Coach BIll

Thank you. It's through an association. They were made aware - we treated it more as a health concern than high/drunk. Just - something was off or he can't see. Told them, (it's true) I am someone who has cataracts growing and need surgery so I know how fast vision can slip. Luckily I'm still near 20/20 but likely will need surgery in the next year or so. In fact, we stressed more we didn't think it was safe for him to be back there in HS games with his severe bailing on every pitch and turning his head. I think they were light umps as this was a late add game. I've seen a good chunk of the guys in the area and he was new to me, even though he was definitely in his late 60's or 70's. This was the first game of the day (11am)- it was not hot. If they ask his mate, I think he'll confirm what was happening. Hopefully - he will. I also know some of the orgs just need warm bodies on busy weekends, and we are in full swing now with HS in-season and travel ball ramping up. I don't handle dealing with umps - our administrator does. He really was a nice guy trying to get it right. But there were 25 head scratching moments if there was one. For instance, ball call. The kid goes - it hit me. And then he yells, "dead ball" without conferring with the field ump. (It actually did - so he ended up getting it right) Just a lot of stuff like that. It was the first time I ever saw a strike reversed to a ball because a coach questioned it. It was just a giant mess. I really try to stay in the occasional chirp to let the crew no I'm watching, but just let them do their jobs. Most of the time it's with a joke tone rather than harsh. In this case, I didn't know what to do because I truly felt for him. But I think we made a mistake not getting him off the field - even though doing so would have been uncomfortable.

These answers are great and I did feel we should have been more direct while staying respectful to not embarrass him. If it ever comes up again - these answers help. Thanks guys.

My mistake - calling them strikes - like after a runner took first on a walk - not called on the pitch. Nobody knew what was going on. My inclination was to talk to the base ump to check on him. That's all I could think of. He didn't remember the count on just about every other batter - was asking the catchers and batters - sometimes the scorer - but something was wrong. He was flinching like I've never seen, jumping back about a foot (not exaggerating). We did not notice a smell at the plate meeting - which was very quick. He was a super nice guy - and I'm guessing doesn't get many high school games - because he was petrified of about 88 mph. He had a mask on with no helmet, and that scared me for him. I feel I didn't do him a service by not addressing it. That's why I'm asking. He was older. I thought he had cataracts or was under the influence.

This is not to complain about umpires. I love you guys and empathize with you for dealing with boneheads. But what should one do when a plate umpire is clearly stoned or drunk? We'll deal with the umpire group after - but during a game. This was a varsity high school and the miscues were beyond judgment things. Something was way off. Wild pitches bouncing outside the catchers box - balls bouncing in front of home plate. This wasn't one sided. Both coaches were perplexed. The stands were actually laughing more than jeering him because everyone felt bad. Everyone knew something was wrong. I was proud of how the fans, boys, and coaches handled it. No screaming. Just being dumbfounded. But it was a lesser meaning game - non-district. But what should a coach do in a more meaningful game? Talk to the base ump. There is no doubt from everyone there something was off.

I was hearing ARod say that catchers are taught to throw at the back of the runner and so are the other infielders. I thought, "What?" I've never heard that in my life other than to catchers when the guy is outside the running lane. It's always about finding a throwing lane (other than the catcher/pitcher throwing to first. Wanted to make sure I was right in my interpretation and what I teach runners, thanks fellas. Now, if he established a lane and moved because he saw the glove moving on a throw, that would be interference, is my understanding. Right? But reading the SS setup would not be intentionally interfering with the throw. Great, no call. Fantastic play.

He'd have a different different line to run directly to the base. I understand how the rule is written - and it's very poorly written at it's literal sense from an athletic standpoint for the runner. That play was because of a bad throw by the pitcher who was near the mound and no way effected by the runner until he was right at the base straight at it. I think it needs modification. Technically they may have been correct to be able to make that call and I get that. From a playing the game standpoint - the rule could be easily improved.

I think they badly missed that one last night - but it's such a poorly written rule it's understandable. The orange base would make sense based on the current rules. If they don't add it, then they need to better clarify the rule that will allow a runner to actually run to the base with the line being on the outside edge. The orange base would probably stop a few injuries and sure make 5.09 (a)(11) far more sensible. What say you?

Probably should kick the kid out if he hit a home run and they gave him the ball. LOL It's not about showing off your knowledge of the rules - it's about getting the plays and calls right. If another coach didn't call it out, would you really care if it's not distracting? If you've got the flexibility on how you are calling balls and strikes, surely you have that flexibility too.

Got it. Thanks again. So if you can't faint to 3rd or 1st to make a play, it would seem the loosened up rule distinctly will allow the pitcher to faint to 2nd (or their would be no mention of feinting to an unoccupied base)? Very helpful. In fact, it would seem to clearly validate the ability to make the play at second, being that's the only base the pitcher can feint to provided the runner creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base. I love learning the intricacies of the rules.

Thanks. Which is what I would think and call too. Was actually a stupid question. I'm just trying to understand this "purpose of making a play" in 6.02 (A) (4) which seems to be highly misunderstood. It would seem as though if a R2 broke to third that the pitcher could feint to third then make a play.

One more question on this topic/rule. R3 breaks for home. Pitcher in set and engaged with rubber- doesn't completely stop and throws home. How do you determine if it's a play or pitch? Thanks for all the feedback guys. Seriously helpful. Saw this play and batter swung and got catcher's interference. (A-hole coach calling steals without telling batter to take twice in the same game. Two kids just missed getting hit with the swung bat.)

Awesome - thanks. I shared this idea with my coaching pal and he said I was wrong. Was emphatic it was a balk. (By the way - he's usually right.) I said, "well, not one ump has called it a balk." Then he gave me an "LOL". (Like y'all are crazy). He said every ump will call it a balk - so he won't do it. (Perhaps his confirmation bias.) Do I believe a good percentage won't know what to do? Yes. Jimurray said it's 90-10 for you. I'm guessing about 50/50 around here. (Not every ump out there stays on top of their craft like you guys do.) Any umps out there think this is a balk and my coaching friend is right? LOL

That was what I meant and what I thought. We play against a few fast kids that always go on the first pitch - and they are hard to get out even with a pitchout. I think this move would catch them. We risk the balk if they don't go - but it's a good bet and our best chance to get them.

So R1 - RHP - runner goes on first movement, can the pitcher.... Use an inside move to second and then step off. Reading the rule - it looks like the attempt to advance or even the impression of his intent to advance would allow the pitcher to treat second as though it were occupied. Am I right here?