All The Rules? Ever?

[ElkOil]

I'm always intrigued by the discussions we have here about when we relax certain rules, don't enforce some, make exceptions based on the level of ball, turn a blind eye, etc.

So at what level ball do you (subjectively) enforce all the rules as written?

[Rich Ives]

None.

Ever seen the fraternization rule enforced?

[maven]

4 hours ago, ElkOil said:

So at what level ball do you (subjectively) enforce all the rules as written?

Anyone who did that, at any level, would display a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the rules.

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Anyone who did that, at any level, would display a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the rules.

I'm afraid you've only succeeded in confusing me more.

[bam]

Gross.  That's his name.

 

(insider Red Sox joke)

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, ElkOil said:

I'm afraid you've only succeeded in confusing me more.

He's saying much the same thing as Rich Ives above -- at no level are all the rules enforced strictly as written.

 

I do give him props for correctly saying "anyone who..." instead of the common but incorrect "anyone that ..."

[ricka56]

17 hours ago, ElkOil said:

So at what level ball do you (subjectively) enforce all the rules as written?

The level where I leave my common sense in the car. 

[ElkOil]

Umpiring is difficult enough without having to filter out which rules not to enforce. Most everybody on this forum would probably agree that number one or two on the list of things new umpires (or any umpire) should do is learn the rules. What nobody ever says is, "Learn the rules, but then forget some of them. And only a select few, so that we don't enforce all the ones you busted your hump to learn. But then of the ones you don't enforce at one level, well... enforce those at another level. Yeah, yeah, I know there's this thing called a 'rules book' that we incessantly cite when trying to settle arguments, discussions and questions, but only most of what's in there is what we're going to enforce. Definitely not all of it. Why? Well, common sense tells us not to. If you actually enforced the rules, you would display a gross misunderstanding of them." And yet, that's exactly what you're saying. "Yeah, we call those kinds of balks, but not those other kinds of balks. The strike zone isn't that, it's really more like this..." and so on. 

I'm in my second year. I've learned a ton so far. But I gotta say, guys, this one really baffles me and kinda ticks me off that there is some weird, secret knowledge about which of the rules we should and shouldn't enforce. I read. I study. I participate. I ump as many games as I can. I watch videos. I bust my arse to be as good as I can be. So learning that this kind of thing exists really gets under my skin.

If we weren't meant to learn and enforce all the rules, why are they in the book(s)? And if some rules are widely regarded as taboo, the fault isn't with the umpire, but with the rules themselves. My presumption is that every rule was written to address something. There's a reason for each one. My angst comes from one, not understanding where the magical delineation is between the rules we just read about and the rules we take onto the field with us and two, how in the world can you justify not enforcing a rule, particularly if not doing so causes at the very least, a question from one coach or at worst, an actual problem?

"Hey, blue," a couch might ask, "wasn't that a balk?"

You might reply, "I'll keep an eye out for it," when you really should have said, "Eh, I'm not calling that."

What justification would you use? What ground do you possibly have to stand on? Forget explaining it to a coach. Support me where I am in my development and please explain it to me.

[ALStripes17]

Umpiring is difficult enough without having to filter out which rules not to enforce. Most everybody on this forum would probably agree that number one or two on the list of things new umpires (or any umpire) should do is learn the rules. What nobody ever says is, "Learn the rules, but then forget some of them. And only a select few, so that we don't enforce all the ones you busted your hump to learn. But then of the ones you don't enforce at one level, well... enforce those at another level. Yeah, yeah, I know there's this thing called a 'rules book' that we incessantly cite when trying to settle arguments, discussions and questions, but only most of what's in there is what we're going to enforce. Definitely not all of it. Why? Well, common sense tells us not to. If you actually enforced the rules, you would display a gross misunderstanding of them." And yet, that's exactly what you're saying. "Yeah, we call those kinds of balks, but not those other kinds of balks. The strike zone isn't that, it's really more like this..." and so on. 

