MadMax

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”.

"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!

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.