Man_In_Black

Have to agree with the guys above. It was his call, not yours. He asked you what you had, you gave it to him...your job was done at that point. Besides, can you really be sure that you were right and he was wrong? Jim Joyce was 100% certain that he got the call right when he ruined Gallaraga's perfect game. All of us call what we see, but sometimes what we see and what really happened are two different things. There isn't one member of this board who hasn't kicked a call at one point or another in his career, regardless of experience level. Any umpire that claims otherwise is a liar. Couldn't it be that your partner had it right and not you? Own your calls and let your partners own theirs.

Would anyone be caught dead in one of those things nowadays? Or does it appeal more to the nostalgia/collector crowd?

Heh...of course not. I was merely providing an argument as to why one might rule the incident in the original post a swing, as opposed to his judging that the batter was merely trying to avoid the pitch and his bat happened to move through the hitting zone as a result of his upper body movement. I can see a case for both sides of the argument. It's a judgment call. The OP used his judgment when asked by the PU to rule on the swing. I understand this. My point was, the OP admitted himself that the barrel of the bat went around. But his decision as to whether to actually grant the appeal was based on his judgment that the batter did not attempt to really swing...he was just trying to get out of the way...not whether the bat went around. I'm just saying that one could argue that "intent to swing" here is irrelevant and shouldn't be a criterion. Some believe if the bat goes around, you have to rule it a swing. Just like you have to rule a foul ball when a batter bails on a high and tight pitch and leaves the bat up. Should "intent" play a role? That's all I was tossing out there for discussion. I wasn't trying to imply that HokieUmp did the wrong thing...he had a split second to decide, and he relied on his judgment. That's all any of us can do.

Agree that this is a HTBT scenario, but here's something to think about... What if the ball had actually hit the bat and landed fair? Would you kill the play because he wasn't really "striking at the ball"? Like the saying goes: "If you believe there is a heaven, then you have to believe there is a hell." If you'd allow play to continue if the ball was struck, one could reasonably argue that if not struck, it would have to constitute a swing. When a guy hits the deck on a pitch coming at his head and doesn't get the bat down in time...and the beanball hits the bat, we rule it a foul ball. In this case, there is also no "striking at the ball" or "offering at the pitch", so why do we penalize the batter with a strike and reward the pitcher for a crappy (not to mention dangerous) pitch? Not advocating one view over the other, just giving some food for thought.

They actually asked me to be an instructor at that clinic. Was busy that week, though. I heard Carl Callsafew scored a 98% on the written final.

Yes. The V2 has reduced the number of "shock absorbers" from four to three. An effort to save weight, I suspect. I know the V1 version was indeed heavier than a Dyna-Lite. I haven't had a V2 in my hands so I can't say for sure whether this still holds true. Yes. That said, a lot of guys swear by these masks and don't have a problem with the weight...and Acpar72 seems to be offering a good deal. If you're in the market for one, grab it.

Here's my take FWIW: For beginning umpires and/or lower level leagues (where the players themselves may be unsure of a ball's status), it's a good idea to always point the ball back into play. It promotes good habits as well. At higher levels, I don't point the ball into play after a foul ball with no runners on base. I simply assume my stance behind F2 and say "play" in a voice that both the batter and catcher can hear once the batter is in the box and the pitcher is on the rubber. When the pitcher sees me assume my stance, he knows he can pitch. When there are runners on base, I'll make the same "low voice" announcement of "play" for batter and F2 (because they can't see me), but will use the pointing gesture so that everyone on the field is aware that the ball is now live. With the exception of starting the game, I don't raise my voice when putting the ball in play. All of us have been trained to use the PU's point as the visual cue, since in certain situations where I work you wouldn't, as BU (or player for that matter), necessarily hear the the PU (yelling or not) due to crowd noise. As long as the crew is focused and maintains situational awareness, this all works just fine. For some reason, around here, pointing with a "play" after a foul ball with nobody on or after a home run is lumped into the same category as screaming "FOUL!!!" and throwing both hands up frantically on a ball that gets popped straight back over the backstop into the seats. It's considered "Smitty" or "little league" or whatever. Whether you agree with that or not, that's the perception around here. So I conform.

My $0.02: The OP was correct in owning his call. He saw it 100% and didn't need help. Coaches need to understand that each member of an umpiring crew has his own responsibilities. There is no "umpiring by committee", where every close call that someone might question automatically carries with it the right to a second opinion or to go "call shopping". Now, if the call had been "out" and the BU was straightlined on a possible pulled foot, then that's a different animal (as has been discussed above). But if you are 100% sure of your call, then stick by it. Last time I checked "appeasing coaches" was not part of our job description.

I own both types, but prefer the full grain. I wear whatever our crew decides to wear on game day. The trend in the pro ranks seems to be moving away from patent leather belts. I'm guessing since the move away from patent leather plate shoes is more or less complete, it seems only a natural consequence that the belts will eventually follow. I don't believe most people/fans actually notice. It's usually umpires that spot things like this. Bottom line: wear whatever you like, as long as you look neat and presentable.

I would think use of the MLB logo would tend to increase the price of an item rather than decrease it. Licensing fees need to be paid to MLB for use of the logo. Having said that, I'd prefer not to have MLB logos on my gear simply because I'm not an MLB umpire and having these logos plastered all over your gear gives some folks the impression that you're a wannabe. I already have the logos on my CP (which is not visible during a game anyway), my shoes (not conspicuous) and on my mask harness (kind of bugs me, but other guys in our association have the same harness so I'm not alone). I suppose if it were a small, discreet logo below the collar on the back, I could deal with it. Anyone more than 10 feet away would see it as nothing more than a white blip anyway, so it's not a big deal. So chalk me up as someone who'd prefer not to have it, but wouldn't be averse to purchasing if the logo were done discreetly.

