Cato the Younger

To more specifically answer your question this is just a prediction and my opinion but I think umpiring will get more technical, and the Tower principal long touted by many basketball officials and a hallmark of good umpiring will go by the wayside. I think replay will make the batter's box rules more technical. For example, if the batter does not compete a full step and they are hit with a batted ball exiting the box most umpires will call that a foul ball. In the future, we may be reviewing that via replay with a camera attached to the backstop to see where the batter was hit. I already mentioned the "area play" at second base. Many umpires still tout this as a safety rule. I had a number of situations even last season that I did not make them touch. First baseman leaving early on plays at first base even when there's not a subsequent play will probably be more scrutinized. Many umpires including me allow the first baseman to leave early as long as the ball beats the runner and there's no subsequent play. Other than a coach after the inning walking off his duggout mentioning it ignoring the early exit has never given me a problem and I've seen it happen relatively often and I just call the batter-runner out. But I think the thing that concerns me is handling tag plays. If the ball beats the runner and fielder puts the ball down next to the base, I will call them out 100% of the time regardless if the glove actually touches the runner including any amazing hook slide the runner makes. I even routinely tell fielders good job you did the right thing, and you have to trust that the umpire will do the right thing by calling the runner out when you put the ball down next to the bag. I've had runners say he didn't tag me and my response is quite honest "he doesn't have to take you all he has to do is put the glove down next to the bag." Something that has worked for me for a long time is in danger of going the way of the "go with the plate umpire check swing call" in major league baseball. I will admit that taking away this rule of thumb is going to make many of these tag plays a lot more challenging. I think you asked a good question there's more examples, but I just wanted to give you a few that came quickly to mind.

You're not looking far enough down the road my wise friend. The fans already have video. I think as officials we are all going to be using more and more technology to make calls and not that far into the future. I am in an administrative capacity at the highschool level, and it blows my mind the video available to football coaches at the high school level using things like Huddle and only with a couple of digital cameras. It is only going to be a matter of time before there will be a push for officials to use replay to get calls right even in a traditional sport like baseball. It is still cost prohibitive now and certainly prohibited by rule in Federation and except in certain situations at the NCAA level, but there are too many AD's and coaches who have little to no respect what is really involved in officiating along with it's traditions not to make the rule change in the name of progress and getting the call right. As John Kibler indicated when we discussed the check swing situation above; decades of tradition of major league umpires not needing to have criteria for a check swing other than if it were close you went with the plate guy went bye-bye in few short years. Umpires were looking stubborn and incompetent with the long used rule of thumb. You have to remember that group of umpires was also way more hardcore regarding the ethos of umpiring then the umpires are today at all levels including the major leagues. If they abandoned a "rule of thumb" with decades of tradition the modern more pliable contemporary umpiring today will throw things like the "area play at second" base away faster then you could make a delayed dead ball signal.

Agreed by letter rule, you are correct. But the key element is still showing the umpire that he has control. This method of handling this play makes a very challenging play less difficult. This would be something I would think you would appreciate. One of the more difficult force play calls for a base umpire is when the throw is in the dirt...... ball still beats the runner, but the first base person does not glove it cleanly. A lot is going on with a runner nearing the base, sometimes with a fielder scrambling and you are keeping track of two key elements at the same time..... ball and runner. Asking "to see it" when the runner is now long passed the base adds a great deal of creditability to having slow timing and processing a very tough call. It also makes life easier. If he keeps the ball in glove, you have an out. Ball comes out safe. What can they argue? Only that the runner beat it or the old "cop out" for umpires with poor timing that "he had it long enough". But after the token complaints everything simmers down. The guys with just slow timing that don't sell the call with a good verbal catch a lot more heat. You can handle this play however you want, but I offer this up as something that has rule support and has worked very well for me over many seasons at multiple levels including high school and college.

Carl is a great resource to the community.

Just making sure if I put in an order over the next couple of days I would be able to get these before Christmas. Thinking about giving them as gifts to a couple of umpires I work with.

