UAME

I can only speak to my experience with the Adams XV and moving to the Davis D3O, and will explain it this way: The Adams was a rigid plate system with D3O pads mounted to the inside. The Davis is a D3O pad system with plates mounted on the outside. That's the best way I can say it. The harness design doesn't seem particularly special. But when you get the harness adjusted properly, the protector is "clinging" to you. I tried limited heating, bending of the XV, but it never held my desired shape no matter how much I tightened the harness.

THIS. UN-intentional is (among myriad scenarios) the ball bouncing up and off the bat again. A tantrum (no matter how docile or unruly) is laden with intent.

Sorry, obviously this is (at best) a secondhand retelling... I don't know what the coach said, but I think it is safe to presume that the umpire knew the DH was entering the game on defense at catcher... it was the middle of a latter inning. Regardless WHAT was said, the lineup was incorrectly administered. Anyone can say it should/would never happen under their watch. I was more curious as to HOW people would fix it, if it were brought to your attention in the offensive half of the inning as stated in the OP.

I moved from the Adams (Schutt) XV to the Davis D3O this season. Over the weekend, I took my worst shot of the year: a tipped ~80mph fastball right over the catcher and into my right pectoral. POP! "Ooooohs" from the stands; "Walk it out, walk it out to the mound.." from the defensive head coach to his F2. Me: "I'm fine, let's play." F2: "That sounded VERY bad!" Me: "It's pro level gear. That's why I spend $250 on a protector." I literally felt nothing but a shove. No pain, no aftereffects. To be fair, the Adams XV was always great in this regard, too. However, the Davis is pliable. It hugs your torso and lays tight to the body at every point. No jostling or rigid plates rubbing uncomfortably when you're sprinting out on a rotation.

A head coach that lives in my neighborhood contacted me over the weekend about this scenario that happened during a game outside of our umpiring district (ie, I didn't know the crew): Home team lineup includes: Smith as F2, batting 2nd. Jones is DH batting 3rd for RF Evans. In the top of the inning, following multiple errors by Smith, Home HC makes a defensive substitution by declaring to the UIC "I'm killing the DH." and sends Jones in to catch (removing Smith from the field and Evans remaining in RF.) No substitution is announced to Visitor HC (and no one realizes or objects) and the half inning eventually ends. During the bottom of the inning, Smith's spot in the order is set to lead off, so Home team sends a new sub, Baker, to the plate to bat in the 2nd spot. Former DH (and now F2) Jones is on deck, planning to bat in his correct 3rd spot in the order. Visitor HC realizes the illegal swap and appeals to the umpire. How would you fix this at this point? To me, the "illegal" participant is Evans in RF (who should have come off the field when the DH Jones assumed a defensive position.) Evans no longer has a "spot" as a participant in the lineup, which reverted to 9-man when the DH took the field. Obviously, it is too late to reverse any actions that occurred in the previous half inning with the illegal defensive sub. Would you declare Smith (or Baker?) OUT in the 2nd spot in the lineup and proceed to Jones batting with 1 Out? Or, permit Baker to bat with the understanding that he (or another new sub) will need to take the field defensively in the next inning, with RF Evans being declared illegal (and now restricted to the bench for the remainder of the game)?? Any reasoning where you would consider DH (now F2) Jones to be considered the illegal sub?

In the moment, I did what you described, leave R1 alone and score R2. But, when you begin saying "what would have happened" without Obstruction, we could have easily (had defense applied the tags) had R2 safe back at 3B and R1 out for occupying a base he didn't have a right to.

By this statement, did you mean that "Due to the minimum award that will soon be granted by the umpire, R2 will not be sent back to 3B"? Because, that's where he was going and without the obstruction that's still where he was going (back to 3B.) I was the Plate Umpire in this situation, and once I had obstruction I mentally thought to myself, "OK, R2 is getting home no matter what." At that point, I really never considered the possibility of having an out (on R1) because he was camped on the base. In discussing this within our association later, someone argued that if both runners were tagged while on the base (the delayed dead ball hasn't been called yet) that we should have R1 Out and then score R2 on the minimum award.

