MadMax

When this occurred, I actually contacted @Velho with glee, since this is (er, was) an example of one of the gilded windmills with which I personally tilt. It's the crink in my craw, the pea under my mattress, the bug in my boo. My white whale is the utterly worthless, ambiguous, vapid emphasis placed on "timing" (as it relates to calling balls & strikes specifically), and its contrived insinuation as a currency, or merit badge, or compulsory check-box on an evaluation form... so as to judge (appraise, or "evaluate") proficiency, and ultimately to determine "who is better than who". 🐴 💩. Why aren't we appraising or evaluating based on call accuracy? What is this pedantic obsession with "timing"? I will argue and advocate that it's this obsession with "timing" – and, more poignantly, how it is linked to or affects the "challenge immediately" aspect of The Rule – that is causing the problem. Because U#92 took "so long" to call it a strike, F2 (Contreras) is the one that made the challenge signal, not (initially) Batter (Gonzalez). Of course, U#92 had it as a strike, and the logical conclusion is that, had Contreras known that it was a strike, he wouldn't rationally challenge it! So, thus, there isn't a challenge to grant... logically. Of course, if it truly is called a strike (which it was), after all those "stutters", then the Batter should be allowed to make a forthright challenge. Now, Kelly could be arguing that his Batter (Gonzalez) was denied a challenge, but I have a sinking suspicion that Kelly was arguing that, by the "letter of the law (rule)", that Contreras has to be charged a challenge! That, because he made the challenge signal, however erroneously or without (full) knowledge of the call (because U#92 was performing "timing" in his call), then the whole challenge theatrics has to be performed. Follow the rules, ya know. Sounds an awful lot like the NCAA adage, "Enforce it as written." So yeah, while I would say and agree that the "challenge immediately" vernacular needs more clarity or latitude, I will also state and defend – that if we get off this obsession with "timing", we might actually start to put the onus on call accuracy.

Those who have heard my stories know of a phrase, from a (head) coach, directed at me after an… intense discussion – “You (Max) were right the other night, but there’s no way you’re right twice!” That didn’t get him the hook. … the hook came after the next insight he offered. 🤠

Boat shoes?? Where’s the plate shoes? Shouldn't you be breakin’ ‘em in??

Umpires ~never~ call “foul ball”; thus, this ain’t as if an umpire called it (foul)… which he wouldn’t, anyway, until the batted ball was determined to be foul. What if this had been the 1BC, yelling / shouting “It’s a foul ball!” or “Hang on, it’ll be foul” to his R1? Are we imposing an INT call for that? How ‘bout if it turns out to be actually caught? How ‘bout if it was bobbled and dropped? Are we imposing an INT call? @grayhawk is right… unless we have direct physical, visual, or verbal impedance, just offhandedly saying “foul ball” by a coach to his offense (Batters and/or runners) is not necessarily INT.

Of course I’m aware of the difference; I have to call games in all three codes on the same day. Am I perfect in my recall and application of these rules? No, but that’s where having robust working relationships with my colleagues is so crucial. I won’t beleaguer the details. I’m simply riffing on what @Richvee said in a satirical sense (and I can, because Rich understands my humor, blatant, sarcastic, or satiric that it may be). If NCAA ever would need to do a modification, or course-correction, or even a regression – as we seem to be discussing – it would never be to “align to NFHS”, or any of the “lesser” rulesets. Instead, NCAA would state that the modifications are “self-initiated” or “self-directed”, if anything, and would make certain that any/all terminology was dissimilar-in-detail. You know the phrase “mimicry is the best / sincerest form of flattery”? Well, OBR will never mimic any other codex, and NCAA does not stoop to flattery. … certainly not to something (viewed as) beneath them.

It’s not my disdain. If you were to ask anyone attached to NCAA rules-making about the similarities of a (their) rule vis-a-vis an equitable NFHS rule, the damned citations could be an exact match, yet the NCAA guy will never acknowledge – let alone hint or indicate – that the NFHS rule set the precedent, was the origin, or was the mold or template for theirs. Not even an inspiration. Even if / when two rules are similar, or cover the same thing, just look at the vernacular (terms, word choice, etc.) alone to see evidence of that disdain. Why are you sniping me to Read the Fu¢ꓘing Manual?

Why, when the NCAA is largely being steered by those who would rather be sitting at the Big Table in the Fancy Restaurant (featured on TV, too!), would they regress to align with something they look upon like Chuck'E'Cheese, or Pizza Ranch?

Can’t imagine whhhhyyyyy. When the question is asked, we only get, what, umpteen different responses?! - Sky blue! - Light blue! - Powder! - Baby blue! - Columbia blue! - Carolina blue! - Polo blue! - Robin Eggshell Blue - Pink! No, blue! * * - Monty Python & the Holy Grail fans rejoice!

