HokieUmp

If it's to the point where he's "well known" for it, it's now not a Bad Look for him, it's a Bad Look for your assignor and/or the association. Simply because he's doing that crap, and no one's called him out for it, or put a stop to it. So, if the field needed some last minute touch-up work, he'd have done that, too?? Bollocks, is what THAT is.

Fair enough. I can't remember what people called me on the field. "Wanker," maybe? You certainly have me on town size. But I'll one-up on this one: if you drew a circle in a 400-mile radius around my old town, you STILL wouldn't have much more than the original 25,000, other than bands of Aboringines that roamed the bush. (You might be able to draw that circle even bigger, but I don't remember the distances any more.)

I worked so little while I was at Yokota, I really didn't need gear. And when I DID order, I - irony alert! - ordered from the States. Since I can't read kanji, or speak Japanese, trying to find gear while there was kind of a waste of time for me. Since you mentioned MOS, we're talking either the Army or Marines. If he's a Marine, I would bet he's in Okinawa. Army, I'd say near Tokyo at Camp Zama. And there are dozens of US military facilities in Japan, when you count all the services.

I'm going to run against the trend, to a certain extent. I'm in the same group as UIC - although, for the life of me, I don't know to whom he's referring in his post - and I'd agree with the familiarity deal. Luckily, getting to the same place more than 5-6 times in a year is rare. (Sure, I've been to some of the rec places that many games, or more, but when you actually look who the specific teams are, I just don't see the same faces all the time.) So, it's pretty easy to keep that distance. But for the first four years of my umpiring career, I worked games in a small town in Outback Australia. If I didn't know every player by name, I could certainly recognize them. ALL of them - the adult league guys, the teens in the "Colt" league, and the juniors kids that played Saturday mornings. And it was a lot like life - you get along well with some people, not so well with others. It was what it was. Sorry, but in that situation, I chose not to be aloof. These were my neighbors, co-workers, and friends in a town of less than 25,000; much as I love umpiring, I enjoyed being a part of a community. Besides, umpires are ALWAYS pariahs, anyway. So, TL; DR? YMMV.

Well, I've never been active or retired, but I'm both a military 'wife' and a DoD civilian in my own right. If he's at a base, he'll have APO privileges, and it'll be the same as mailing something in the US. APO's are their own zone for shipping costs. It won't be that much worse than mailing from somewhere in the States, cost-wise, and it won't add that much time, either, since there's SO much volume going back and forth between the US and folks stationed in Japan. Which base in Japan? I was at both Misawa and Yokota Air Bases.

Two different things I wanted to ask/discuss: 1. This may be hard to describe, but it's happened twice this year to me. I've ruled it the same way both times, and both times, coaches seemed to take bigger issue with it than I thought. It may be hard to describe in words. Batter decides not to swing at and/or tries to avoid a pitch that's coming in high and tight, and turns his upper body around, so that his chest is pointing more at the mound. Thing is, he's kept his hands tight to his chest. So, if you're just going by the barrel of the bat, it DOES go around, simply because his upper body does, and the bat follows. (And that's what all the non-umpires at the game want to key on.) But since the criteria is ACTUALLY "does the batter strike at the ball?", I don't feel like he has, so when my plate guy has come to me, it's been "No, he didn't!" I've felt he hasn't extended his arms to strike at the ball. Even if you want to take out the arm-extension thought, I've seen nothing to convince me he's tried to strike at it. Thus, the first question: from that description, as bad as it might be, what says the congregation? 2. Both times, the DHC wants to chat. They start to talk to the plate guy, who refers them out to me. Once, simply because my plate guy had F2 stand up at the wrong moment, so he really got no look at all, and just sent the coach to me. The other time, it was "the check swing appeal is his call." I've let the coach schlep all the way to me, and then we've talked. Both guys talked about the barrel: one talked about "swung to completion" whatever the hell that means, and the talked about how far around. To that first guy, I just said variations of "that's not how I saw it, skip;" the other, I said he didn't strike at the ball. (That one said something about it being pitiful, and a terrible call, but it wasn't said as ME being pitiful or terrible AND he was walking away - which is what I want - so nothing to get fired up about.) But we get to the second question: should I even be having this discussion with the HC? I mean, at the heart of it, he's arguing balls and strikes, so should I just SAY that, and tell him I'm not having an argument about balls and strikes, so he needs to not even approach? Should I let him get all the way there, and THEN say we're not having that chat? Part of me says I shouldn't entertain debate at all, since it's a balls and strikes thing. Another part of me says it's more a mechanics deal, so they should at least be allowed to ask, and receive my response, and maybe just limit how much they can talk before pulling the "balls/strikes" card. For full disclosure, 1) I'm okay with saying these aren't swings, and 2) I've been okay with letting coaches come out, since it hasn't blown up to anything big. (At least one of the two times, it felt like it was a varsity coach testing a guy he's never seen before, to see what would happen.) Thanks.