NFHS R2 attempting to score on hit to the outfield, gets caught in a rundown between 3B and home. R2 is eventually obstructed by F5 without the ball as R2 is retreating to 3B. During the rundown, R1 has arrived and is standing on 3B. Plate Umpire calls and signals "That's obstruction!", the subsequent throw to 3B is mishandled but regathered in proximity to the base such that neither R2 nor R1 attempt to leave the base. The defense never attempts to tag either runner (presumably due to hearing the earlier call of "Obstruction".) Base umpire calls "Time", crew comes together and awards R2 home and leaves R1 on 3B. Following the "Obstruction" call, if R1 had been tagged while standing on 3B, he would have been Out for occupying a base that he doesn't have a right to (yet), correct? When would R1 gain the right to that base? ...only if R2 scores during live ball action following the Obstruction? Did the crew incorrectly bail out R1 by calling Time prematurely while he was still in jeopardy of being retired?? Or once it became apparent that the defense wasn't going to immediately tag either runner, is it appropriate to kill the play?

Had my first one yesterday. We had been verbally instructed by a state regional director that we'd be justified in immediate ejection (same as drawing a line.) However, the game was nearing completion and I chose to warn the head coach and let him handle it. I doubt 90% of the people in attendance witnessed it (or understood it if they did see), as the batter was already about 3 steps from his dugout (after taking called strike 3) and was doing it for laughs from his teammates rather than showing me up at home plate.

For a plate meeting with the coaches, there's no need to cover any of the things you mentioned. First round playoff games have as good (or higher) chance of being mercy-ruled than regular games and require the same game management skills (ie., EXPANDING the zone, when appropriate) as any everyday game. I hope we are all officiating balk rules the same in the regular season as we are the playoffs, or we're doing a disservice to be springing a penalty on pitchers during an elimination game that we haven't called all year because those games "didn't matter." That said, I DO add this statement to my "sportsmanship" sentence during the playoffs: "Coaches, we expect the standard for sportsmanship to be upheld by the men standing around this plate. These young men will have extra adrenaline and testosterone flowing in what for some of them will be the last time they ever get to play this great game. Let's help them handle those emotions, respect the opponent and respect the game of baseball. Good luck!"

I'm going to have to paraphrase this question, as I'm not going to retake the exam just to get it exactly right: R2 & R3, no outs. The batter attempts a bunt and pops up to the pitcher, who intentionally drops it: a) ball is immediately dead (the answer did NOT include a statement that the batter would be declared Out) b) ball is alive and in play c) blah blah blah d) blah blah blah a & b were the only viable options, I'm quite sure. Before answering, my gut told me that I would have officiated this as option b) as first base was open (no force situation) there would be no advantage gained by intentionally dropping the pop up. 5-1-1j states "an infielder intentionally drops a fair fly, line drive, or bunt in flight with at least first base occupied and less than two outs." Case play 5.1.1 M has an R1, but concludes with this blanket statement: "The ball becomes dead immediately when it is intentionally dropped by and infielder except in the case of an infield fly." Against my instincts, I ultimately landed on answer a) due to that sentence in the case play, plus the "AT LEAST" phrase in 5-1-1j. (Is R2 + R3 not MORE - at least - than R1?)