Don't take it to personally my friend. I do enjoy everyone's perspective Including yours. I will say that when an umpire always goes to the default "rule of thumb" to handle a difficult situation he is taking an easy way out. Not saying this is you, but based upon your posting above it certainly appeared that you were. The tide will be turning very soon for us with the advancing camera technology. The new iPhones can shoot 4K video with stunning slow-motion instant replay. What comes down the pipeline next? Many of these rules of thumb that were "pure gold" for us in the past are all going to need to be examined soon as technology will definitely influence our credibility at all levels. If we always stick to the rules of thumb, our credibility will suffer and not only at the higher levels. I will give you a good example. I spent some time with John Kibler before he passed away. He indicated to me that when he first broke into the NL very few games were televised. As games were televised and camera technology evolved including replay and slow-motion video the major-league umpires who in the past had a "if in doubt" the batter checked his swing philosophy suddenly realized that in these "if in doubt " situations it was actually appearing that the batter swung on the slow motion replay on tv. It didn't take long for them to realize they were taking a lot of heat because the batter appeared to be swinging. A number of major league umpires changed their philosophy in the 1970s and early 1980s calling strikes on situations that in the past they would have ruled the batter checked his swing. This was television and technology changing the way umpires called these situations. The general "rule of thumb" back then according to Kibler wants to say "no he didn't go" in an "if in doubt" situation to support the plate umpire. Obviously if the plate umpire is coming down to the base umpire plate umpire ruled the batter did not go. The rule of thumb went out the window when base umpires were losing their credibility supporting the plate umpire. There a great YouTube video that I'm sure a number of you've seen that a batter pretends to be hit. The grainy YouTube video is pretty convincing that he was not. We are going to need more tools in our toolbelt in the future other than some rule of thumb that Jim Evans gave out either at the Academy Of Professional Umpiring or his amateur clinic in Arizona. That's all I'm attempting to do here. If I can't tell it hit his hand, he's going to first base, or I'm calling a strike accordingly. But this is the type of situation that's going to become more challenging for us down the road not less, and I think it's important we continue to dialogue about these types of things.

If posting my opinion is insulting you I am truly sorry. Hopefully, we can both find some value in what each others posting here in the future. That said there is nothing in your posting (you have posted often around here giving me a good sample size) that changes my opinion or assessment of what I posted above. For example you have posted that one of the more challenging situations that a plate umpire faces is an"easy call" because you discovered a technique endorsed by Jim Evans that helps you deal with that situation. As for my experience........ please do share........ what would that be? A low post count here has nothing to do with my "experience" in umpiring.

"Why are so many folks looking for a reason to not send the batter to 1B?"OP posted a play where the consensus is the batter is out. Sometimes you are not sending them to first you are calling them out because they are swinging. Secondly there are situations where the ball is first off the bat and then glancing the batter after "bat-ball" contact that really should be a foul ball by rule. Other times you actually may be deeked. Some of the situation even involve batters trying to get hit turning into a curve ball for example. Sure I have used the simple formulaic solution but that doesn't mean we are always getting it right, and the handling of this situation is solved as what has been posted by some earlier in the thread would imply. As for the pro, schools teaching (allegedly Jim Evans as posted above) it again is excellent advice to handle a difficult situation and it's my default "rule of thumb as well". So I am doing actually what many of you guys are doing in many of my games. Where I disagree is when someone implying that this is an easy call and acting like the situation is solved like a basic math problem because of good survival advice for a difficult situation provided to hundreds of umpires of varying abilities at an umpire school. This "rule of thumb" generally will keep you out of trouble but don't fool yourself into thinking that it means you are always getting the play right.

