midmoump

MST, Phillips said that Yount was properly the DH and batting in the fifth position. When Yount batted in the first, he batted out of order according to Phillips Pete

I count four different approaches to this problem by highly respected baseball minds: The Ford Approach I have no idea what the umpire crew was thinking and cannot support their actions with the rulebook. Perhaps they were trying to be fair and applied 9.03©. The Phillips Approach Phillips presumes that designating the DH takes precedence in creating the lineup. Because Yount was listed as the DH, he must be the DH and hit in the five spot. Rule 4.01© states that the lineup card shall designate which hitter is to be used as the DH, and the other player positions are listed as a courtesy. That suggests that the player designated as the DH takes precedence over all other positions listed in the lineup, so Yount is the DH and bats fifth. When he took the field in the first inning, the DH was eliminated and the pitcher must be inserted into the three spot. Additional support for Phillips can be found in Rule 6.10, which discusses designating one player, other than the pitcher, to serve as DH. In this case only 9 players are listed on the lineup card, and one is listed as the DH and also the centerfielder. When a player is listed twice, obviously one player has been mistakenly omitted, but a designated DH is locked in under the Phillips approach. Nine players must take the field, but the DH does not play the field. [Rule 4.17]. Under the Phillips approach, Young could have gone to centerfield in the first and the Brewers would not have lost their DH (Yount). The Springstead Approach The BRD cites an official PBUC interpretation from Mike Fitzpatrick on page 311 of the 28th edition. Fitzpatrick says that if a player is listed twice on the lineup card, the first time the player bats locks him into that position in the batting order. This seems to support the argument that when Yount batted in the first, he was locked into that position. The lineup error eliminated the DH for the game, so when Young batted in the second he was an unannounced pinch hitter for the pitcher in the fifth spot. Fitzpatrick and Springstead seem to agree. Don Denkinger applied this "error eliminates the DH" approach during a game in 1976. When Tigers manager Ralph Houk incorrectly listed two players as DH in the lineup, Denkingers eliminated the DH for the game. A different interpretation of Rule 6.10 also supports the Springstead approach. While Milwaukee filled ten slots on the lineup card, only nine players are listed. Therefore, the game starts with only nine players, meaning centerfielder Yount is in the three hole and pitcher Wegman is in the fifth spot. J/R Approach J/R calls this situation a “self-correcting error.†Yount obviously cannot assume both spots in the lineup. When Yount played centerfield, he must be the centerfielder and another (Young) player must be the DH. In other words, “no harm, no foul.†So which one is correct? Pete (maybe this thread should be called Umpiring 601: Introduction to Theoretical umpiring)

The plot thickens. . . Marty Springstead, at the AL office, disagreed with the Phillips crew position. He stated that Yount should have remained in the game [in the three hole] and pitcher Wegman should have been placed into the fifth slot. Here is the news story from The Milwaukee journal: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19880830&id=g-AjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5CoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3086,6940076 If it helps, here is a link to the box score: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/MIL/MIL198808280.shtml Pete

The umpire crew of Dale Ford, Mike Reilly, John Shulock, and Mark Johnson made the initial ruling. Two days later umpire Dave Phillips told The Milwaukee Journal that he and his crew (Dave Phillips, Larry Young, Steve Palermo, and Dan Morrison) consulted the rulebook and decided that the initial ruling was incorrect. Phillips explained his rationale to The Journal: “You can't have the designated hitter in the lineup unless you so designate before the game,†said Phillips. “They designated Yount as the designated hitter. They also designated him as the center fielder.†“If Yount is the designated hitter before the game, he actually batted out of order the first time.†“Young was an unannounced substitute for Yount [in the second inning]. In reality, he wasn't in the lineup. He pinch hit for Yount.†Phillips and his crew decided that Yount still should have had to leave the game and Wegman should have been placed in the batting order in the third spot. “When Yount went out to center field, they lose the DH,†said Phillips. “A designated hitter, when he goes out onto the field, he can no longer be a designated hitter.†Do you agree with this? Pete (with a sly smile)