I'm in my second year. I've learned a ton so far. But I gotta say, guys, this one really baffles me and kinda ticks me off that there is some weird, secret knowledge about which of the rules we should and shouldn't enforce. I read. I study. I participate. I ump as many games as I can. I watch videos. I bust my arse to be as good as I can be. So learning that this kind of thing exists really gets under my skin.

If we weren't meant to learn and enforce all the rules, why are they in the book(s)? And if some rules are widely regarded as taboo, the fault isn't with the umpire, but with the rules themselves. My presumption is that every rule was written to address something. There's a reason for each one. My angst comes from one, not understanding where the magical delineation is between the rules we just read about and the rules we take onto the field with us and two, how in the world can you justify not enforcing a rule, particularly if not doing so causes at the very least, a question from one coach or at worst, an actual problem?

"Hey, blue," a couch might ask, "wasn't that a balk?"

You might reply, "I'll keep an eye out for it," when you really should have said, "Eh, I'm not calling that."

What justification would you use? What ground do you possibly have to stand on? Forget explaining it to a coach. Support me where I am in my development and please explain it to me.

Be sure that all your coaches designate their captains on their lineup cards per 1-1-1....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

41 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Be sure that all your coaches designate their captains on their lineup cards per 1-1-1....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The fault is with the rule, not the umpire for enforcing it. Yes, it's a stupid rule. But what about the ones that aren't stupid and we just choose to not enforce for some other reason? We had a long conversation about not calling quick pitch balks, like calling all the other kinds of balks was okay, but whoa... quick pitch balks are just crazy. You can find justification for not enforcing individual rules, but at some point the rules we don't enforce becomes a body of work in its own right.

[ALStripes17]

The fault is with the rule, not the umpire for enforcing it. Yes, it's a stupid rule. But what about the ones that aren't stupid and we just choose to not enforce for some other reason? We had a long conversation about not calling quick pitch balks, like calling all the other kinds of balks was okay, but whoa... quick pitch balks are just crazy. You can find justification for not enforcing individual rules, but at some point the rules we don't enforce becomes a body of work in its own right.

Where did someone say not to enforce a quick pitch balk?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

47 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Where did someone say not to enforce a quick pitch balk?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[MidAmUmp]

3 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Umpiring is difficult enough without having to filter out which rules not to enforce. Most everybody on this forum would probably agree that number one or two on the list of things new umpires (or any umpire) should do is learn the rules. What nobody ever says is, "Learn the rules, but then forget some of them. And only a select few, so that we don't enforce all the ones you busted your hump to learn. But then of the ones you don't enforce at one level, well... enforce those at another level. Yeah, yeah, I know there's this thing called a 'rules book' that we incessantly cite when trying to settle arguments, discussions and questions, but only most of what's in there is what we're going to enforce. Definitely not all of it. Why? Well, common sense tells us not to. If you actually enforced the rules, you would display a gross misunderstanding of them." And yet, that's exactly what you're saying. "Yeah, we call those kinds of balks, but not those other kinds of balks. The strike zone isn't that, it's really more like this..." and so on. 

I'm in my second year. I've learned a ton so far. But I gotta say, guys, this one really baffles me and kinda ticks me off that there is some weird, secret knowledge about which of the rules we should and shouldn't enforce. I read. I study. I participate. I ump as many games as I can. I watch videos. I bust my arse to be as good as I can be. So learning that this kind of thing exists really gets under my skin.

If we weren't meant to learn and enforce all the rules, why are they in the book(s)? And if some rules are widely regarded as taboo, the fault isn't with the umpire, but with the rules themselves. My presumption is that every rule was written to address something. There's a reason for each one. My angst comes from one, not understanding where the magical delineation is between the rules we just read about and the rules we take onto the field with us and two, how in the world can you justify not enforcing a rule, particularly if not doing so causes at the very least, a question from one coach or at worst, an actual problem?

"Hey, blue," a couch might ask, "wasn't that a balk?"

You might reply, "I'll keep an eye out for it," when you really should have said, "Eh, I'm not calling that."

What justification would you use? What ground do you possibly have to stand on? Forget explaining it to a coach. Support me where I am in my development and please explain it to me.

How many times have you been pulled over for going 2 or 3 miles over the speed limit? I'll venture to say none, but you've violated a rule.

