Forest Ump

Oh Snap. It looks like you may be right. Thats great.

A seperate post for each question would be best. Everybody taking the test has a different question 17. Regarding the ball hitting the runner question. I think the key to that answer is this statement in the question. The ball has not passed the third baseman, but he cannot reasonably make a play on the ball. The rule reads e. A fair-hit ball touches a runner in fair territory before touching an infielder or an umpire and before passing an infielder who has a chance to make a play on the ball, i'm leaning towards answer A The ball is alive and in play.

Reason Number 263 why Fed rules suck..

Here's the description from the Ump-Attire site. DescriptionAdapt easily to changing weather conditions with this convertible umpire jacket (pullover), the same style worn on-field by MLB umpires. This Smitty jacket replaces the Majestic jacket that has been discontinued. It is available in black only. 100% horizontal ripstop polyester"Zip-off" removable long sleeves convert to short sleeves to easily move from cooler to warmer weather or as on-field conditions change.Moisture wicking and water repellent for warm or rainy conditionsColor: all-blackSized to accommodate chest protector underneath - size down for base It sounds like the same exact jacket.

Ask for a military hem for your plate pants. A military hem will have about a 1/2 inch difference between the front and back. You will have a good break at the front and better coverage on the back. Cut off the loop on the back of your plate shoes so your pants don't hang up on it..

The runner intentionally tried to interfere. He raised his arms in an attempt to prevent the fielder from turning the double play. Regardless of the outcome, there was clear intention on the runners part. That's the reason for the penalty. 8-5d. The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared out;

You should include in your pregame, especially if working with a new partner, the procedures that the two of you will use regarding getting help. As mentioned by others, you really want to sell that call. Remember the acronym ICE. Is it Important? Is it Close? Is it Exciting? Those are the ones you want to sell hard. In your case, you can use a secondary signal of pointing at the bag and saying, "He on it. He's on it. He's out (with a good hammer)!

You have to distinguish between bench jockeying or cheering for their team mate. It's a fine line. If they make a comment directed at the player or the team, that's bench jockeying. It's not allowed. Call time and issue a team warning for bench jockeying. Follow that up with an ejection if you have too. Usually the warning will take care of business. If you nail em for cheering,.........well.... that's being OOO.

This. +1

Agreed. +1

Exactly. Don't use the word interference when explaining this call to the coach. It's a safety rule used in HS and College. On a force play, if the runner chooses to slide, he must do so with his entire legs, trunk and arms directly into the base or in a direction away from the fielder. Richvee's post has a great link to the Arizona Baseball Association video detailing this call. Additionally, I think anyone can download the NCAA rule book, which in my opinion explains this rule in a much clearer way than the Fed book does. There are only some minor differences between NCAA and Fed. Fed does not allow the pop up or contact beyond the base. I made this call seven times last season. The most ever. Three as a BU and four as PU. One of the calls was made at home on a bases loaded 6-2-3 play.

I'll work a deep B with R3 only and two outs if I can determine that F5 is not going to hold the runner or attempt a play. I've found that the younger the age, the more likely the F5 is going to attempt a play, so I don't do it.

​Exactly.

Hey Kid....You just received some great advice from some seasoned umpires. Heed it. Umpire with the rule book, not by the rule book. .....and never throw your partners under the bus.....never.

Horrible commentary. They are glamorizing it, even picking sides. I've had it once this season in a D2 series. The plate guy, a former marine, wasted no time telling both teams to stand down or they would be ejected.

That's good information and it makes sense.

What were the final results of the play? Did they get the FPSR?

Alot of guys are not coming around and getting 90 degrees on bunts or anymore. I was at a clinic earlier this year where I heard someone mention that they aren't doing that mechanic. I disagree. Perhaps if U1 sets up at 90 degrees, he can see the non tag.

It's getting late and I just woke up from a well deserved nap but I'll take a crack at it. NCAA only of course. B, A, D, C, B, B, B, B, B, C Edited the next morning. Two are wrong above.

Paronto's Rules Interpretations from April, 2015 8-5a, Arkansas at Vandy, Home Plate Baseline (Watch on Hudl or on NCAA site on the Arbiter) A base runner is allowed a 3-foot lane directly to his next base, or last base. Any movement outside that three-foot lane to avoid a tag constitutes “out of the basepath†and the runner should be called out. This path may start beyond a base or plate and returns to the plate when the base runner has passed the plate or base

I wouldn't call the guy a idiot. The OP doesn't mention the level of this game. It could be a new guy just starting out. Many of us made these kind of mistakes when we started. Never forget we are a brotherhood.

I've got obstruction on this because the fielder has to chase the ball and that carries him into the runners path (all codes). If the ball had come to a rest and the fielder was about to pick it up, interference would be the call. Chase equals obstruction, step and a reach equals interference. There's an R3, so the PU stayed back and didn't get a good look at it. At any rate, what ever you do call, you better sell the heck out of it.

Yep. He made a great call and looked cool and calm after the ejection. Thanks for posting that.

Interesting. I tend to answer no...unless I'm 100% This is how it was taught to me at the college clinics I have attended. It was actually a point hammered on at one clinic to always answer "Yes" when asked. The logic was that you open yourself up to discussion if you say "No" or go into any detail. Batter: Is that the top? Umpire: No. Batter: How much more? or Batter: Is that the top? Umpire: Yes. End of discussion.1 I understand the logic, but why does giving B a more truthful response legitimately invite a discussion. Any further discussion would end very soon after it began, "knock it off...get in the box". I can't imagine it going any further than that. Look at it from this perspective. Anytime a batter ask, "Is that the top, bottom, as far out, as far in", he's arguing balls and strikes with you. It's subtle because only you and the catcher hear it, but it is challenging your zone. Don't think for a minute he's asking you for help. No way. That's why you shut it down by just saying yes. So you shut down the discussion by telling him a lie. How do you shut it down when F1 paints the REAL corner for K3. And what does this little white lie do to what F2 is doing back there ? Does F2 now think that the KZ is tighter than it really is ? I agree that you don't want to entertain a discussion (and I wouldn't). I just don't see the need to feed him bull$#!+. There are other ways to end the discussion. Nobody is telling a lie here. You have to recognize what that question actually is. It's arguing balls and strikes. Plain and simple. It's not a discussion. You shut it down with a simple answer. I shut it down by saying yes without hesitation when I hear it. That's how I manage my games. That's how it was taught to me by people with a higher pay grade than me. I usually hear this question on called strikes at the top of the zone. There usually isn't much left of the zone when they ask. I suppose if a batter asked me that type of question when there is more of the zone left to go, I may tell him. I've never really thought of it. I don't think it has happened to me. Probably will now. Hey Bob, you're wrong.The big guy from PO says so.

Interesting. I tend to answer no...unless I'm 100% This is how it was taught to me at the college clinics I have attended. It was actually a point hammered on at one clinic to always answer "Yes" when asked. The logic was that you open yourself up to discussion if you say "No" or go into any detail. Batter: Is that the top? Umpire: No. Batter: How much more? or Batter: Is that the top? Umpire: Yes. End of discussion.1 I understand the logic, but why does giving B a more truthful response legitimately invite a discussion. Any further discussion would end very soon after it began, "knock it off...get in the box". I can't imagine it going any further than that. Look at it from this perspective. Anytime a batter ask, "Is that the top, bottom, as far out, as far in", he's arguing balls and strikes with you. It's subtle because only you and the catcher hear it, but it is challenging your zone. Don't think for a minute he's asking you for help. No way. That's why you shut it down by just saying yes.