Timothy! The answer is socks, my dear friend. Socks!

Is this verbatim or paraphrased? I get it, it's akin to the OBR disengagement rule. This would absolutely, comprehensively rectify all that crap regarding valid pickoff attempts at 2B (reset vs. violation). If this is verbatim, then it's severely lacking clarity in regards to resetting (the count) and the "third disengagement" aspect of this rule. 1) It should reset if a runner advances or is put Out. I can see situations like R1-R3 arising. R1 is put Out, but R3 doesn't advance. 2) The rule should clarify (in keeping with the OBR) that if the third disengagement does not retire (put Out) a Runner, then it is a Balk; the third disengagement in-and-of-itself is not the violation. I don't see this getting off the ground for amateurs. What's the point of having a deep, diverse, and robust bullpen on a college roster if you can't strategically and tactically employ them? Wait wait waaaaaaaiiitt... I can see this being employed at say, the D1 level (where they have "plenty" of money resources to properly install and deploy it), but can you honestly say that you can see this being employed at D-2 and D-3?? We're just now – in 2026/7 – starting to return to 3-man at the D-3 level, having been told, since 2020, that "we (the D-3 conferences) cannot afford a third umpire" (or, that softball couldn't afford a third umpire, and Title IX Equality takes precedence). Is softball getting this, too??? I'm not at all opposed to ABS Challenge system; I'm simply bewildered by the effective feasibility of it at the D-2 and D-3 level, given that it took those two divisions longer just to implement visible clocks / timers on the ballfields. And they're going to (be required to) submit individual measurements for their entire roster?? I see this as far more impoverishing (to the institutions / programs) than (requiring) wood bats... ... which is the 500-lb gorilla in the room that no one seems to be addressing, but what needs to be changed, especially at the D-1 (and D-2) level(s). If NCAA would abolish metal bats, and mandate the use of wood (and/or wood-composite) exclusively, the entirety of college baseball would change at the root, fundamental level. It would be akin to setting off an EMP... but with a benefit, not a detriment. They do, and they've been joined by a rather... persuasive member who has ties to Bristol, CT. MLB and NCAA striving to fashion and form NCAA baseball to be (Pro) Baseball's burgeoning "development lab", reducing (the direct burden on) or augmenting the Minor Leagues is ambitious and of logical good intent; however, the single piece of equipment – and the rules governing it – that should, and I will argue must change, is the bat.

@DerekGDS !!! Derek Derek Derrrrrrrrekkkkkkk!!! Lookatitwillya??!!! 👆

But all the (umpire) camps and clinics follow the (umpire) school(s) mold – when teaching the 2-umpire system, all references are to the “Plate Umpire” (PU) and “Base Umpire” (BU). All references. When you (as trainee) step up to begin a demonstration or drill, you are directed to declare either “Paul Meanother, Plate Umpire!” or “Jolly Onmyfeet, Base Umpire!”* If you were to step up and declare, “Peter Ivegotapointoprove, U One!”, you’ll get chastised and sent to run your own personal formation session til your thighs chafe.** Even in the CCA Manual – which too many take as gospel, for some reason – the PU is denoted as “PL”, at least. Only in these arcane NFHS texts, where old, grey, sedentary fossils of a bygone era still espouse their diminished insights, do they continue to use these obsolete references – B1, R1 (for lead runner / 1st runner aboard, not Runner at 1B), U2 (for second umpire), etc. I get it – you don’t want to acknowledge or promote that we should work in any quantity less than 2. Noted. Acknowledged. But if you’re going to die on a hill, at least make sure it’s not a fetid garbage mound of compost. * - “More voice! Morrrre voiiii<crack>iice!” ** - “These will be Outs, and you will be moving!”