Yes, the call is correct. The appeal play at first base on R1 is a time play in both baseball and softball.

Yeah, I did check locally. No joy. I guess I may have to look into the Force3 tights as gnhbua93 suggested.

I thought McDavid stopped making those hex-pad shorts for baseball. I was looking to pick up a pair last season and couldn't find any anywhere. They aren't listed on the company website anymore either. Does anyone know the status for sure?

I'm 6'0" tall and have worn the 13" WV Gold for years. Never had a problem with rib coverage. I prefer a shorter CP because, IMO, they're cooler and more comfortable than extended length CPs. Whether you need the extended protection probably depends on the level of ball you work. The better the catchers, the less often you wind up getting hit. But I certainly don't feel "exposed" when wearing the WV.

I actually use both TW and Wilson. Early or late in the season, when the temperature dips and it's chilly out there on the field, I like the Wilsons. They remain relatively soft even at colder temperatures. The team Wendy pads get hard as bricks when it's cold out. Having said that, when it's really hot out there on the diamond, the Wilsons get a little too soft for my tastes, whereas the TW pads are a bit firmer and absorb the shock better, IMO. There's no law against switching out your pads based on the game day temperature. I used this method all of last season and it worked out well for me. I'll be doing the same thing this year, too.

Guys, it's not a pitcher's glove. It's designed for an infielder (note the I-web). Pitching gloves are fitted with a basket web, split-web, or a mod-trap web and are usually 12" (this looks to be 11.5"). I doubt any serious pitcher would bring this to the mound with him. Most know the rules about white leather. Used to be that a pitcher's gloves could contain no white at all (except for portions of the manufacturer's label). A while back they amended the rule to allow white lacing. But the glove itself can't be white or light gray.

Oh please, ricka... Yeah well, arguably a cheap shot, but I felt she overreacted to and completely misinterpreted a well-intentioned post from Rich. He meant well and didn't deserve that kind of treatment. A simple: "Thanks Rich, but my doctor explained my condition to me in detail, so I know exactly what my situation is. Let's get back on topic." ...would have sufficed, and that would have been the end of it. And with that, we'd probably have a bunch of helpful suggestions by now, but alas... How does the saying go? "It's not what you say, but how you say it."

Yup...Yogi was known as one of the best "bad ball" hitters in the history of the game. To quote the man himself: "If I can hit it, it's a good pitch."

Well, I would...but I'm afraid if I explained something you already know, you'd accuse me of insulting your intelligence and being condescending. I'd rather not risk the public humiliation.

Can we start the pissing match back up, please? (just keep the contestants away from any electrified fences ) Just kiddin'. Glad to see everyone passing around the peace pipe.

Answer to question: There aren't any. BU screwed up and then instead of simply saying "Sorry, my bad" he proceeded to just make sh!t up. If R1 can't steal a base during a dead ball, then the pitcher certainly can't commit a balk during one.

I think he meant more like HPX.

I know protective gear is a personal choice but if I were to walk out onto the field with something like that, I know I'd be hearing stuff from the crowd like: "Hey, Sir Umpsalot! Give my regards to King Arthur!" or "Hey blue, wrong venue! The jousting tournament is in the stadium across the street!" Carry on. (as you may have guessed...no experience with aforementioned throat guard)

It's all good, catsbackr. You'll get used to "topless" plate umpires over time. As with all the incremental changes the sport has been through over the years, the hardcore purists eventually adjust to them as time passes. Some thoughts: As a young kid I remember my ol' Uncle Warren bitching about colored jerseys when the Pirates started sporting them in the '70s and many teams followed suit. "Those are goddamn softball jerseys!" he'd complain. To him, "real" baseball uniforms were all white at home and all gray on the road. No exceptions. Only softball teams wore colored jerseys (which, at the time, was pretty much true). Today, we don't think twice about uniforms that aren't all white or all gray.My dad thought major leaguers had gone soft back when guys started wearing batting helmets with ear flaps. Now, ear flaps are a requirement.I have an ex-catcher buddy of mine that thinks Yadier Molina is a pussy because he wears an HSM. "With that thing on his head, he should be netminding for the Blues and not catching for the Cards! He needs to get a real catcher's mask!" But most folks don't think twice about a catcher with an HSM anymore.Sanitaries and stirrups were a standard part of the baseball uniform for nearly a century but there are many kids that don't know what the hell they are (although they seem to be experiencing somewhat of a renaissance as of late with a lot of clubs).And how ridiculous does a base coach look wearing a helmet...when the first baseman standing a mere 10 feet away doesn't have to wear one? We're used to it now.Last but not least, my colleague who also umpires HS softball and thinks that the gals who wear facemasks in the field are all "a bunch of pussies". (yeah, I know...but they were his words, not mine).I suppose we all consider certain aspects of the game to be "tradition" and find it hard to let go of certain things when the game evolves. Believe me, after a while you won't think an umpire like Gibson looks like crap. You won't even think about it at all.

I get what you're saying but... umpires used to wear jackets, white button-down shirts and bowties, too. They were "part of the uniform". Times change. If you were really self-conscious about going to the plate conference sans cap, you could always just wear it while exchanging lineups and then discard it before the first pitch. But if I wore a bucket (I don't) and felt a cap compromised its fit and/or effectiveness, I wouldn't really be too concerned with how it looks. My health is more important. Like you, I'm of the opinion that a cap looks better, but I'm also intelligent enough to understand that an umpire using an HSM and not wearing a cap is likely doing so because the cap interferes with his equipment and not because he's a lazy slob with no concern for his appearance and no respect for the game.