Jump to content

lawump

Established Member
  • Posts

    1,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

lawump last won the day on January 28

lawump had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About lawump

  • Birthday July 15

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Carolina
  • Interests
    umpiring and lawyering

More information about you

  • Your Association Name
    Carolina Baseball Umpires Association; NCAA
  • Occupation
    Attorney
  • Types/Levels of Baseball called
    ex-MiLB umpire; NCAA Div. 1; Am. Legion (2015, '17-'19 World Series)
  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    ABUA (umpire.org)

Recent Profile Visitors

8,938 profile views

lawump's Achievements

1.3k

Reputation

2

Community Answers

  1. I know this has been stated above, but as someone who used to assign umpires for weekend tournament: when the coach started giving you pushback on the start time if you are, in fact, following policy (to start early) get the UIC (if they have one) or the tournament director. Let them handle it. By the way, I easily believe that the policy you stated (start games early) is actually the policy. It has been a policy for numerous travel ball organizations in my area.
  2. lawump

    Interference

    I don't think anyone has mentioned it in this thread, yet. But the question in the OP is from this year's (2022) NFHS test.
  3. No, no...you are correct for FED. Call the runner out immediately and let the play continue. Call "time" at the end of the play only if runners/coaches are confused (which is, like, all time on this play) simply to explain/sell the call. But there is no delayed dead ball by rule. I stated it lousily as a result of me throwing it in as an aside to my last post.
  4. It evolved significantly between 2016 and 2017 (which was my first year on the rules committee). The implementation of this rule in 2016 was highly unsuccessful. That was not only my opinion, but the opinion of the vast majority of state high school athletic association officials that I spoke with at that time. When this rule came out in 2016, some states took the position that a coach could not be ejected unless he had been previously warned/restricted. Other states did not. Some states said that something "written" had to be given to the coach when he received a written warning...other states did not. In other words, some of the questions that were asked in the OP to this thread were being asked by state officials! Its one thing for an umpire new to FED baseball to be confused; its quite another thing if a Commissioner in charge of high school baseball for an entire state is confused! If someone asks me today what my single proudest accomplishment as a member of the rules committee is, it is me re-writing this rule, defending my re-write to the full committee, and getting it overwhelmingly passed. Why I am so proud of my re-write of this rule is that in the five years since my re-write was passed all of the upheaval, confusion, and issues that administrators, coaches, and umpires had about this rule have disappeared. I understand some people may not like the rule (that's the case with almost any rule) but at least everyone (new FED umpires excepted) understands it. Defining what constitutes a "written warning", making clear that a warning is not required before ejection for egregious conduct, and drafting numerous case plays to explain this rule's intent will probably stand as my lasting legacy from my four years on the committee. (That and making coach's interference (assistance) a delayed dead ball like every other rule set. LOL)
  5. I knew I could find it. I like this...the point and the safe:
  6. The more I think about it, I think I would do both. I would point at the plate, and then give a safe signal. I could be wrong, but I think there is a video somewhere where Dan Bellino used this very mechanic it I thought it looked like a million bucks. However, the video above in Cleveland looked pretty damn sharp, too.
  7. I think the best we can do is to do what umpire schools teach us to do on a double play when you're the base umpire in a 2-man crew. If you have an unusual play at second base (let's say you're going to call R1 safe because the middle infielder was off the bag), you cannot stop and sell that call. Rather, you just have to signal and vocalize "safe", continue on to see the play at first base. Then, after the call at first is complete, the base umpire can then loudly and aggressively turn and move back toward second base while selling the call at second base (for example, "safe, safe at second! You were off the bag!). Its a little awkward until you be comfortable with it, but once you've done it a few times it becomes second nature. With FED obstruction (and using your example of a bang-bang play at the plate where you are going to call the runner (who was tagged out) "safe" because of the obstruction, but there is further action): I think you have to do something similar. I think you signal safe and vocalize loudly "safe on the obstruction!". Then, when the play is entirely over, you come back and sell the hell out of the call...just like the MLB umpires did in two of the videos above (and just like a base umpire in a 2-man crew has to do to sell a call at second on a double-play). "That was obstruction at second base on the runner! The runner scores on the obstruction!" Sell the sh!t out of it at that point.