NFHS Example Situations: Play 1: R2, 2 Outs. Batter hits to outfield, R2 obstructed by F5 rounding 3B. BR thrown out trying to advance to 2B prior to R2 being able to reach home plate. Play 2: R1, 2 Outs. Batter hits to outfield, R1 is obstructed by F6 near 2B, but has already rounded 3B when BR is retired behind him at 2B. [What I'm asking with these 2 plays is if there is a difference WHERE the runner was obstructed by a fielder (either F5 tripping R2 or F6 tripping R1) and the runner spends the exact same amount of time on the ground/recovering from the fall, but has ultimately advanced to between 3B and home when the time-play out is recorded on BR behind him.] Play 3: R1/R2, 2 Outs. Hit to OF, relay throw comes in to cutoff man as R2 is rounding 3B. R2 decides he can't score and throws on the brakes, but gets caught in a pickle/rundown, and is eventually obstructed by a fielder without the ball. Immediately following the obstruction, F2 throws to F5 where R1 is tagged having arrived at 3B during the duration of the rundown. In all of these plays, are we justified in scoring the lead runner and ending the inning on the out that was recorded behind them? With Obstruction awards being "umpire judgement" on where a runner would have advanced had obstruction not occurred, how much liberty should we exercise in "fast forwarding" an obstructed runner to home with a subsequent third out ending the inning? Does the NFHS mandate(8-3-2) to "award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond the runner's position on base when the obstruction occurred" impact how this is administered versus other rule sets?

@BigBlue4u If you haven't picked up on it, I'm not trying to justify my decision. Here are the best explanations to your question that I offered in hindsight:

I appreciate what you're saying, but I do know the conditions for leaving the box legally. The 3-0 pitch was a wild pitch, so IF the batter requested time to step out I would have ignored it (meaning that I wouldn't have held up my hands and declared "Time!")

MiB, Just curious what rule set this exam was for? One thing the head coach told me was that after his contact with his local umpire association and the NFHS, he instructed his players to always ask for time when swapping boxes in the middle of an AB. However, I don't see this as a requirement of the NFHS rule - just that F1 cannot be "in position ready to pitch." Maybe this is just the HC's mitigation of having 7-3-3 called on his batter, but was curious if another rule set may mandate that Time be called? The HC said his batter asked for time from me - honestly, I have no idea. I can't tell you how many times I ignore a batter holding his hand up in cases like this (e.g., no runners on base, a wild pitch where F2 has gone to retrieve a ball.) There was no need, in my mind, to call Time. But, if a rule somewhere is mandating that a Batter get time, I may need to amend my line of thinking.

Well, I was familiar with both rule 6-1-1 and this case play. I did NOT have an ambidextrous F1 and the case play really isn't in the MIDDLE of an at-bat, and although it isn't stated as such, my knowledge of this exact case play led to my incorrect assumption: I thought that the rules wanted to prohibit any repetitive-swapping scenario, but to do so required the committee to codify WHICH player (the pitcher or batter) would be mandated to choose first. The rulesmakers chose the Pitcher must decide first and then stick with it. After that, the batter gets to choose. (The part I inferred, which was incorrect, was: and the batter must stick with his choice until the end of AB, inning, or a substitution is made.)

I don't feel piled on. I understand and appreciate the critique offered here. That's why I posted! I have subsequently discovered that this HC is a good friend (former college teammate) of an umpire in our association. To @MadMax's point, this umpire says this coach specifically moves a RH batter into the LH batter's box to shield F2's view for delayed steals. I think, in my case, the team was doing this as a test with the leadoff hitter - I believe other umpires (like me) have incorrectly tried to prohibit the practice and he wanted to see how (or IF) I was going to rule on the practice. I failed, obviously. ☹️ I will say this: I don't know of a FASTER way to learn the rules than being on the field, realizing you don't completely KNOW a rule, and discover immediately afterwards that you flubbed it!! It's far from being ideal or preferred, but nothing burns it in your memory more than the absolute embarrassment of mishandling it.

Well, before the game, here's what I knew: 1) There was a rule (7-3-3) that prohibits the batter from swapping boxes to rattle the pitcher. 2) There was a rule (6-1-1) that requires an ambidextrous pitcher to commit to one hand or the other before the batter makes his choice. 3) Since I didn't recall ever seeing a batter switch boxes during an AB, I presumed that once the choices were made under 6-1-1, both sides were "locked in" until the AB was complete or a pitching change occurred. It didn't seem like much of a stretch to me. But, I won't rule that way again.