It's not an easy call. Instead you have found a simple formulaic solution to a very difficult umpire situation and you are probably missing more of these types of calls then you realise or your ego would allow you to admit in your games with such a sophomoric approach. Is your advice sound for a new umpire or one who's unsure? Agreed. But it's like telling an umpire "if in doubt call them out." Not bad advice to handle a challenging situation and for damage control for an umpire who is about to lock up in a game....... but that doesn't in anyway guarantee you are getting the call correct when you call them out. The same goes when applying one of these "rules of thumb" to handle a difficult situation like check swing/potential hit batter/foul ball decisions.

And why is that??? I understand the current rule. But the reality is this is one of the toughest situations that a plate umpire has to deal with creating endless headaches season after season. I know there is umpires that enjoy making difficult challenging calls and educating players/ coaches and fans with their knowledge of "what the rule actually is" but these are the partners that usually create more problems they solve when I am working with them. I prefer rule interps being written that make administering the game easier without affecting the balance of the game. I have a dozen or more of these situations every season explaining to some coach with fans yelling at me and a kid waving his hand around that the hand is not part of the bat or in some cases making a tough call on a pitch that jams the batter, and now the player is claiming it hit his fingers, not the bat. Does he stay or is he awarded first. This is a call I am guessing a great deal on. Maybe you are better than me and this is an easy call for you. But I doubt it. I am not expecting the rule to change, but the reality is these calls would be a ton easier to deal with if the hand were interpreted to be part of the bat. Most really tough calls would become easy to call foul balls by rule.

Great advice. Having slow timing (not making quick calls) all game also helps you sell this call with taking your time not making a quick call here as well. In defense of OP...... hit batters situations are still one of the top 5 hard calls I still have challenges with on the plate especially with composite bats. Bring back the aluminum and it's distinct sound.Composite is so much harder to distinguish from bone. I know the rule, but life would be easier if the hands were interpreted to part of the bat by rule. Many of these check swing/ hit batter situations would certainly be easier to deal with.

This reminds me one of my favorite stories with a "pain in the rear end coach" that I still deal with each season. Two strikes and two outs in the sixth inning in a one run ball game and the batter swings...... I hear a ping on the aluminum bat ( fortunately this is before composite bats which makes the call little more challenging) ball sails to the backstop, and I call the ball foul. The batter starts acting up claiming he got hit in the hand. This was a delayed reaction......the ball and hit the backstop before the batter reacted in any way. So I was planning on sticking with the foul ball determination......... that was until my buddy "coach hemorrhoid" decided to show up on the scene jogging out waving his arms pointing at his hand. Coach H comes out and starts complaining that his player was hit in the hand, and I screwed another call-up and I need to "fix it." I told him I'm proud of you that you would be out here asking me to do the right thing in this situation. He gave me a very stern but puzzled look. I pointed out that he very well might be right. So maybe I do need to "fix it" and if that's the case the innings over because the batter swung so that would be strike three. He literally ran back to the dugout yelling he's right that was a foul ball....... play ball.

Back in the early 90s that was a top-of-the-line mask. I owned one. Very light and it had very light padding for the era. Mask have evolved significantly since that mask's heyday and it would be a basic mask by today's standards. If you're looking to sell it I don't think it's worth a lot. With a decent set of pads it would be a decent mask to still umpire with.

Agreed I listen to the audio book at the start of the season and it takes me back to Umpire School every time. Highly recommended even if you pay for it.

I'm just going to throw this out there too. While I was shopping over the weekend, everybody was pretty light in what they were offering from usual suspects regarding umpire equipment. That said Gerry Davis was offering free shipping? Mr. Davis, you're an excellent umpire but could use a little help in coming up with a decent Black Friday/Cyber Monday deal.

Thanks for posting the pictures. Making me full of regrets. I ordered the aluminum Wilson mask from ump-attire with a set of Team Wendy replacement pads part of their Black Friday/cyber Monday sale. I'm liking the look of the Rawlings mask since I've seen your picture. Looking forward to the mass arriving and I guess I can return it and consider the Rawlings mask instead/

Awesome job! How did you drop the weight if you don't mind me asking?