That's true. But if the guy is working the scoreboard, he has a status somewhere between Real Coach and fan. "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." Hammer him.

If not at the "you're number one in MY book" moment, you should have ejected at the first eff-bomb. Look, I'm the worst when it comes to my language in real life, and spending six years in Australia probably didn't help, since Aussies use the eff-bomb as a noun, pronoun, adjective, adverb, etc. But we're talking about minors. Yeah, they're HS varsity, but they're still minors, of (if 18) wards of the state at that particular moment.* So you missed all kinds of chances to control the situation. As to the next time they play, you'll probably need to mea culpa, but then let them know it's going to be different: "Look, it was a circus last time because we kept people in the game. It's not happening that way this time." *Note: all legalistic interpretations given here are, well, utter bullcrap.

Seemed to me like Bautista was trying to 'front,' and talk some crap-variation of "what are YOU gonna do?" Well, I guess now he knows.

This one is probably not nearly as rare as 2 consecutive 3-pitch innings, in one game, by the same team, but it'll do. Managed to see a triple play yesterday, in a 13U game. And, the best part, it wasn't your typical youth-game triple play, where there's some massive cock-up by a runner, or the ball being over-thrown all over the field, etc. R1, R2, 0 out (of course, 0 out). Batter hits the ball to the right side. The first baseman ranges to his right, fields, and throws to the shortstop covering 2B - 1 out. Because F3 had to range so far away, the pitcher ran to cover first, and took the throw from F6 - 2 out. Now, I'm already pretty impressed - for starters, we're 2 outs closer to being done, and for another, the way those 2 outs were made looked really great for that age group. But they weren't finished yet. The original R2 rounded 3B and roared home. So F1 fired the ball to the plate. It wasn't even that close. I gave the punch out, and bang, the inning's over. For the scorers in the crowd, that's a 3-6-1-2 triple play.

They do?? Hmmmmm.

What is this, International Hit By Batted Ball Month? Even as someone who's been educated by the discussions, since I had some differing thoughts on the matter, I have to wonder how we've had so many of these threads open up in the last week or two. It's the Illuminati, I says! And please don't take this as dissent, but I will say this: thank you, as well, for the drawing and talk on the drawn-in infield. Because - and this won't surprise you - I would have probably gone with "not out" on that, pre-discussion and gun to my head. And I know I'm not the only one, since I was talking to partner last night about hit-by-batted ball, and he said something like "well, if the other infielders were in, then it'd be fine" on a situation we were discussing. So, again: if U-E is where MLB is looking for "hot topics" in the Rule World, I again ask for that rule to be re-written, because the exceptions and clauses and whatnot lead people down the Garden Path of Doom. Simpler wording is always better for things like that.

Pitfall: the singing and chanting, dear Lord, the singing and chanting. Maybe not as much at the HS level, but under it for sure. My first umpiring experience was via Bobby Sox Softball in Hawaii in the mid 90s. I'm glad I did it, since it was enjoyable, got me out in the sun, and was a community experience. And I'm sure having done it helped nudge me into baseball, when the circumstances otherwise aligned for me. But late at night, when the wind blows cold and the trees rattle like the ghosts of the dead they harbor, I can still hear it..... "gee-double-oh-dee-eee-ehy-eee, good-eye, good-eye!" The horror ..... the horror.

So, actually, just to clarify this, since I guess I've always judged this differently in my mind (The last time I can remember having to kill a play for someone being hit by a batted ball, it was me.): In the OP, the runner was being held on by F3. The OP also stated pretty clearly that the ball passed F3. But, because the ball was fairly wide of that F3, that doesn't then meet the criteria for passing an infielder? Because it's not an in-the-vicinity play? Also, then - it would be entirely possible for, say, an R2 get hit while going to third, with some weird infield shift on, so that we're calling the guy out, even though there's no fielder within 45 feet of the ball? If that's the interpretation, that's cool, but how much Game Management would be required to wrangle THAT deal? (I don't intend to appear dense, and I think I'm better on rules than this shows. But I think this is certainly one rule in the rulebook that could be rewritten from its original 1888 (or whatever) wording, and let the rule match the interpretation. Because the words definitely get in the way of this one.)

Fine. If you guys are going to keep using "rules" and "facts," bolstered by "interpretations," in a desperate attempt to prove you're right, then you win.

Dude...... DUDE. When you work a game with this guy again, launch this guy at the first comment. In fact, you should be in danger of tearing your rotator cuff, you should launch him so fast.