Here's what I don't understand... Instead of conditioning "your" umpires to expand the strike zone off the plate, into-and-often-defined-by the batters' boxes ("call the chalk! call the river!" Whatever TF that means... ), why not change the width of the plate? A 46-60 or even a 50-70 field will never be used by any baseball player greater than 12 years old, and maybe-just-maybe youth softball could benefit from this, too. Umpires, at all levels, then could call the plate, instead of a widely / grossly interpreted zone. Pitchers could progressively be taught to pitch to the plate, and catchers could be taught to set up... oh I don't know... on (the edge of) the plate! Novel ideas! ------------------------------ Prefaces: - I am not perfect. - I do not have a published, recognized method that I am "selling" or defending. - I do not directly represent a union, organization, or doctrine. - I call a wide variety of levels, and have called every level of baseball short of "The Show". I no longer call (as PU) anything less than 60'6" pitching distance, unless emergency call-in or voluntary event. The terms "river", "white line", "chalk", "paint" are foreign to me. Sure, I was a catcher, I know what they mean, but as an umpire, they are not part of my lexicon (vocabulary). The width of the plate (the physical object – we can discuss in more detail if that includes the black rim or edging) is the width of the zone. Period. Simple. Easy. I view it as a binary conditional query – did the pitched ball pass over (a part of) the plate? - If No → Ball. - If Yes → Next Judge / Determine Height. Now, the plate itself has divisions, or zones, if you will. I teach developing and novice umpires this concept, by way of introducing or demonstrating one of these: Of course, there's the upper boundary ("top") and lower boundary ("bottom"), and I establish them as early and often or as necessary in a game. If you're a batter or catcher, you will hear me actively say, "That's the top" or "That's the bottom" (after calling the Strike, of course). Then, in regards to the width, I use the following terms for the 5 zones or divisions or segments of the plate: Inner Edge – Inner Third – "Center Mass"* – Outer Third – Outer Edge. * - Use what you want for this middle / center region. I despise the colloquial terms "c0cꓘ shot" or "down the d!cꓘ". Instead, I use the term "center mass", and granted, I don't (need to) use it often, if at all. I find myself using it as a point of levity, such as when a Batter takes the pitch during a steal attempt, and the Batter will ask after all is settled, "Where was that one?", to which I reply, "Center mass"... and the F2 chuckles and audibly smirks. Just like the establishment of the Top and Bottom boundaries, I actively identify the Edges. A pitch is grooved down that inner edge? "Hrike!... that's the Edge." "Any further in?" "Nope, that's the edge." A pitch catches the (outer) corner? "Hrike!... that's the Edge" "Catch the corner?" "Yup, the Edge". And both the Batter and the Catcher are equally appreciative. I consistently reiterate and reinforce – Edge, edge, edge. Define the boundaries. For both opponents. Where I use the "Thirds", is when a Batter asks "Was that the edge/corner?" or "Any further out/in?", to which I'll reply (something like) "No, outer/inner third." Being that that's not the edge, it implies that there's more to go... of course, up to the defined Edge. I never declare "third", but I use it as an answer to the question. I always answer questions... which is something that, again, players on both sides are appreciative of. Too often, college and pro Batters and Catchers alike remark that other College and pro umpires are too cryptic, too vague, and too standoffish, often ignoring even simple questions. Where I employ the zone training plate is with already-active umpires who are interested in challenging themselves. While I introduce the training plate to brand-new or novice umpires, I don't advise using it with them (putting them on it); instead, simply train and condition them to read and call the plate as a whole to start. Don't overwhelm them. With the interested veterans, I lay out the training plate as a challenge – to track the pitch to a color segment, and identify where it primarily crosses. This takes the emphasis from tracking the pitch to the catcher's mitt, and transposes it to the plate... where it should be... and where ABS-Hawkeye and TrackMan are largely focused. Granted, tracking a pitch through the zone to the mitt is a component of the pitch-tracking process, but how the catcher catches it – where it is, how or if he catches it (fingers up or down, ball dropped, etc.) often influences what we collectively judge the pitch to be, especially if it's "close".

How is this Artificial Intelligence? Artificial Idiocy or Ignorance, more like. You beat me to it. While it’s not something that I do, or use, it is a purposeful option for (or to train to) others, especially those who would otherwise gesture too… wildly?… or would otherwise slouch or look like they’re cowering. Back to the content of the OP- This entire thing reads of some interpreter trying to stay relevant and active in the training space. Granted, we should be striving to improve and “get better”, and sharing “best practices (plural)”, but to declare some absolute, especially in this manner, is really heavy-handed. As a start, the nomenclature of “U1” and “U2” is arcane and indicative of NFHS manuals (is it not?). It would coat this advice as more adaptive and universal if it was to use PU and BU as nomenclature. Furthermore, to say that “49 states would be <this>, while NJ (alone) would be <that>” is an exaggeration, and seems like a soliloquy. Why such (over)scrutiny on how PU assists up the 1BL? The way in which he’s presenting this, he makes it sound as if “Evaluators” are looking for (yet another) detail to ding and demerit guys for. I’d be much more focused on making sure PUs know and discern when to come out from behind F2 and trail up the line comprehensively, because as games progress, there’ll be many more scenarios and plays that will require the PU to be somewhere else (such as POP, or headed towards 3B (foul territory OBR, fair territory NCAA), superseding a pursuit up the 1BL – and that if you are “deep into a game”, the fact that you make that pursuit second nature should be more lauded, not dinged by the exact details of how. Make sense?

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”.