ElkOil

Two weird things happened to me the other day during our last training scrimmage with our instructors. One of them told me, "The only thing keeping you from being the dictionary definition of a perfect umpire is that you look at your indicator too much." I smiled and said, "Okay, I'll look at it less." Then I was told that maybe next year I could work some college scrimmages. Now, I don't know how much of what I was told was just encouraging talk and how much was genuine intention, but I was certainly encouraged regardless and I KNOW there are a number of things for me to work on and improve, so I'm not fooling myself into thinking too highly of my abilities. I'm taking what they said with a grain of salt, but taking away some positive opinions and pats on the back. My instructors gave me great feedback and advice. Our season begins tonight, but all the games were canceled due to rain and cold, so tomorrow may be the first game of my umpiring career if the weather allows.

That's cruel! It'll be -25 with the wind chill here in Illinois tonight. I know your pain, brother. I moved to central Texas from northern New Hampshire. Never looked back!

Not to rub it in, but I'll rub it in. Scrimmages began two weeks ago and the season starts Monday. I just spent today at my last scrimmage in a 75 degree, partly sunny afternoon. Had to put on sunblock.

He didn't keep the ball in front of him because he turned away from the play. My instructors have harped on that over and over this year and said repeatedly to keep your chest to the ball or else you'll get a throw to the back of the head. This guy proved them all right. If he did as he should have, it would have been easy for him to take a step to get out the throwing lane. And yeah, one of them was wearing the wrong shirt.

I can't believe I'm doing this...I completely agree with Rolo. I use to attend the training run by the state regularly. Then I went to one of Evans' clinics and it was like the whole world changed. The game had slowed down some and I was seeing things better. What kinds of things did the clinic do that the state training lacked?

You're right to point out that the game "slowing down" is a crucial part of "feeling comfortable" behind the plate (or on the bases, which sometimes takes longer for umpires who are used to working solo). It's not hard to explain, but the explanation requires a bit of brain science. The human brain is a pattern recognition engine, but it has to be trained up on the pattern. When we start umpiring, there's so much going on that our brains get overwhelmed trying to identify what is "pattern" or relevant and so worth our attention. As it comes to recognize pattern, it starts to treat everything else as "noise" or irrelevant and so to ignore it. The other part is our limited processing power. We can process about 100–110 bits of information per second. This limit explains a common experience: since the average conversation includes about 60–80 bits per second, we can almost, but not quite, listen to 2 conversations at the same time. The game slows down when we have trained up our brains sufficiently so that we filter out (ignore) enough noise that the remaining patterns are below our processing limit. You heard it here first: better umpiring through neuroscience! Great. Now I have a man crush for Maven. These things are so hard to explain to my wife.

I'm brand new to umpiring and I'm routinely told by veteran guys it'll take two years to feel comfortable behind the plate. Between High School, Select Ball, Men's Summer Ball and Fall Ball, I'll be calling as many games as I can stand. With a busy schedule, how long until you all felt comfortable -- whatever the meaning of it is to you?

I do the mirror all the time and even some video. My father was kind enough to come over and pelt me with baseballs while I practiced not flinching and calling strikes. It humored him and I learned a lot from the 20 minutes of video I shot.

There's always the opportunity for growth and resolving issues. Have you considered asking to have a one-on-one conversation with him to let him know how you're feeling and how to best move forward? Even unreasonable people can have a enlightened moment or two if the situation is right. My guess is that one reason he acts like he does is because everyone around him allows him to. You can set respectful limits with him without anger and you can disagree without being disagreeable. I get the sense that because he initially came on so strong at your clinic, you're anticipating the worst. But it doesn't have to be that way. You can actively work with him to a better end. And he isn't the last person of his type you'll ever have to work with, but I'll guarantee you this: Become effective at working with him and others like him and you'll find that as you get older, you'll mysteriously meet fewer and fewer people like him. I promise.

You make some good points in this and other posts on the subject. Seems to me that if what I've highlighted in your statement is true, this is behavioral issue and not an environmental one. Expectations should be clear from your association that this is unacceptable and people should be reprimanded appropriately. But if your characterization is an exaggeration to make your point, I get it, but were this to ever go into a court system, among other factors, the conditions umpires are given and their behavior and intent would be taken into consideration.

Last night there wasn't a piece of my gear that didn't get tested. I took one to the foot, two to the shins, one to the boys, two to the chest and one off the face. I love my gear.

Hang tough! One great benefit I got from moving from New England to Texas is that baseball -- like riding my motorcycle -- is year 'round.