  8. Here is a video that close call sports did in September. However, the game is from 2007. I actually have had this video on my laptop for nearly 15-years as I use it every year when teaching the OBR obstruction rule. There is actually several things that I use this video to teach: (1) That type 2 (formerly Type "B") obstruction is a delayed dead ball; (2) that a runner CAN be protected returning to a base (this is a concept that a lot of students struggle with); (3) that "time" should be called when the obstructed runner is tagged "out" while still protected. [As an aside: I disagree with one aspect of the analysis by CCS on this video. Towards the end of the video CCS states that the umpires must have decided that the obstruction caused the runner to become disoriented and not realize that the runner ahead had stopped at third and, thus, they decided to protect him back to second. I disagree with that analysis. As I was taught by Messrs. Dreckman and Nelson at umpire school it is actually a much simpler analysis than that. An obstructed runner can be protected advancing or retreating. In this specific play, the collision cost the runner several steps. He was then thrown out at second base on a very bang-bang play. Dreckman taught me to ask, "if the runner had the steps back that he lost to the obstruction would he had been safe? If the answer is "yes" then protect him back to the base." That is how professional umpires are taught to decide whether or not to protect a runner: if he had the steps given back to him, would he have been "safe"? It doesn't matter whether or not the runner was advancing or retreating...and becoming disoriented and not realizing that a preceding runner had stopped is irrelevant.] In the end, the umpires in this video got the call correct. The only mistake they made is not calling "Time" when the obstructed runner was tagged out at second base. If they had called "time" at that point, none of the other stuff would have occurred. With that said, it was an easy fix to just go back and "undo" everything that occurred after the point at which "time" should have been called.
  9. Great question. The answer is "no". From page 39 of the 2019 MLB Umpire Manual, "...if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which such runner would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out."
  10. There is a sentence in the MLB Umpire's Manual which specifically states that if a play is made on the obstructed runner, and the umpire is still "protecting" the runner, then "time" should be called at that point. It almost appears as a "throw away" sentence in the middle of the obstruction discussion in the Manual...but it is so, so important.
  11. https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2021/12/21/22848036/drunk-umpire-mexico-flipped-off-fans-fight-ejection
  12. This is a great post. Another way to say this would be to state what Joe Brinkman said during week 1 of the 1997 Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School: "Don't take the sh!tty end of the stick." If there is some doubt as to whether or not the runner would have scored "but for" the obstruction which argument would you rather have after the play: (1) an argument with the defensive coach who is mad that you scored the run or (2) an argument with the offensive coach that you let the out stand??? Unless you are 100% sure that the runner would not have scored if he had not been obstructed, I am taking argument #1 every time. I can handle this argument because I can end it every time with, "skip, if your player didn't screw up and obstruct the runner we wouldn't even be here!" Electing to take argument #2 is "taking the sh!tty end of the stick." Which leads to the second words of wisdom uttered by Mr. Brinkman during the first week of umpire school: "penalize the team that screwed up!" His point was that if you penalize the team that screwed up you can always end the argument by saying, "skip, if your player didn't screw up I wouldn't have had to make that call!"
  13. When the wife hits you on the back of the head in the middle of the night to wake you up as she says, "you're not at the ball park, stop umpiring!" (I've been known to loudly call games in my sleep.)
  14. Confrontational? yup. I pretty much implied that in my post. Sometimes we have to confront the bad behavior. Rhetorical? Absolutely not. I will get an answer; the delivery of the question will make it clear that it is not rhetorical. One time I actually had a head coach meekly reply "no", walk away, and not say another peep the rest of the game. He got the message and he managed to not get ejected. Miracles do happen.
×
×
  • Create New...