Mr Umpire

I would not ask the coach any question. I would only say "I have him in the box. Let's play on." If he proceeds with F2 drawing the line, I would simply tell F2 not to do it. I will not threaten F2. I will only tell him not to. He can infer what comes next. This leaves it open for me to handle it any way I see fit. Plus, it adds no fuel to the coach's fire. He will only see his F2 do nothing and ask him in the dugout. Also, if he wants to continue, he will get himself upset and be viewed as the aggressor. EJ will come easily enough once I tell him "That's enough." Asking the coach a question only makes the umpire look like a smarta$$ and the aggressor.

Are there any sample pages to look at? I am not looking for the entire book. Just a few pages to help form an opinion of it.

I hear more from coaches asking for Time than the players. The players just reciprocate the request. I do not grant it. I simply say "Let's go. Keep the game moving." I am not granting Time b/c the ball then cannot be put back in play until PU does it after F1 gets back on the rubber. It happens too many times. Time granted. Before F1 gets on the rubber, he attempts a pickoff. It has to be explained "Can't do that until play has been resumed." This comes after BU who called Time calls an out. PU has to fix it. Easier if Time was never called to cause the situation in the first place. It seems to keep the pace of the game going. But, it also prevents bad situations like that. I have seen it and had to deal with it. Looks bad and could have been prevented by the BU.

This is what I was thinking after seeing the replay. I noticed the ball was in his hand and not the glove. I think one thing to review is making the managers specifically name why they are challenging and if that is not the case, then no overturn. Do they have to do this now? My question is "Was this being challenged or the positioning of F2?"

This statement is not 100% true. A runner is out on a tag while on the base if forced to vacate the base by virtue of the batter becoming a runner.

I don't understand why umpires would want to be near Costas. He makes some of the dumbest statements of most announcers, not all (He who shall not be named is still at the top of the list IMO mainly b/c he played and still has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to rules). Also, some of his views of everything he talks about are a little out there IMO.

The difference is "Nobody pays to watch a low level game". And, even in college, it is not about the money as much as it is at the MLB level. They do what dictates the money flow. If collisions hurt the money aspect, then stop them. If it boosts money, let them go. I think it hurts the bottom line when they are paying a catcher while he is not performing. Plus, putting another one in who may do as well puts a strain on front office as they negotiate contracts for the following seasons. Again, apples and oranges. MLB is not the same as college and below. In college and below, they are deemed as still developing and many won't even attempt for the pros. In MLB, they have been considered to "have made it to the show" and it's time to put on a show.

At Strike zone simple? Ha! I can turn his 15-paragraph essay into two lines. "The strike zone is the area in which a pitched ball is a strike. It is a rectangular cube that extends from the armpits to the top of the knees vertically (LL) and across the plane of home plate horizontally. A ball need only have the tiniest bit (one stitch) enter this cube to be adjudged a strike." Now, what makes more sense and is more practical to a volunteer dad or 16 year old rookie, his essay or my two lines? Comparatively, mine looks pretty damn simple. Since we're being technical b/c of the OP, that is 3 lines. So, even yours is wrong now. And, the OP proves it.

50% of the majority of the strike zone is over the plate. But, let's talk about the ball first. 60% of it has to be thrown towards the plate while the other 40% is on the first or third base side of the original line it was thrown from. But, the pitcher's foot must me 70% going towards the plate while the other 30% of it is going toward the batter's box. If any of these guidelines are violated, the pitch is a ball and any explanation to the coach should simply be "I don't know where the he!! that pitch was. I had my good eye closed and the other one isn't good with math." But, he cannot be EJ unless 20% of his right foot is on the foul line and 50% of his left foot is in the batter's box. Otherwise, poll the audience to get a majority vote of 50% of the audience to decide if he should be EJ or not.

One thing to realize from the rant is the quote "experienced". That does not translate into able to do it correctly. One has to know how to apply what they know. But, one should be able to recognize a "Good Ol' Boy" umpire. Too many equate one who can get along with everyone to be a good umpire as well. But, fail to see how bad he is until he gets into a real clinic put on by those who have gone to school or at least, work hard to keep up with what the school is teaching. Or, gets into a real clusterf@&k and doesn't know which way is up and how to EJ those who are running all over him now. But, hey, at least he kept all of the participants in the game though. Sometimes, simple things like "Catch" and "No catch" can show that difference. I know b/c I have umpired with too many who use other terminology and don't know what they are doing. I have a hell of a story from this year umpiring with a guy who likes to use the phrases such as "He's in there" or "No, he got under the tag". Then, can't remember what to do with bases loaded and a shallow CF hit which turns into R2 staying at 2B and R1 coming with F6 stepping on 2B. He has to come to me to find out what the call should be though he has been doing it for a few years. But, hey, at least everyone gets along with him at the plate meeting.

None of that is acceptable in any level but especially below HS. This coach doesn't need to be allowed to coach kids. He may have went somewhere else since he had a reputation now. Who knows, who cares. You missed a call. So what. We all DO regardless of how good @JaxRolo thinks he is. It happens. We momentarily take our eye off the ball for some unexplainable stupid reason. And, then, something unexpected happens. We have all done that at some point. And, it may happen more than once. Not something to beat yourself up about. The kids are not going to go into a great depression over 1 play though their coach seems to. Forget it and move on.

My thoughts exactly. What good is a rulebook and mechanics manual anyway. Especially if using them makes you a better umpire b/c you do know them and can use them to call a game correctly and very well. What's the point getting them when they are available on, oh I don't know, the internet.

Well, "Catch" is the only word in the rulebook. It doesn't say "It's down" or "Ball on the ground". Just like it doesn't say "No" or "He's in there". But, there are those who do that too and think it is correct. Frankly, I don't care how you do it. It is all a matter of how high up do you want to umpire in levels. Then, it matters. I'll stick with "Catch" or "No catch" followed by safe/out signal. It isn't that difficult for them to understand. I have been OK with it now for 21 years and will start 22 next year.

I say "No catch" or "Catch". I do not state the "Ball is down" or "It's on the ground". Call it a preference or using rulebook terminology. But, I see no confusion in saying "No catch, No catch" with a safe signal.

I have a balk--not for what the umpire said--I have a balk because "move the throwing hand with ball to his back while stepping on the rubber" you can not move the ball and your pivot foot at the same time. Guys don't hurt your back throwing a ump under the bus. This is a joke, right? This is what I am thinking as well though it is missing an emoticon. No balk. Only if it is assumed he was on the rubber. Then, maybe depending on level.