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.

The boardwoman took it to the league and I heard later that she was the only one who voted to overturn the ejection. Ejection stood and the coach was given his obligatory one game suspension. She sent me an apology afterwards and the league says that a boardperson who is coaching can't use their power as a board member to overturn a call on the field. She was not punished though. She was a coach? I would have told her she is no different than any other AC, board member or not. I am not discussing the calls with her, only the HC. If she persists, she gets EJ as well. It sounds like you are in hell in this league. They don't need umpires. They need babysitters to watch the adults while the kids play the game.

Yeah, the report is TOO LONG. TOO MUCH INFO. TOO MUCH NON-IMPORTANT INFO. TOO MANY WARNINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 and done. That's it. Any more and they will continue. I know b/c I dealt with that my last weekend this year of umpiring. PU gave "I don't want to hear another word" 3 times and the coach gave a remark back "You already said that". He finally ejected the coach and I rodeoed him off the field when my partner did his job finally. As stated, no need to tell where your strike zone is or your partner's. I'm a little confused over who was calling balls/strikes based on this report. No need to tell you agreed or disagreed with the call. The report should only have facts in it, not opinions. Nobody cares about your opinion in the report. You can give that verbally if asked. Also, no one wants to know if you had plans for Saturday night and gave them up to umpire a game. Anything prior to or after the incident are not important unless related directly to the incident. Also, I fail to see where the EJ is. Was it when the coach voluntarily left the field? And, why be concerned with what is going on outside the fence? Leave it alone. If he attempts to go in the dugout as a coach, inform him then he is either a coach or a fan. Not both though many parks are liberal with this and I would not go looking for trouble. This is minor and should be left alone. Plus, unless she is invokes some kind of league board rule or authority to stop the game, I wouldn't stop it to talk to her. She can wait until the game is over. As far as you are concerned, she is just some fan who wants to be obnoxious and a jerk to throw her weight around. She means nothing unless given some authority to do what she did. Next time, tell her to wait until the game is over to discuss politics.

My only argument to moving your head is the inherent danger of getting a foul ball on top of the head or an errant bat getting a better chance of hitting the jaw. I don't think it is any better or worse to move your head to see the pitch. The eyes are still fixed on the ball. However, if you move your head down and call a strike, it looks like you looked at it being low but still called it. Or, a pitch to the outside and you call it but the batter argues it. The head movement makes his argument a compelling one since you had to look at your right shoulder to see the pitch. I don't move mine for safety reasons. But, perception of the pitch based on the umpire's head movement makes a difference as well. Plus, it is just what they want to see from baseball umpires. Softball ones are screwed up anyways.

Ok. First off, not everyone's going to be focused on the pitcher. Even of those that are, very few are going to see such a small and quick facial expression. Of those that do, there's going to be doubt about what it was about and where it was directed, at least in part determined by who they're rooting for in the game. If it's what the fans are thinking, I'd ask since when do we care why fans think - the more vocal they are, the more likely they're going to be even less informed than managers. If it's the other players and coaches you're worried about, why? They're going to think it was a good call, or a bad call, or an FU call, or a make-up call, or whatever type of call they think it is anyway. A small expression like this isn't going to change their minds. And even if they think differently about you or your call, so what? I say again, taken on its own, something this minor isn't worth the reaction it got, if any reaction at all. It's about perception. If the players and coaches see this overlooked, then they will test to see what they can get away with. Then, all control is lost. Again, professional baseball players and amateur baseball and fans are not the same. What you overlook in your games is not viewed the same as it is at this level. This is grown men not 10 year olds. Intentions and motives are completely different. A smirk from a kid is not the same as one from an adult. As stated, apples and oranges.

You are correct. But Fagan was working 4 man vs. 2 man. Try again. Yeah, as I say before, professional baseball and amateur baseball are 2 different worlds. I won't bash b/c I have not seen him work. But, I would guess that the level of ball and the type of games have to be considered. Lazy games, who cares as long as the pitches are within the same state. But, a fast pace and a lot of 1st to 3rd plays will take its toll if done correctly. Who knows. Maybe he can keep the quality up for over 12 hours. Hard to imagine but possible.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/catcher-in-ump-beaning-loses-college-scholarship/nFCxH/ Catcher lost his scholarship to the school I went to for my Associates Degree. Good for the school. The umpires may have missed this one and the school is just going to back their own. At least one of the schools got it right then.

GOOD! The F1 should have also, without question ..... just as guilty He may have as well if he had one. I just heard comments about F2 when it was going around.

From my understanding at least, F2 lost a scholarship over this stupid play. Glad someone decided to punish stupidity.

And, you are referring to a whole different level of ball. Amateur baseball and professional baseball are 2 different worlds.

After watching some of the pitches, those idiots have no clue where a strike zone is. Most of the pitches they complained about were no where near a strike zone. Most weren't in the same zip code of a strike zone. Calling more strikes than she is throwing is not helping anyone. She needs to get better at pitching and the coach needs to learn the actual strike zone not where he wants it to be. I see so many where F2 is scraping the ground with her glove and bringing it back up to the knees but they complain. Just a terrible set of parents, players, and coach (unless all of them were part of it as well).