I played as a kid up until high school -- through little league and Babe Ruth -- then as an adult in my 20's. I made my home as a first baseman and was never much of a hitter as I got older. My eyes and ears are wide open. I want to become someone who is known as reliable and consistent. The coaches last night were all very cordial and thanked me afterwards, so not only was my first impression good, but hopefully theirs was, too. First. Game. Ever. I didn't call any that hit the dirt, but I'm finding it challenging to see the ball relative to the bottom of the zone. I'm sure that as I become more comfortable, the game will slow down for me and things will be easier to see and process. Plus, having good in-game feedback like I did from my partner last night helped. After the first inning, he came over and chatted with me about my zone and gave me some things to be aware of. Yeah, my partner told me the only ones he saw me miss were two low ones and a couple on the outside. Otherwise he said I was consistent. I felt bad for one pitcher because the poor kid was struggling and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn form the inside. The catcher tried at one point to help him out by asking if I was taking the outside away from him and I said, "I can't give him pitches that are in the opposite batters box." He seemed to understand.

Last night was my first time on the field as an ump. A 10-veteran was my partner and I did the first game (freshmen) on the bases and the second (JV) at the plate. It'll take a while to get comfortable with all the mechanics, and overall my partner told me I did pretty well. He suggested watching my low strike call because I called a couple that were too low, and I know I could have been a little more generous with the outside corner (that'll take some getting used to, as well as adjusting to properly see based on where the catcher sets up). I also know I need to get out from behind the plate faster, although nobody complained about it. So I popped my cherry and have a bunch more scrimmages to get through in the next two weeks before tournaments begin. I had a great partner who was very interested in my development and the games were tame enough that I could concentrate on the basics. Drinking from a fire hose and getting real, real introspective.

FED 2-21-1a: Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat: a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play

Gee whiz, guys. Sorry for ruffling feathers. To those who kindly offered insight, I sincerely thank you. To those who just lost their patience, I apologize. I'm only trying to learn. It may do you well to remember that you too, at one point, did not know these things.

This isn't a trust issue. I'm just trying to understand one fundamental thing: How was the runner obstructed when he was never prevented from achieving anything? He ALREADY acquired his base. He wasn't TRYING for third. He wasn't prevented from doing anything. The SS's act didn't result in any detriment. If the runner was rounding second and the SS got in his way, yes, you award third. Everyone's been telling me about base awards after an obstruction, and I understand all that. What I don't understand is how the runner was obstructed in the first place when he was able to do everything he was attempting to do.

When it comes to wanting to keep things simple, you're preaching to the choir. Thanks for taking the time to find those citations, but I just can't come to the conclusion that in the OP, the runner was obstructed since he wasn't trying for third to begin with. The simple question, in my mind, when awarding bases is answering the question, "What bases were the runners prevented from achieving?" And in this case, the runner wasn't prevented from achieving anything.

FED.

If F4 or F6 told the runner the ball was foul before R1 reached second, you would be correct. Once R1 reaches second and then is told the bogus information, by rule he gets third. I'm confused. In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him? By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction. Because that's the award under FED rule. Call it by the rule. It's not about what you think is fair or unfair. If you think a rule is bad...enforce it. That's the best way to change a bad rule. This is the part where I begin to think people here are messing with me because this is starting to feel like an Abbott and Costello routine. When I read the rule, it seems pretty clear. Bases should be awarded to any runner who was obstructed from achieving them. If there's a measure in the rule to add an additional one-base award, I don't know where that is. The part I'm hanging my hat on is 8-3-2: When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored. The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. If any preceding runner is forced to advance by the awarding of a base or bases to an obstructed runner, the umpire shall award this preceding runner the necessary base or bases. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. Runner(s) will be awarded appropriate base(s) per umpire judgement. When obstruction occurs, the umpire gives the delayed dead ball signal and calls "obstruction." If an award is to be made, the ball becomes dead when time is taken to make the award. Can someone please cite a rule that would allow the ump to award third base in this scenario? But more fundamentally, how do we even have obstruction when the runner achieved the only base he was trying for? And believe me, I'm not contending I'm right -- I just have no idea what part of the rules says I'm wrong.

No, it doesn't. (Well, it does, but there's more to the rule than just the part you say above). Can you cite it? I can't find it.

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS. That part I get. But my confusion is that it seems to me there wasn't any obstruction since the runner wasn't trying for third. How can you obstruct a runner from doing something he wasn't trying to do? If you illegally entice the runner to leave second and head back toward first and tag him out, that's OBS. I get that, too. But since he was never trying for third, how can that be the award? The rule states you award the base(s) you thought he'd acquire had the obstruction not occurred. In this case, third base was never part of the equation. Since he was never obstructed for getting there, you can't award it to him.

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS. That part I get. But my confusion is that it seems to me there wasn't any obstruction since the runner wasn't trying for third. How can you obstruct a runner from doing something he wasn't trying to do?

If F4 or F6 told the runner the ball was foul before R1 reached second, you would be correct. Once R1 reaches second and then is told the bogus information, by rule he gets third. I'm confused. In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him? By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

The part in red really means "the base he was attempting to advance to after the OBS." If a runner is already on a base (say second), then he's awarded third. If a runner is retreating, then award the next base, even if he safely reaches the "retreating" base. I would take the rule to mean that if he were attempting to acquire third, that's the one he'd be awarded. In this scenario, the runner was only trying to get to second, which he accomplished. I can't see there being any obstruction -- just a wisecracker at short.