StatsUmp

Even if I don't know you personally, I consider you a darn good umpire by virtue of your working D3/Juco games. From what I've read here, one has to be beyond good to qualify for and stay at that level. Empirically, sportsmanship - especially from fans - seems to be on the decline more in recent years. I also officiate basketball and I've had to remove a fan from basketball games 2 of the last 3 seasons: one for directing profanity to me repeatedly during a dead ball and one for a (verbal) personal attack during a dead ball. This spring, I had a game where the pitching for both teams wasn't particularly strong with both pitchers all over the place and struggling to throw strikes with any sort of consistency. Between that and the fact it was one of my first games of the season, I struggled with setting a good strike zone and I knew it. The fact there was such strong reaction to borderline pitches without regard to the correctness of the ball/strike calls was surprising - as if those reacting felt I was deliberately trying to screw over the pitchers when it was nothing more than the combination of early season rust, an off night for me, and the pitchers struggling just as much. I also blame social media. Because I have sports-related hobbies, the social media algorithm has suggested I might like clips of people complaining about umpire calls - most of which turn out to be correct with the partisan/rabid fans not knowing the rules or disliking them being applied properly against their child athletes. The comments are much worse, sadly. I've actually started to click the "I don't like this" links because I'm getting tired of seeing that crap being normalized. I honestly wonder if this was something that the failed rule proposal for this year wanted to address - the one that would have allowed baseball umpires to restrict to the dugout for more offenses, namely those where the only existing options are ignore, warn, or eject. Appropriate use of restriction to the dugout for the rest of the game would be a useful tool. If a team only has nine and a player gets restricted for inappropriate behavior, oh well; they now have to finish shorthanded with an out for the empty slot. If they have subs available, they now have to burn a sub sooner than anticipated. We as umpires can only hope restrictions in those scenarios would be enough of an attention-getter to deter the bad behavior prompting the restrictions.

I had a game where I called INT on a runner who chose to run in front of F5 and subsequently hindered F5's ability to throw to first. The offensive HC starts insisting, "There was no contact!" I inform him contact isn't necessary for INT. After the game, I learn the head coach is a registered with the state as an umpire - making me wonder if he was trying to test my rules knowledge or if he truly believes contact is required despite having a copy of the rule book that states otherwise. 🤔

This is good to know at any point in the season. I once had a game where my partner as PU had an argument with the visiting 1BC. Later, partner told me he had ejected the 1BC in a prior game. Had I known that before the game, perhaps I could have deescalated the situation myself with the 1BC and stopped the argument before it could happen. On the flip side, I recently had a game with a coach whose behavior didn't cross the line but still got on my radar. It would be all but certain this would be discussed with my partner should I have this team again so we can both can be aware of it and be prepared to nip any issues in the bud in the current game. I might even emphasize that we don't want to go looking for trouble because every game is a fresh start, but we should be prepared if and when trouble arrives. I'd think it's good to go into game knowing a coach's tendencies or rules knowledge so that a coach taking full advantage of the player/DH rule or executing specific plays in certain scenarios - whether on offense of defense - doesn't take any one by surprise. We might not necessarily need to do anything different for a post-season game, but the key is to take the time to have a meaningful pregame discussion and add anything that might be required by the governing association - especially if there is at least one crew member new to the post-season.

This has been my experience as well. What I do its probably similar to what others have already shared: I'll point to the right instead of using the hammer for an U3K - verbalizing "Strike 3!" for a called third - followed by a safe signal to show I saw the uncaught ball. If by some chance the catcher has sharp enough reflexes to scoop the ball up and tag the B-R before I can give the safe signal, I may skip that part and go straight to calling the out on the tag. Timing is everything, especially with atypical plays.

What am I missing here? Someone can get (administratively) ejected for simply batting out of order? 🤔 Most of these make me wish, "Why?" was an acceptable response.

In Michigan pitchers who didn't max out their pitch count in game one can pitch in both games of a doubleheader, the MHSAA FAQ states: I saw this happen last year in a freshman doubleheader (two five inning games by league rule). F1 pitched the entire first game and had pitches remaining. He started the nightcap and pitched until he maxed out his daily count.

Umpires in my association didn't receive any guidance nor did the subject come up. With that in mind... If a player did it in a manner described by @UAME, a simple, "Don't do that," or friendly warning may suffice. Conversely, someone doing it in an egregious manner to show up the PU likely deserves nothing less than ejection. This may also be something to pregame with partners to see how they handled any instances of it. If nothing else, pregame it try to be on the same page that day.

I watched the last 2 1/2 innings when I found the game by chance on TV. I didn't realize Porter was mic'd up or loud enough for microphones to pick up his saying, "No," on balls. I'm not sure if broadcasts are phasing it out (I don't catch many sports events on TV these days), but Fox didn't have a strike zone box on the screen. For what little I saw, I thought Porter did a good job, and the scorecard confirms my initial impression. Great last couple of innings some of the fine defensive plays by both teams.

I hope you were able to give him constructive post-game feedback about those mistakes and have him be receptive to it. Good new/young umpires who show potential and the willingness to learn need that feedback to become better, respected, and reliable umpires who want to keep at it.

Saw something on social medial today announcing the changes: NFHS Link / Archive copy. The essentials: Double first base required in 2027. Just one player to player meeting per inning on defense (not sure if this will include F2 asking for time to give signals in an R1/R3 situation). Players can't wear audio or video devices. Looks like the proposals for balks being delayed dead and more options to restrict to the dugout for misconduct were not enacted.

Judging by the sound effects, Francona pressed his luck and stopped on a whammy 👹.

My state adopted a modified version post-COVID requiring coaches to wait at the foul line and not come onto the field to question calls. From experience, reasonable coaches are fine with this protocol as long as they get to express their question or concern with a BU that's approachable and willing to talk with them. When used appropriately, I liken the dugout restriction to a (non-flagrant) technical foul in basketball as an intermediate penalty for conduct that doesn't necessarily warrant immediate ejection but deserves more than just a warning to address it. This proposed change also explains the vaguely-worded survey question asking about restriction to the dugout without any further context or explanation.

I'm trying to figure out what the proposed intermediate penalty is before ejection when restriction to the dugout already exists for certain situations .

Most of the time, they simply ask the umpire for "judgement." The sideline interpreters for one of the clubs in my area have mentioned using "How's that" to a lesser extent. VBBA List of Documented Terms

The biggest difference is that umpires didn't call runners safe or out on the bases unless the involved players couldn't decided on their own and asked for judgment. Given your rule set, the umpire would either call the runner out or either "in" or "not out" instead of safe. A great resource for rules and terminology is the VBBA site. I'd also recommend observing one or more games to learn the period positioning, how the umpire calls the game, and the style of play between the involved clubs. It wouldn't hurt to ask the local club's captain what it would take to learn the rules well enough to eventually umpire. Some clubs play with a relaxed/social approach and others play as competitively as possible - sometimes to the point it seems cutthroat - with the expectation that the game will be umpired accordingly with sharp knowledge of the rules. Even if it's not period accurate, I'd recommend from experience to run down the line on fly balls that could land on or near the line... which might not be marked beyond 1st or 3d base apart from flags serving as that era's foul poles. From one of the umpiring videos I watched on the VBBA site, the presenter said that any 1860's style apparel is acceptable for umpiring. So, that's what I do. I don't recall where I got my hat from, but I've bought my vest, ties, and pocket watch from Historical Emporium. HTH.