How many times have you received a verbal or written warning instead of a ticket from a police officer? I know I have.

Cops use common sense and discretion in enforcing the law. Umpires need to utilize that same common sense and discretion in applying the rules of the game. 

There are times to "let it go." There are times to let them off with a warning. And there are times to enforce the law. 

Knowing when and how comes with experience. We can't tell you every example because every situation is different. The only advice I would give you is think advantage/disadvantage. Did someone gain an advantage? Probably better call something. Was someone put at a disadvantage? Better call something.

I would suggest start by studying the rules and the history of the rules. Find out why the rules were written in the first place. For instance, all defensive players (except the C) must be completely in fair territory prior to a pitch. Why is that? Well, way back when a fair ball was any ball that first touched fair territory so batters were putting a backspin on the ball to get a cheap hit. Teams started positioning some of their fielders in foul territory to field those balls. When the fair/foul rule changed, they also cleaned up that fielders must be in fair territory. 

So with that knowledge, should we really pay a lot of attention to a 1B who has a foot in foul territory when he's holding a runner on? Probably not. 

[noumpere]

16 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Umpiring is difficult enough without having to filter out which rules not to enforce. Most everybody on this forum would probably agree that number one or two on the list of things new umpires (or any umpire) should do is learn the rules. What nobody ever says is, "Learn the rules, but then forget some of them. And only a select few, so that we don't enforce all the ones you busted your hump to learn. But then of the ones you don't enforce at one level, well... enforce those at another level. Yeah, yeah, I know there's this thing called a 'rules book' that we incessantly cite when trying to settle arguments, discussions and questions, but only most of what's in there is what we're going to enforce. Definitely not all of it. Why? Well, common sense tells us not to. If you actually enforced the rules, you would display a gross misunderstanding of them."

Learning the rules means not only reading the rules and the literal meaning, but also the intent of the rule and when it is to be used. Rules don't always say exactly what they mean, or mean exactly what they say.  That's because they are written by gentlemen, for gentlemen; not by lawyers, for lawyers.

 

And, yes, everything was put in for a reason.  Sometimes, those reasons don't exist anymore.

 

Sure, in an ideal world, the rule book would be corrected.  But, especially with OBR (where the entire focus is on MLB, and not your local youth league), that's not going to happen.

 

What you are going through is common in second - third year umpires.

[ElkOil]

19 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

How many times have you been pulled over for going 2 or 3 miles over the speed limit? I'll venture to say none, but you've violated a rule.

How many times have you received a verbal or written warning instead of a ticket from a police officer? I know I have.

Cops use common sense and discretion in enforcing the law. Umpires need to utilize that same common sense and discretion in applying the rules of the game. 

There are times to "let it go." There are times to let them off with a warning. And there are times to enforce the law. 

Knowing when and how comes with experience. We can't tell you every example because every situation is different. The only advice I would give you is think advantage/disadvantage. Did someone gain an advantage? Probably better call something. Was someone put at a disadvantage? Better call something.

I would suggest start by studying the rules and the history of the rules. Find out why the rules were written in the first place. For instance, all defensive players (except the C) must be completely in fair territory prior to a pitch. Why is that? Well, way back when a fair ball was any ball that first touched fair territory so batters were putting a backspin on the ball to get a cheap hit. Teams started positioning some of their fielders in foul territory to field those balls. When the fair/foul rule changed, they also cleaned up that fielders must be in fair territory. 

So with that knowledge, should we really pay a lot of attention to a 1B who has a foot in foul territory when he's holding a runner on? Probably not. 

I depart from this analogy when letting someone off the hook for a ticket doesn't adversely affect anyone else, yet not enforcing a rule (or enforcing one) in baseball has an effect on the other team. Officiating baseball is a balance in which a ruling always has the opposite affect on the other team; a strike works for the defense and against the offense. An out call the same. A balk works for the offense and against the defense, etc. I can't think off the top of any rule that work unilaterally.

So yes, it seems silly to ticket someone for going three miles per hour above the speed limit. But how would a cop's approach change if someone else was relying on him issuing that ticket, and then denied the immediate benefit?