I'll throw another example at you guys for comment regarding a technique that I've used for a long time. Ground ball to the infield........ throw to first base is trapped by first base on the ground just before the batter-runner touches the base. Many times the first baseman will stay stretched out with his glove on the ground looking at you to see what your call is going to be. At this point if I'm working according to the plan I'm in a hands on the set position realizing that I have a situation. Does the first baseman have control????? This for many umpires is a challenging play but for me a technique makes it relatively simple. My solution? I ask...... "Let's see it?" If the first baseman can lift the ball up, that's control, and I call the runner out. If the ball comes out of the glove or the ball does not come off the ground..... runner is safe. I sell it with a safe signal, a bobble signal and a safe follow-up signal just like many umpires do on the front half of a double play that the ball is bobbled, or dropped. Challenging call suddenly becomes easy. Sure coaches will come out of the dugout and challenge the call from time to time but again going through the elements of the catch Including complete control and a voluntary and intentional release and its checkmate by rule and by umpire judgment. This has worked for me for a long time with never causing a problem or even close to an ejection other than one time or I recall a coach complaining that there were six close calls in the game and everyone went against him but that had nothing to do with the validity of this methodology for handling a challenging play that happens several times each season.

Not a bad approach as most will offer it up the ball anyways. I still will make the case for asking. You tend to catch way less heat then if you have excellent timing, and there is a noticeable delay before the call. Crys of......" why did you wait so long .... ask for help" usually following such delays without a verbal on a play that we would praise as excellent timing like in the OP. I don't have any issues with an umpire not asking but I disagree that it is a flawed or problematic mechanic to ask to see the ball on certain types of tag plays.

I remember working with an old-timer that had all kinds of secret signals that he would flash out. I couldn't follow most of them so I just always went with his call and we never had a problem. But in the pregame that he would run at the trunk of his car (never mine) he would warn you not to use any signals with him because he may miss what your signal means and would just go with what he had. I miss those days. Good times!

I worked with a lot of old-school guys when I was a young umpire. I enjoyed working with them a lot. Most of them were awesome at supporting you as an umpire as long as you didn't show them up. I worked with a guy that pretty much would've met the profile of the guy above. If a player or coach started going to him questioning a call that I made, he was the type of guy that would say to the coach...... "You know why that guys out? Because he said so....... Now get out of here." Those coaches never lingered with those guys either usually just shacking their head while making their way back to the dugout. I certainly miss working with many of them even with all their quirks and stubbornness.

Grayhawk I love your posting so, please don't think that I am always looking to disagree with you. But when the fielder exposes his glove, and the ball comes flying out wouldn't that show that it was not complete control and not a voluntary release???? I use this all the time at plays at the plate and also at second on steals. The ball comes out like you indicate above........ no problem safe. I have used this technique hundreds of times with no issues other than a coach coming out for an explanation. It then gives me an opportunity to review the elements of tag play including complete control and a voluntary release. This technique encourages good timing and makes a sometimes very difficult call easy. Even by the letter of the rule would be an accurate call. If they have the ball out....no ball safe. The difficult situation becomes less challenging and prevents an umpire from locking up as doubt sets in after the play.

I have blue but not the black sitting in a box. I went to the Ump-attire bags several years ago. FYI these bags are pretty thin (the material) compared to the bags that are out there now.

I am already glad I joined this site and am now pondering how many other rules I have misread while practicing my delayed-dead-ball signal for next years high school baseball season.

Until tonight I figured coaches would love this rule change knowing they should get a warning before anything bad happens. Now I am less concerned as coaches will hate this rule, and many umpires will not like enforcing it with the automatic restriction. So I see it going the way of the batters box rule. I think where it does get interesting for me is when I give a written warning next season is that I have never restricted a coach to the dugout ever. This will be something new to reconcile in my game management philosophy. The warning has worked well for me, but I have not had to deal with the frowny faced coach sulking because he can't go out to third base to coach because of my warning because he didn't do anything bad enough to go bye-bye.