The HC didn't push the issue (in the top of the 1st) and we moved on before I offered to check with my partner. Between innings my partner and I got together (he said he didn't think it was legal, either.) Well, let me clarify... I TOLD the coach I was wrong that same night. I exhausted every resource I had and convinced myself that it wasn't prohibited by the rules. I guess my only lingering question is: why don't you see this done more often? I can't believe with all the baseball I've watched in my 50+ years, I haven't seen it before.

NFHS game, Visitor team is from 2.5 hours away. RH Leadoff hitter, top of 1st inning. Following wild pitch to push count to 3-0, batter takes position in the LH batter's box (had been in RH box for first three pitches.) I said, "What are you doing?" Batter, "Swapping sides." Me, "Not in this at bat, you aren't." Batter steps back to RH box, HC comes down to see me from 3rd base box. HC says, "He can do that." Me, "No, he can't." HC, "You're WRONG. I've clarified this with our local association and even contacted the NFHS. You're taking away part of our strategy." Coach's conviction has me doubting myself, so I said, "Coach, I hear you. I hope that doesn't turn out to be the case, but we're not going to play that way today." Coach offers to go to his bus and bring a rule book to the field. I still felt fairly certain that this topic wasn't specifically covered in the rulebook (it MIGHT be a case play or an interpretation that had been issued.) "Coach, we are ABSOLUTELY NOT doing that!" HC, "I want your name & number, I'm calling you tonight." "Coach, if I'm wrong, I want to know it, but we'll cover that after the game. I can see this scenario playing out several ways, one of which is you returning home and telling your coaching buddies 'GUYS, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT I TALKED THAT UMPIRE UP THERE INTO BELIEVING!' So, until I can research this myself, the batters are going to stay on the side they start the AB, unless there's a pitching change." HC conceded to my authority, but obviously was confident he was correct. (He clearly had fought this battle before and scripted this scenario for his leadoff man.) So, it appears he WAS correct and I was wrong? As long his the batter swaps sides before the pitcher is on the rubber, he can go back and forth as much as he wants?? The coach and I exchanged texts the next day, where I apologized. His team won easily, so it really wasn't an issue that impacted the game. He said that he coaches his batters to call Time before making the swap. (I honestly don't recall if the leadoff man requested Time or not, because I likely would have ignored it, being a wild pitch with no runners on base there was no valid reason in my mind to kill the live ball.) I can't even find remote references to this in any rule book, case book, Childress's BRD, etc. I can't fathom that this practice would be so common/accepted that it doesn't even get mentioned! I cannot recall ever having seen it, at any level. With all the ways that batters try to distract pitchers (faking bunts on 3-0, etc.) I'm shocked that it isn't more widely used if it is completely legal.

Dawg, I don't mind the questioning, but I'm not sure that I'm intentional enough with all my setup to answer your questions without guessing. As I said in my first post, one thought I've held (when in B) is to let the ball turn my chest to 2B during the throw. Because of that, I'd say I'm not getting my eyes to the mesh point (base/glove/runner) very much earlier than the ball is arriving. If the throw is hosing the runner by a step or two, I'm golden. Or if a track star R1 is already there, I'm solid. I'm thinking if a runner is already in his slide but not yet to the base are the ones that are really biting me. The more we talk about this, the more clear it seems that I need to try to turn earlier after I confirm a good throw from F2. As for footwork during the course of the play, I don't think I move much from B, but I do know that I try to move a step or two directly towards the base: closer to the throw (line between plate and 2B and deeper towards the base.) The footwork for achieving that is a guess, but I can say with confidence that I get locked down and do not make many calls while moving. If anything, I'm not gaining enough ground toward the call from wherever I start the play. I'm going to try to find some games I have recorded plus be more mindful of how I am executing this with my body movement. Thanks for the replies, gentlemen.