Here is a rules conundrum to ponder whilst we wait for the grass to green. . . Late in the 1988 season, the Milwaukee Brewers hosted the Detroit Tigers. The official lineup card listed future Hall of Famer Robin Yount batting third playing centerfield, and batting fifth as the DH. In the TOP of the first Yount took his position in centerfield. In the bottom of the first Yount batted third and lined out to second base. In the bottom of the second Mike Young batted in the five spot and lined out to shortstop. After Young lined out, Tigers manager Sparky Anderson complained. The umpire crew removed Yount from the game on the theory that Young had pinch hit for Yount in the five hole. A new outfielder took Yount’s position batting third and Young remained in the DH spot batting fifth (and the pitcher remained in the game). Is that correct? What should have happened? Pete

Ah! Jason is telling on me! The Schutt and Douglas are the lowest profile chest protectors I have tested. For what its worth, the Douglas is also the lightest hard shell CP tested. To view all of the Midwest Ump chest protector reviews, clink this link: http://midwestump.blogspot.com/search/label/Chest%20Protectors Is the Schutt safe? Well, compared to what? It's not going to burst into flames when hit by a foul ball. The first Schutt CP I tested was down right dangerous. This redesign still has some issues, but I wouldn't call it dangerous. Is it less protective than the Douglas? Absolutely. Especially against Ken's insults. Pete

Wilson, like many other manufacturers, has a one year warranty for product defects. Manufacturers differ on what they consider a "product defect." Any mask will bend or break when enough force is applied. Early in my umpiring I had a hollow core steel mask bend when a DA high school catcher missed a 90+ mph fastball (yes, that kid was drafted) and it hit me square in the mask. I sent it back to the manufacturer, who replaced it - no questions asked. I have also heard of others who have sent their masks back to the manufacturer and had them replaced. In fairness, a mask that bends when hit by a foul ball, etc. is generally not a defective product. It is actually doing what it was designed to do (see post above). On the other hand, a mask that explodes and causes "a concussion, broken bones in his left ear, and an inner-ear fluid leak from his right ear" is a product defect. Pete

Think of it this way. . . when a baseball hits your mask, its energy has to go somewhere. The energy is either deflected somewhere else or absorbed into something else. While not getting hit at all is best, deflection is second best. Its great when the energy from a glancing blow causes your mask to spin off your face. In that case the energy from the ball is both deflected and transferred. The ball hits the mask and a great portion of the ball's energy continues off to the backstop, a portion of the ball's energy is absorbed by the mask cage, a portion by the mask pads, a larger portion causes your mask to spin, and a portion is absorbed by your head. In many cases so much of the ball's energy is deflected and absorbed, that the umpire feels little or nothing. It all depends on how much energy is transferred to you head. The process of absorbing the ball's energy is worst for the umpire. That's when the ball hits you square and falls at your feet. From a safety aspect, a throw-away cage that absorbs all of the ball's impact force would be best. Can you image? When hit by the ball, the cage collapses and no energy is transferred to your head. Simply toss it aside and put on another mask. Another option is an indestructible mask frame and ultra energy absorbent mask pads. Unfortunately, we don't have these products. What we have are cage materials and mask pads of varying effectiveness. A cage that does not bend is very effective at transferring the ball's energy to something else (i.e. your noggin). A cage that bends has taken the ball's energy to bend the mask cage. That is why steel (and not titanium) cages are used by many MLB umpires. The steel bends quicker than titanium, and therefore less of the ball's impact is transferred to the umpire's head. So what do you want? A cage that will not bend, but transfers more impact energy to your head, or a cage that will bend and absorbs more of the impact energy? In an ideal world we would always choose the safer design. Unfortunately, purchasing throw away masks is not economical. Pete

Misdemeanor conviction and $860 fine for assaulting a 16 year old umpire. Oh, and this from the Asheville Citizen-Times: "Rob Mangone, president of Fletcher Youth Baseball and Softball, said at the time that the league had no tolerance for such behavior and that Cody would be banned from coaching in the league at least for the rest of the season." Wow. Just wow.

