Cato the Younger

I also 100% agree with this and wouldn't hesitate to toss the catcher out of the game. Also his coach when he comes flying out of the dugout to defend him with any nonsense about batters interference.

I 100% agree with this post. I've told the batter that if they stand perfectly still there doing the right thing and by moving they are actually putting themselves potentially in harm's way for interference.

I appreciate the class in how you moderate. Thank You. I don't blame anyone for posting what they did as I accept responsibility for my failed attempt at humor. I do have a viewpoint on umpiring, and so I should have been wise enough to expect the reaction to a poor attempt at humor from some of the regs here. I also have that feeling you get when you miss one in a game, and you know you missed it. It sucks, but you need to put it behind you and focus on the next play. I really am here to post about umpiring, I was the OP of this thread and still not a fan of this rule change and would like see how this really "change in procedure" procedure evolves and really care less about grammar which reading several of my posts would surely reveal.

Sorry, just trying to be funny. You might be surprised with hanging out with me. Sometimes posting something does not always come across in the right context. I found your post very amusing. I do apologize for how it came across. I was trying to be playful but a see how the post would be perceived. Like I posted above it was a crash and burn.

Failed attempt at humor and yes I figured someone would google the post it but I was relying on fair use and trying to be funny. That post crashed and burned.

Or even better after batter steps into the pitch and crushes it for a double bring him back and say you gave him time and see the batters coach's reaction. I agree with the others that said the coach was fishing.

First this is an umpire board not a grammar class but since you brought up the topic........ Why not? I do know a bit about Latin and the Latin-obsessed writers of the 17th century. This should be obvious by my choice of handle. Some of these silly groundless rules (termed 'fetishes' by Henry Fowler in 1926) have a very long history. Back in the 17th century, some notable writers tried to make English grammar conform to that of Latin rules..... hence a veto on split infinitives as well as your preposition confusion you posted about above. The word proposition ultimately derives from Latin prae (before) and ponere (to place). In Latin grammar, the rule is that a preposition should always precede the prepositional object that it is linked with, it's never placed after it. According to a number of authorities, (it was the John Dryden in 1672 who was the first person to criticize a piece of English writing (by Ben Jonson) for placing a preposition at the end of a clause instead of before the noun or pronoun to which it was linked. This prohibition was taken up by grammarians and teachers in the next three centuries. English is not Latin. So why should it follow Latin's rules? Just like baseball is not cricket. Nevertheless, many people are still taught that ending a sentence with a preposition should be avoided. I choose not to be shackled by such silly rules. Now back to umpiring.

If he didn't pick up the non-pivot and just spun, I agree it's a balk, and I have posted that more than once in this thread. Others in this thread including me have been also discussing when the pitcher steps but does not gain ground. This is not enforced as universally as a balk the posting here would imply and I pass on balking this.

Agreed. I think you hit on one of the big reasons. I'm not saying I would never call this situation a balk, but certainly things would need to change than the current status quo for me to be throwing up my arms in Federation, and pointing at the pitcher in NCAA at the pitcher......... yelling "balk" when this happens. I just want to point out that there are a number of rules in the book that I deliberately pass on every game with an awareness that there is some sort of a violation of that rule. This is just one of them. I think the other issue is guys that spend time enforcing rules like to enforce rules. I'm probably more unique in the fact that just because I know a rule doesn't mean I'm going to enforce it in every situation.

An alternative point and point of view and pointing out reality is far from trolling. Especially when this is a situation that is far from universally enforced. For example, if OP comes on and says the pitcher turns the first and fails to release the ball is that a balk???? That's one that everybody pretty much will be on the same page and should be. I've seen guys turn, step and not gain ground on a pick-off many times in baseball games. No-one says boo. No coaches, no fans, no players, no umpires. Try and get away with that pitcher turns the first and fails to release the ball. Umpires pass maybe because they don't know the rule, maybe the guy is checking out the hot mom in the stands, or maybe they are like me realizing that this is not a universally enforced balk, and we pass on calling it because we don't want to be conducting a pitching clinic on the field and get labeled as one of those umpires that "always has something every game." Regardless you're fooling yourself if you think this is enforced as universally as the posting here would imply. I'm just pointing that out.

