as part of the chain gang, and a few of my fellow former HS players as staff at the school, I was on the sidelines. On the sideline I was standing, the HS program was all “dialed in”. HC looked like one of those long-time college coaches, the linebackers coach looked like he was in the WWE, the lineman coach looked like he could lift the team bus, and they had, like, 3-4 players on the sidelines relaying signals to their respective teammates out on the field. There was one coach in particular that struck me rather odd – he was, what had to be, the secondary (defensive backs) coach. Everything about him screamed “(recently) former college D-back”. I will not forget this event, reinforced by the intensity with which it was expressed. There was a play coming towards the sideline, wherein the QB was trying to evade or escape the tackling grasp of one of the non-secondary players, and at the conclusion of the play, that D-backs coach stepped over the sideline and screamed at his four defensive backs, “YOU HAVE TO BLOW HIM UP!! BLOW HIM UP!! TAKE YOUR SHOT AND BLOW HIM UP!!!” These were high school kids, and you’ve got an adult implying by directive to (attempt to) knock a player out of the game. No cautioning from an official, no admonishment (at the time) from a fellow coach…

@Dpayner, could you please post some photos here for @Razzer @tpatience @wolfe_man and the rest of us gear-geeks to see what (extent) needs to be done? TIA.

🤨 Then what about... Ah. Yeah. These guys. Now, while I don't disagree, nor do I give any less respect to these (let's face it, Little League) umpires, I do not give any more, unduly. Why? It has nothing to do with them (the umpires), it has to do with Little League as an institution; there is no way – no way – that you can expect your officials to produce high-quality work, unpaid and voluntarily, while your institution has media deals and revenue streams that rival several financial institutions.

"Perfection" according to who?? To which/who or by which/whom are we comparing and evaluating "perfection"? That's my single-greatest issue to take up / throw down / climb my soapbox / tilt with (ala @Velho's avatar)... this obsession with imperatives. "You must learn / interpret / use / do <this> this way!" I'm not saying to compromise on what we're applying / implementing / calling (ie. a rule), but my issue is with how, more specifically how to (learn to) apply / implement / call "it". Coming at this from another angle, where we once had some what, half dozen (?) "professional"-level schools, why do we now have... none? Precisely. So why hold aloft the "professional standard" – more to my point, the professional method – when that's just as culpable and prone to mistakes?

Option G. Because our culture has transfigured (mutated) Views & Likes into some f#€ked up form of currency or social credit, today’s generations have been doing everything possible to cash in on it. You better believe that video clips from any of the half-to-full dozen cameras lashed to the backstop are going to make their way to social media mere moments after the game concludes, not only to show off to recruiters, scouts, or coaches, but more inanely to fuel some kids’ social credit card in the form of Views & Likes. (In)famously, this trend even hit me. I had a kid walk up to the plate with a camera on the bill of his batting helmet, during a PG tournament. None of the dozen-or-so PG staffers ever approached me ahead of time to tell me that they’re putting said camera there, and since there were no less than 4 PG staffers floating around the three conjoined fields with cameras in their hands, I prohibited the batter using it, and dismissed him to remove the camera and come back to bat. No further penalty. Just that interaction alone got me posted on multiple SoMed streams, and all the non-umpires made me out to be the killjoy. 🙄 They’re doing it for Views & Likes.

Until you work that game with Assigner's Best Buddy Billy, and he gives you his post-game "evaluation", saying that you "missed them (the kid(s)) mocking you and showing you up" and that you're not "taking care of business". 🙄 "Hey, he (assigner) made it a point of emphasis at the meeting, we have to do something about it." – and this is where we get umpires seeking it out, and our game management skills suffer.

I requested @Velho to make & post this clip primarily to exhibit and expound upon teaching, training and application methods. We, collectively, get hounded on arbitrary, ambiguous, vacuous "qualities" that we're supposed to possess and employ – not just understand, but to actually put in to practice to such an extent that we are judged (buzz word – evaluated) by them. These qualities don't just originate from school(s), but disseminate out into camps, clinics, and ad-hoc training sessions; that they do isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is, they are applied bereft of context, and... reinforced by pointing at the Professional (Umpires) level, held aloft as The Gold Standard. Now, I'm not going to identify the specific Umpire, because, to be fair and realistic, this could have happened to any and each of the Pro Umpires on the staff. However, this needs to be pointed out because this Umpire has matriculated through THE "most official" training system so as to reach that Pro level. Timing: Timing, timing, timing. We're supposed to have timing. Did this U, on this call? Nope! Stopped & Set, Angle: Granted, he's in a 4-man crew, so he's got bracketing crewmates, so there's no imperative to move. Indeed, he initially sets up – hands on knees set – as the play progresses, and moves accordingly. However, he steps right into an angle that blocks him out from the actual tag. There's no way he saw the glove actually touch the Runner. Yet, he claims (calls) the Runner Out. Also, because he is moving / changing his angle, he doesn't see the OBS originating to his right. If he had stayed where he initially was, he would have been in a better position to not only see the tag (from a sight angle), but also the OBS – within the same "window". And yes, that was more obvious OBS than other called plays this (early) season. Justification: Sure, the U saw the ball on the ground, but instead of verifying why (it ended up on the ground), he compounded the error – doubled down on it – by calling/claiming/signaling that he (fielder) was "taking it out" (AKA "on the transfer"). That injects that dangerous term to the process – "(umpire) judgement"... which isn't contestable. Can't be reviewed and overturned... or so we've been told / led to believe for years. So yes, it looks like the U jumped right to "taking it out" so as to justify his call and not be contested on it! This brings into question and scrutiny on similar calls (such as Out of the Baseline, etc.). Read Step: This ties into all three of the previous components. I remember getting excoriated at school regarding read steps – more specifically, my lack of them. I knew, from being a hockey goalie and catcher, that moving, at critical times, makes things worse. And, when we factor in that we're (again) hounded on "staying stopped and set (to make calls)", we're in a no-win* situation. Could a read step have aided this Umpire? Ab-so-freakin'-lootly! A read step would have given him a better angle to see the (not) tag, and a read step would have granted him more time to see the entirety of the action, and see that the fielder never went to his glove with his hand (thus, no "taking it out"). So, certainly, this Umpire likely got admonished post-game, either amongst the crew in a session of self-reflection, or by his supervisor. That's not my place to heap any more criticism on him, specifically. He is a Professional, already at the Professional level. However, I am going to criticize the system, primarily because that system purports and almost demands that we (as amateur / aspiring umpires) do things "their way", and failure to do so... isn't that you'll get calls wrong, but that you won't be "tapped" and advanced by their system. 😮‍💨 Pardon me, plays like this just touch a nerve with me. Personally, I have a method that I use and teach that is highly effective, not only for the localized play, but also for the "bigger picture", ie. a time play. I teach (new) umpires – if you see a tag (on a rundown, for example), point at and (audibly) call it as a "TAG!". DO NOT call it as an "Out", and only mechanic / signal the Out once you have voluntary release / secure possession / etc. Why's that? Because you can acknowledge the tag (attempt) making contact and give yourself that extra moment to process it so that it satisfies the requirements to be an Out, without having to resort to awkwardly "fixing" the call on the fly.