On the NB plate shoe, you can't bang the soles together to clear the mud or the metatarsal plates will rip free where they join the toe of the shoe. This Ump-Attire video speaks to the issue: https://www.ump-attire.com/Videos/New-Balance-Umpire-Plate-Shoes-PSA I tore my first pair early on, crafted a repair using primarily super glue, and it has held for over 3 years. Second pair (saved for playoffs and high profile games) have never torn, as I now know not to allow the guard to be slung around under it's own weight.

I'm not going to say it's my favorite call to make, but I feel like I've been less prone to kick it when I'm in regular B (further from the tag.) That's not to say that I can see all the minute details better from far away, but I feel like I make the "accepted" or "expected" call more often from back there. I saw the same piece of advice in two places yesterday (in @grayhawk's reply and, by chance, in a Jim Evans book) that I don't recall seeing before: watching the glove of the fielder during the play. I would say that, by default, I soft-focus on the side of the base facing 1B and just kind of "absorb" the sequence of the runner's slide vs the applied tag. That may be a source of my discomfort from Deep B: I can't really see that same point of reference with the runner on the ground. I'm going to intentionally focus on the glove in my next few games and see how I feel about it. I recall having a similar uncertain/uneasy "exploded on" feeling during my first umpiring season for banger calls on BR at 1B. Someone, somewhere, suggested that I visually focus on BR's feet (while listening for the pop of mitt) as he approached the base, and that was a cue that got me squared away immediately. Prior to that, I had been doing a form of what I presently do at 2B: focusing my gaze on the base, then trying to judge if I saw a foot touch or heard the mitt pop first. As a relative newcomer, I would say that this specific topic remains the most uncovered & untaught aspect of umpiring mechanics: the actual mechanics of eye discipline. I can't help but believe that the most consistent umpires have developed a specific technique (although it may be subconscious) that helps them get it right more often. Just being in the right spot (angle and distance) isn't the only recipe for a good call. You have to have a mental approach on WHAT to watch and when. If I could encourage veteran officials on one training topic, it would be to contemplate & then communicate to the rest of us exactly how you are controlling your eyes during any given play.

As I've begun to work more 3 man games, I consistently find myself struggling with confidence in my calls when in Deep B at 2B with R1 stealing. For starters, I don't understand what seems to be the general stated consensus that Deep B offers a better angle (to prevent being straight-lined) on the swipe tag/runner reaching the bag. When my heels are on the grass, I'm almost standing IN the baseline. Executing a pivot with the throw, I feel straightlined on EVERY play, looking right up the butt of the sliding runner. Deep C seems to me to offer an almost polar opposite (and ideal 90 degree view of the runner coming into the base.) From that side, I can see in my peripheral vision R1 advancing. These plays from Deep B feel like they explode on me. Even in Deep B, I know when R1 is coming (I can hear his foot steps, and I also listen for F3 yelling), so it's not that I'm taken by surprise that I need to make a call. I do think I may sometimes track the throw from F2 too long. In 2 man (regular B) I've tried to develop a habit of keeping my chest to the ball and letting the throw turn me to 2B. Maybe I don't have that much time in Deep B? My partner last night advised that, as soon as I know I'm not going to be HIT with the throw, pivot immediately. I'm also wondering if I should be moving (towards the centerline of the diamond? towards the mound?) to increase the angle between my line of sight and R1's path to 2B. *Editing to add: I'm now thinking I may also be setting up too far from 2B/too close to 1B in my Deep B??* Lay all the advice you have on me. I'm trying to comply with my training and the expectations that I should be excelling on that side of the field, but I haven't been able to get comfortable there yet. Homemade graphic to support my opinions about the angles that I'm experiencing:

Keen Vista Low at Amazon I'm a NB guy, but I do have these as a backup pair. KEEN is a top-notch producer for industrial safety shoes. Many such manufacturers are offering "sneaker type" options. These are comfortable compared to a boot. They aren't super light, but in terms of toe protection I would say you couldn't do much better. Probably need to use a guard flap attached to your shins to address the lace/metatarsal area. If you need a wide toe box, these are the ticket.