K-Finn and his Scotchguard Majestics. . . Warren, you know I'm a big fan. I appreciate your efforts in keeping this site going. I know it is a daily grind. Congratulations on your well-deserved award! Pete

The 2011 Midwest Ump Umpire Merchandise Products of the Year (UMPY Awards) are now posted at: http://midwestump.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-umpire-merchandise-products-of.html Included in this article is a big surprise for Warren! Pete

How about a "sticky" at the top of the Equipment forum where we can post sales we have discovered? Pete

Ahhh, good to know! Pete

O.K., this HAS to end any serious debate. . . Fitts has to be the 2011 U/E Gear Junkie Of The Year award winner (http://umpire-empire...have-a-contest/) You ABSOLUTELY deserve the G-JOTY award! Heck, we may even need to rename this award "The Fittsy." Very cool Mizuno (2QA-121, right?) Pete :)

Geez, Warren! I know you're working on your timing, but make the call already! :)

Chris, I'd be happy to review your product on Midwest Ump. Send me an email at pete.reiser@yahoo.com Pete

Kevin, I appreciate the comments and suggestions. The UMPY winners for the accessory category in 2009 were the Nutty Buddy and the Ump-Attire Ultimate Ball Bag. In 2010 the Diamond Deluxe Pro Umpire Equipment Gear Bag won that category. I realize that the accessory category is pretty broad, and I've considered making a separate category for health and safety devices. Maybe next year. I hear that we will see a number of changes in umpire products next year, so it should be exciting. This year I think there is a clear accessory winner [how's that for a teaser?] I'm still trying to finish up a few reviews before the UMPY announcements, including the new All Star CP and leg guards. So look for those reviews in the next few days. There seems to be a lot of support for the Wilson titanium mask. Personally, I'm not a big fan of this mask, but I will reconsider based on this support. Pete

Fellas, I'm about a week away from publishing the 2011 UMPY Awards on the Midwest Ump website. I have reached a firm decision for several categories, but I'm still debating a couple. I could really use some suggestions and insights (especially the traditional mask category). Here are the categories: Traditional Mask: Helmet: Chest Protector: Leg Guards: Umpire Accessory: Shirt: Pants: Shoe: Training Aid: Thank you for your assistance. Pete

Me: "He's out!" Coach: "Call it both ways!" Me: "Um. . . 'she's out?'" :shrug:

O.K., here it is. Read the article below and you will find the ultimate answer for the absolute bestest umpire mask in the history of all time umpire masks. . . http://midwestump.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-is-best-umpire-mask-ultimate-guide.html

Major, Perchance you have been hit in the head once too often? I think we can agree that the ball's energy must go somewhere, and that deflection causes less of the ball's impact energy to transfer to your mask and head. If the ball hits a flat surface, more energy will be transferred to the mask, and consequently your head, than if the ball is deflected. A low profile mask has more "flatter" surfaces, while a standard profile mask has more "curved" surfaces. The curved surfaces will increase the opportunities for the ball to deflect its energy somewhere else, and more opportunities to spin your mask (and transfer energy away from your head). That's how I see it, although I wish I would have spent less time sleeping during physics class. I agree with JohnnyG, "Flatter masks will deflect less." However, that is just one factor that should be considered when choosing a mask. The pads, frame material, design, how the mask is worn, and the shape of your face (as suggested by kylejt) are all factors that play a part in impact deflection and absorbtion. Pete

The play's not over 'til its over. See, for example: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10082289

I can't believe I'm defending one of these knuckleheads, but Royals announcer Ryan Lefebvre (son of MLB player and manager Jim Lefebvre) is actually pretty knowledgeable, especially about the rules. That means he can distinguish interference and obstruction 9 times out of 10, and makes fewer stupid statements than most. I think his point was that players and managers chirp about balls and strikes all the time and the "automatic ejection" is not often enforced immediately. Even in this case Danley appeared to warn Yost before the EJ. That said, I thought it was a good EJ and Danley handled it great. He allowed Yost to vent, but didn't take any crap either. Pete

What noumpere said. Here is a video example of the MLB guys reversing a balk: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=13905969 -Pete

Lord knows I hate umpire bashing at any level, but I really don't like how this play was handled. . . http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=16972107 It seems to me that Umpire Hernandez forgot that he and Posada were at first and not at home plate. Where is the call? And catcher transplant Jorge immediately understands the umpire's no call as a missed touch of first. I would like to see a safe call in this situation to indicate that the runner beat the throw (having acquired the base by passing it). Anything more is up to the defense. Pete