Pitcher picking off in tee-ball?????? That is a pretty interesting tee-ball league you work in. Don't worry I understand your point even though technically it didn't make any sense. There's also a big difference between spinning off the free foot and stepping but not gaining ground. It looks a lot different. The spin I would call. But stepping and not gaining ground? No way. I'm fascinated by how much conviction there is. Obviously, in pro baseball, this is enforced, and I've posted about that. But funny how we think that this is a regular balk call in Federation and NCAA. This is a pretty common move and not balked is much as posters would lead you to believe here. I can remember when we would tell all the new guys breaking into NCAA baseball that there were only two real balks they needed to worry about. Faking home and faking the first. Back then. They never stopped. A change of direction was considered a stop back then. The only way that a pitcher ever got called for a balk was if they had no idea what they were doing. I had many college seasons with less than a handful of balks. I think things are a little more rigid today but not as much as you think by reading the posting here.

If you guys want to be "balk evangelists" enforcing this one knock yourselves out. You have rule support, but I am not going to be balking this anytime soon if smoothly executed unless a whole lot more of your colleagues actually start calling it. There's a huge difference between what's preached at association meetings and what's actually called in games by many umpires.

You hit it right on the head. The trend is going in the opposite direction. I've been assigning umpires since the late 1980s, and the median age is going up not down. I think we can talk a lot about why that's happening. But the first thing for any assignor is to cover the game. Very difficult to go back to an athletic director and tell them well we have to move your game is nobody good enough is available. We need to focus on reality in many of these older nonmobile umpires are the most reliable and have a lot to offer to the game. If high schools were paying $450 for a baseball game or more like college basketball you would have all kinds of incredibly fit people lining up to umpire but I am not holding my breath for anything like that to happen soon.

I have deep respect for your level of professionalism in your efforts to maintain a high level of fitness. But I think everyone needs to be careful with applying such high standards to one piece of a very large pie. I will give you an example is an umpire that I work with the area that was a catcher for a very good Division I program in the late 1960s. For a guy that's in his late 60s, he still is in good shape and still has a nice solid arm which he likes to show off from time to time in firing the ball back to the pitcher. Personally, I like a little larger strike zone, but he's one of the most consistent umpires ball and strike guys I have ever worked with. He has incredible rapport and credibility with the coaches, is an excellent rules guy and handle situations extremely well. He's also retired, so he has a lot of availability and focuses a great deal of his time on umpiring. There's one problem........ many years of catching and umpiring have taken a toll on his knees. All I'm indicating is I think it's a mistake to mandate a mechanic that's gonna require somebody like this to run down to third base all the time when it's unnecessary. He'll do it, but I see the toll that it takes on him. I think anybody who believes that this guy should not be working varsity baseball is an idiot. There may be some young umpires that are far more mobile than him but are drastically inferior in every other area of the game. It's 90° in the middle of the summer fourth or fifth day in a row of working in some young, "smart-ass mechanic connoisseur" makes the old guy run down the third base multiple times. I think this type of mechanic should be optional by the crew for what is going to work for the strengths and weaknesses of that crew. Standardizing mobility mechanics is a huge mistake. I've worked a number of games with him, and they are some of the smoothest games that I ever have. I just tell him Mike stay home I'll take care of third-base even in first and third situations and everything runs smoothly.

In a different world, you may be right. But I deal with reality. Your post implies that you are young. The ruthless reality is in my area more and more umpires are reaching the Social Security line ( eligible to receive Social Security) I assign a lot of baseball and quite frankly if we were to "retire" umpires that lost a step or were injured we would not have enough to cover our games. Not only varsity but sub-varsity as well. I suspect this is similar in other areas as well. Many times these guys are banged up with a bad knee etc. from working a lot of games, and they're actually going out and helping an assignor get his games covered and then there some idiot that's their partner that's demanding that they run down the third base because "philosophically" they think it's a better mechanic even though for that crew it's less than optimal because of the mobility of that crew. Many of these older guys are some of the most professional and reliable and handle situations way better the the less experieced "young buck". It's completely unnecessary beating them up making them run to third base when you've got a young umpire on the bases who could adequately cover the play.