[ALStripes17]

I depart from this analogy when letting someone off the hook for a ticket doesn't adversely affect anyone else, yet not enforcing a rule (or enforcing one) in baseball has an effect on the other team. Officiating baseball is a balance in which a ruling always has the opposite affect on the other team; a strike works for the defense and against the offense. An out call the same. A balk works for the offense and against the defense, etc. I can't think off the top of any rule that work unilaterally.

So yes, it seems silly to ticket someone for going three miles per hour above the speed limit. But how would a cop's approach change if someone else was relying on him issuing that ticket, and then denied the immediate benefit?

Letting someone off the hook for a ticket is revenue out of the jurisdiction's pocket. It does negatively affect another party. Very similar to allowing a pass on what we consider a technical balk (let's say: F1 has an inch of his heel hanging off the rubber while in the set). The defense was going 2-3 mph over the speed limit, but the offense isn't going to get that revenue bc no one was directly affected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

7 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Letting someone off the hook for a ticket is revenue out of the jurisdiction's pocket. It does negatively affect another party. Very similar to allowing a pass on what we consider a technical balk (let's say: F1 has an inch of his heel hanging off the rubber while in the set). The defense was going 2-3 mph over the speed limit, but the offense isn't going to get that revenue bc no one was directly affected.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I see what you're saying, but the difference in my mind is that every ruling on a baseball field is situational and some are more critical than others, depending on what's happening in the game. So not calling or not calling something can be far more impactful at times. Ticket revenues get thrown in to a budget line and one ticket's revenues has no bearing on anyone else the way a ruling in baseball does. As long as the ticket revenue meets the budget, it's all good. But that principle doesn't apply to baseball rulings. It's not as if at the end of the game we look at the total body of calls and determine whether or not enough of them were called to fund a rules budget.

[ALStripes17]

I see what you're saying, but the difference in my mind is that every ruling on a baseball field is situational and some are more critical than others, depending on what's happening in the game. So not calling or not calling something can be far more impactful at times. Ticket revenues get thrown in to a budget line and one ticket's revenues has no bearing on anyone else the way a ruling in baseball does. As long as the ticket revenue meets the budget, it's all good. But that principle doesn't apply to baseball rulings. It's not as if at the end of the game we look at the total body of calls and determine whether or not enough of them were called to fund a rules budget.

Now you sound like a coach... We aren't controlling the outcome of the game with applying rules with common sense. We are making it safe and fair for all involved. Revenus don't make an entire budget. Revenues AND expenses (generally) make an entire budget. This is a perfect analogy for the cause, but I like the way you are playing devil's advocate.

Another main issue of applying every rule to the letter of the law is the fact that games would not be fun for any players, coaches, fans, or ourselves in calling all the ticky-tack stuff. Too much is taken away from the game when you don't allow someone to warm up the RF, you stop a game for a jewelry warning, call a balk (or illegal pitch) for the pitcher's heel being slightly off the rubber when there's a hole in the mound. If all this is the case, then we also need to measure off the bases and rubber before we start (as well as fielders gloves, require team captains be designated on the lineup, feel up all players for their 'protective wear', and use robots to call balls and strikes.

These examples just to name a few.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Aging_Arbiter]

@ElkOil, An honest and legitimate question.  While what you say makes perfect sense in a perfect world, I, for one, am not perfect.  What I took to heart when I first started was when I was told "Learn the rules. Then learn how to umpire WITH the book, not by the book."   As we move on with life, and technology advances, we have the infamous "K" zone superimposed on the TV screen.  While I honestly do not mean this to offend or belittle, umpiring by every written rule will come along when AI robots are performing the functions that we do today IMHO.

[scrounge]

There have been many good suggestions in this thread, as well as many that are absolutely true but leave some assumptions unstated. The advantage/disadvantage concept is a very good one, not from the pure technical sense of every call having some benefit/harm but did a team get *directly* impacted. Also, consider the level of play and the balance between instruction and outcome.