It can go past the rope boundary, but it would take a hell of a terrible throw, and a lot of poor backups. If it crosses the rope, I think there are penalty runs added to the score. But - and I REALLY hope you were seriously asking, since I seem to be hell-bent on answering - a fielder can throw the ball the wicket. If he knocks the bails (wood pieces that balance on top of the stakes, is as easy as I can put it) off before the batsman gets across the line, the batsman is 'out.' Or, properly said, his wicket is taken. And they're not runners - they're batsmen. Sorry, after six years in Australia, when they were the dominant Test cricket nation, I kinda got into the game. I mean, I voluntarily went to a day's play of Test cricket AND went to an international One-Day match between the Aussies and the Kiwis. (I also dig Aussie Rules football and rugby league.)

Okay, well, I'm going to disagree, given what's been written. I DO understand what people are writing, but the OP said pretty clearly the ball had passed F3. It also said that F4 was breaking away to cover 2B, and thus had no chance to field the ball. So, how does it NOT meet the "through" criterion, noumpere? (Also, who cares if he deflects the ball away from F9? The rule says "no other infielder." I wouldn't be protecting EVERY defensive player out there.) I guess I'm just having trouble seeing it as described, so I'm just not. Believe me, I'm not trying to re-write the rulebook.

Right. And I caveat-ed that in my original post, and via a follow-up. Again, as Rich later pointed out, there are a couple interferences out there - fielder and ball. I read this mostly as an issue with the fielder. Everyone else thought of the ball first. My bad. As I told umpire_scott, "when it's you against the world, take the world plus the points." I should have taken the points.

Understand, from the last two posts, that I'm kind of alone out here. But I don't have the Power Point skills to diagram what *I* visualize as I'm talking this out. Again, in OBR, the rule says "the umpire must be convinced that the ball passed through, or by, the fielder, and that no other infielder had the chance to make a play on the ball." And what I "see" in this play is that, with F4 breaking to 2B, he has no chance. Therefore "that's nothing!" and we play. Getting an out for interference there is punishing the offense.

I think something's becoming clearer to me, with some of these recent posts. I've wondered a little why local "house" leagues - LL, Pony - are getting smaller and 'weaker' (in skill level) overall. And it's because of the travel team phenomenon (thank you, spell-checker!), I know. People think that's the way to getting better for their school teams, getting looks from colleges, making it to The Show, whatever. I think it's a load of crap, sold by guys that are probably skimming big money from the process, but who am I, 60 Minutes over here? That's the obvious part. I think the other part is: when you're playing travel ball, it's the freaking Wild West. For coaches AND parents. Oh sure, there's some alleged sanctioning body somewhere that is also soaking money up like a sponge putting on tournaments and declaring regional and national champions, but there's no real authority. No TD is ever dropping the ban-hammer on one of his cash cows, and when you go from place to place wreaking havoc, no one knows in the new town what kind of horse's ass you were last weekend. At least in school ball, an EJ gets you another one game ban, minimum. For this traveling circus, not so much. And so the local leagues get drained.

Why, you're a worse buzzkill than Buzz Killington....

When it bounces off R3, and we have a triple and an RBI, it STILL won't make the "top 10 strangest things I've seen on a field." And I might still stick to my guns. Here's my reasoning - and I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, since this is all happening in head-space: IF I didn't feel he was interfering with the catch, it's now as if the ball hit the base, or any other "allowed-to-hit" surface on the field, and it's on F5 to get the ball. I guess I'm not continuing to consider it a batted ball at that point. And again, I would still be considering F5's effort level. It's probably because I've seen a lot of half-assing on the field lately, by players who seem either disinterested or demoralized (we've got some V and JV teams around here that spend the season getting their teeth kicked in), where I can seriously imagine it not dawning on F5 that he should be doing something. But that's why I put in that extra phrase - "unless you want to rule that the ball hadn't passed an infielder." I can see the out there. It's one of the dopiest ways I'd see a runner get hit by a batted ball, but I can also see THAT happening in a game. (Don't get me wrong - there's good baseball down here. But there are times where being an umpire is like being the ringmaster of Barnum and Bailey.)

I understand the "burden of proof" is on the offense here, but if, as stated and under OBR, F4 is breaking away from the play, and has no chance at it, I'm not sure I'd agree with you. Now you're punishing the offense. Yes, it's an infraction, but it seems to have had no effect on the play.

Guarantee it's not cricket. There are only two places (wickets) to go, and you only have to cross the line of the wicket to count the run (if both batsmen do it). And grounding your bat on/past the line counts - it doesn't have to be part of the body. Hand's part of the bat, and vice-versa.