Well, I just took my dog out for a walk it's cold outside. Nothing like a good dog walk to work through some Umpiring scenarios. The dog walk caused me to flip completely my position. I was thinking about it, and these glasses would be the perfect device not for a pitcher but if set up properly for hitter to start taking signs from the catcher. Philosophically I would be opposed to allowing a piece of equipment that could be utilized that way. I also know number of coaches that found out that a hitter was wearing these type of glasses they would not hesitate to stick a fastball in the kids ribs. Unless an official ruling came out allowing these types glasses, I would now not allow them.

Agreed. The way obstruction rules have evolved there no need for this type of play in baseball at any level anymore.

Based on your posting it sounds to me like you effectively would allow nine players in the field to wear attachments to their sunglasses with these bike mirrors under the premise that it's not actually mentioned in the rulebook and doesn't meet your definition of equipment. Is that your position?

Agreed. The problem is is that you have some umpires that look at this from a paradigm that if it is not specifically spelled out in black and white in the rulebook, they have no rule support or authority to prohibit something. That's completely in contrast to the elastic clause authority philosophy granted by the rulebook that I posted above. Your baseball glove analogy is a perfect example. When something new or novel comes the diamond, the umpires have to deal with it on the field. Eventually rule interpret will come out but until then umpires have no choice but to use elastic loss powers to make a decision.

Still I think I would allow the glasses but a smart umpire would have rule authority and support to not allow them.

Pro If the umpire observes any violation of these rules, he shall direct the violation to be corrected. If the violation is not corrected within a reasonable time, in the umpire’s judgment, the umpire shall eject the offender from the game, and disciplinary action, as appropriate, will be recommended. Before the game begins the umpire shall: (a) Require strict observance of all rules governing implements of play and equipment of players; Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

Equipment NCAA Baseball Rule 1 Only equipment that meets specifications published in the NCAA Baseball Rules may be used in intercollegiate competition. The rules committee suggests that manufacturers planning innovative changes in baseball equipment submit the equipment to the rules committee for review before production Rule 3 / Game Personnel and theIr DutIes Any umpire has the authority to order a player, coach or team attendant to do or refrain from doing anything that affects the administering of these rules and to enforce prescribed penalties Each umpire has the authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules

Bingo! You hit the "other colleagues" viewpoint pretty much straight on the head. On the flip side of it, his' kid is an incredibly talented athlete, and everyone knows this guy is not only a very talented coach but umpire. So it's pretty hard for him to stay low profile. Most of the coaches on the "select" scene in the area are very familiar with him as a coach and umpire. Besides having the kids shake hands with the umpire....... the first time the opponents take the field his players remain in their defensive positions waiting to shake hands with their opponents. If everyone including the umpires have not seen this, they wonder if the opponents are confused and not realize there's three outs, but they're actually waiting to shake hands. I've seen umpires I've worked with say: Hey it's three outs guys" It's an interesting dynamic. He's a retired military guy actually played baseball at one of the military prep schools. I think it was the Naval Academy. Everything is yes or no sir from him and his athletes and you get no garbage not only his players, but he will go after his parents if they say anything negative about the umpiring or opponents. Yes there are umpires that share your exact feelings about him. I've also seen parents less than enthused about the standards that he imposes upon them. lol Personally, I like the guy, but I have seen opponents absolutely paranoid that they're going to get hosed because the other teams coach is an umpire and knows the umpires assigned to the game.

I think with the differences is currently under Pro baseball interpretation if the runner could touch the bag he theoretically legally could still go after a middle infielder. I think the tweaking would bring this much more in line with what's enforced with the force play slide rule at the Federation and NCAA levels. I support this. it will definitely help clean up the game at the levels that I work as well. I like "old-school" style baseball but much of the Ty Cobb elements have already been removed from the game and we are better for that. I still think it's ridiculous that pro baseball allows the collisions at home plate. It should not have of been legal for Pete Rose to take out Ray Fosse in the 1976 All-Star game and that was 40 years ago. Time For Pro baseball to move into a safer era by removing these legal collisions.

Each code usually has a clause that indicates that nontraditional equipment needs to be approved. I would use elastic clause support and that clause if I was compelled to take the glasses out of the game for rule support. To be perfectly honest with you even reading this thread I wouldn't be compelled to remove the glasses from the game unless somebody came up with something that hasn't been posted here yet.