Let's take the example of the minor twitch of a pitcher. Consider a 12U regular season game. These kids are just learning the craft, their reflexes and body control are just developing, etc. If you're the only one that saw it, did anyone really get *directly* impacted? Not really. Perhaps it would be appropriate to explain to the coach at this level what's going on. Now let's take the same thing in a freshman or JV game. Maybe you don't talk to the coach, maybe you do, depending on situation and level. Maybe you give that pitcher a quiet, unofficial warning as you inauspiciously kick some dirt around the pitchers plate or tie your shoe. Just one warning, probably. If it's a little bigger, you gotta call it, but if it's close, a low, preventative word may be wise. Yes, it's on the border of teaching/coaching. Such is life at subvarsity on occasion. Now, let's say that same thing happens in a district varsity tournament. This time, outcome is taking precedence over teaching, expected skill level is higher, and advantage/disadvantage is much more sharply defined. Yet even then, there's still some discretion over the 'expected' call and did anyone else see it. Not saying don't call it if it's truly there and only you saw it - just be sure.

Can you explain what happened in 10 seconds or less? If not, was it really there? Are you sure? Did it impact anything? Would an umpire that you respect in your local area call a similar thing at a similar moment? I think it's great that you're thinking along these lines. However, I suspect you're in that classic early umpire trap (and hey, been there too, sometimes find myself still in it) where you're not a newbie anymore but still stronger on rules and legalistic aspects than the experience-based discretion and experience to apply that knowledge. As is often said, good judgment comes from experience. And experience often comes from bad judgment! You'll learn which is which.

[Kevin_K]

 

On 4/21/2016 at 3:12 PM, ElkOil said:

I see what you're saying, but the difference in my mind is that every ruling on a baseball field is situational and some are more critical than others, depending on what's happening in the game. So not calling or not calling something can be far more impactful at times. Ticket revenues get thrown in to a budget line and one ticket's revenues has no bearing on anyone else the way a ruling in baseball does. As long as the ticket revenue meets the budget, it's all good. But that principle doesn't apply to baseball rulings. It's not as if at the end of the game we look at the total body of calls and determine whether or not enough of them were called to fund a rules budget.

 

On 4/20/2016 at 4:14 PM, ElkOil said:

Umpiring is difficult enough without having to filter out which rules not to enforce

I'm in my second year. I've learned a ton so far. But I gotta say, guys, this one really baffles me and kinda ticks me off that there is some weird, secret knowledge about which of the rules we should and shouldn't enforce. 

If we weren't meant to learn and enforce all the rules, why are they in the book(s)?

I might suggest that you already have done a lot of this yourself without anyone's input.

What does your strike zone look like? I bet it is different depending on the level of play. How did you decide to not enforce the rules as written?

Ever see a player wearing something foreign on their person (think jewelry, rubber bracelet) and not stop the game, issue a warning, have the player take it off, and then continue? Perhaps you quietly told the player to take it off without making a scene?

What if a player is wearing a different cap than the rest because his cat peed on the proper hat?

When moving to the next level of ball, invoke the wise words of Yogi Berra: "You can observe a lot just by watching" 

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

What if a player is wearing a different cap than the rest because his cat peed on the proper hat?

 

Require the kid to go home and bring back his cat?  And don't continue the game until he does (but keep the clock running)

[taa71458]

14U Travel Major level. Pitcher in the stretch. Licks hand and goes to ball. Boom...dead ball. This is an automatic for me but alas coach thought it was ticky tack. 

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, taa71458 said:

14U Travel Major level. Pitcher in the stretch. Licks hand and goes to ball. Boom...dead ball. This is an automatic for me but alas coach thought it was ticky tack. 

Automatic what. It varies with the code and what you perceive it as.

[ZJesterYM]

My go-to buzzword is context. Sure, I enforce all the rules, when the context of that rule applies (e.g. not getting bothered by a pitchers foot position when the mound is a hole or being lenient with uniforms in a rural summer league) and the context of the game calls for it (e.g. no major league strike zone on 10u, not excessively balking a young pitcher with a poor coach and poorer mechanics). What I don't do is legalistically apply all rules as written, because my job is to apply those rules to the context of a concrete situation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk