Umpires Manual Changes

[dumbdumb]

On 11/24/2016 at 3:56 PM, lawump said:

Of course I do.  Some of them provide us with their studies.  I have to agree to a confidentiality agreeement, so I can't discuss them on this forum.  

if you quit, does that clause last into perpetuity??????or since you live in Oklahoma is there no such thing, just like the non-compete clause, counselor.

[lawump]

5 hours ago, dumbdumb said:

if you quit, does that clause last into perpetuity??????or since you live in Oklahoma is there no such thing, just like the non-compete clause, counselor.

Yes.  And I don't live in Oklahoma.  LOL

[BT_Blue]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

Yes.  And I don't live in Oklahoma.  LOL

Close enough...

[dumbdumb]

9 hours ago, lawump said:

Yes.  And I don't live in Oklahoma.  LOL

No you don't, you Gamecock/Tiger paws man, you. LOL.

[VolUmp]

I think the runner designations in FED are both WRONG and WORSE.  Extremely ill-conceived.

I think it is the duty of FED to conform to OBR in this matter.

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, WildFlyer said:

I think the runner designations in FED are both WRONG and WORSE.  Extremely ill-conceived.

I think it is the duty of FED to conform to OBR in this matter.

Who woke you up @WildFlyer? I would almost think you are a shill to keep some activity on this site. 

[scrounge]

21 hours ago, WildFlyer said:

I think the runner designations in FED are both WRONG and WORSE.  Extremely ill-conceived.

I think it is the duty of FED to conform to OBR in this matter.

It's a minor annoyance, but in the top 10 list of things that I disagree with Fed about? This is about the 47th.

[VolUmp]

26 minutes ago, scrounge said:

It's a minor annoyance, but in the top 10 list of things that I disagree with Fed about? This is about the 47th.

Your opinion is noted.

I'd say it's in the top 10 for most FED Officials' annoyances with FED.

Every Casebook reference involving base runners causes confusion, and it's impossible to cross reference easily to other rule sets.

[scrounge]

24 minutes ago, WildFlyer said:

Your opinion is noted.

I'd say it's in the top 10 for most FED Officials' annoyances with FED.

Every Casebook reference involving base runners causes confusion, and it's impossible to cross reference easily to other rule sets.

If that's the case, then they must be pretty damn happy with Fed then...

This is a triviality.

[VolUmp]

2 minutes ago, scrounge said:

If that's the case, then they must be pretty damn happy with Fed then...

This is a triviality.

How long have you been calling FED?

[scrounge]

3 minutes ago, WildFlyer said:

How long have you been calling FED?

Oh, about 8 years this upcoming year. But even in year 1, it just didn't cause that much confusion. Ok, it's goofy to say R1 on 3rd instead of R3. But it's simply not all that hard to translate to R3 in your head. At least I don't find it hard to visualize what they mean, and I don't think it's because I'm any sort of superreader or anything. Again, yea, it's annoying, but to say that this is the molehill upon which we should get outrageously outraged? Come on, man.

[VolUmp]

OK.  Agree to disagree.  Our entire Association talks about it every year how stupid and misleading it is.

Same with most online forums.  I think you're in the slim minority.

[UMP45]

1 hour ago, WildFlyer said:

OK.  Agree to disagree.  Our entire Association talks about it every year how stupid and misleading it is.

Same with most online forums.  I think you're in the slim minority.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

[VolUmp]

I happen to think this is big stuff.  Sweat-worthy.  I'm in a teaching position with my fellow umpires, for multiple codes, and not having a uniform runner designation between codes is extremely problematic.  I'd love to tell them all to just ignore FED's method, but then they can't when it comes to test time.

Give me examples of things that bother you more about FED.

[UMP45]

9 hours ago, WildFlyer said:

I happen to think this is big stuff.  Sweat-worthy.  I'm in a teaching position with my fellow umpires, for multiple codes, and not having a uniform runner designation between codes is extremely problematic.  I'd love to tell them all to just ignore FED's method, but then they can't when it comes to test time.

Give me examples of things that bother you more about FED.

Nothing about FED bothers me. It is what it is.

[BT_Blue]

17 hours ago, scrounge said:

Oh, about 8 years this upcoming year. But even in year 1, it just didn't cause that much confusion. Ok, it's goofy to say R1 on 3rd instead of R3. But it's simply not all that hard to translate to R3 in your head. At least I don't find it hard to visualize what they mean, and I don't think it's because I'm any sort of superreader or anything. Again, yea, it's annoying, but to say that this is the molehill upon which we should get outrageously outraged? Come on, man.

I think the main problem comes in  online forums where multiple rule sets are discussed.

Even worse is when someone wants help with a ruling in OBR and uses the FED runner designations.

[lawump]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 10:14 PM, WildFlyer said:

I think the runner designations in FED are both WRONG and WORSE.  Extremely ill-conceived.

I think it is the duty of FED to conform to OBR in this matter.

Duty?  LOL. 

But besides the issue of "duty", before posting did you not read the beginning of this thread where I posted that we're working on changing the casebook to conform?

[ALStripes17]

Duty?  LOL. 

But besides the issue of "duty", before posting did you not read the beginning of this thread where I posted that we're working on changing the casebook to conform?

He will respond to the OP in 6 months...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[VolUmp]

10 hours ago, lawump said:

Duty?  LOL. 

But besides the issue of "duty", before posting did you not read the beginning of this thread where I posted that we're working on changing the casebook to conform?

Yes, Law, I read the entire post.  And I am merely expressing that despite your assertions that the FED runner designations aren't "worse/wrong," I think they clearly are.

And conforming the Casebook, as mentioned above, could be done in a few days by a professional.  My wife is a professional copyeditor.  She would knock it out in two days, then a baseball mind like yourself could proof it, and in a grand total of 3-4 days, it would be fixed.  Somehow I feel you're on the 3-5 year plan.

[ALStripes17]

Somehow I feel WE'RE on the 3-5 year plan.

FIFY ... WE are still a brotherhood

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[RichMSN]

Just got my new mechanics manual today.

I turned, as I do every 2 years, to see who is supposed to take the BR to third on a bases empty triple.

And they still have it wrong.  Oh, well, right in the trash with it.

Edited to add: How can they FINALLY properly designate the plate umpire as PU and then refer to the third base umpire in a 3-umpire crew as U2?

My goodness, it's like this in every sport -- it's almost like the NFHS has to be different just for the sake of being different.

[Welpe]

Regarding this:

Quote

(12)  Section VII, Paragraph 2 (added at the very end):  "At the time of the pitch in the two-man system, when in Position A, the base umpire should be walking into the pitch.

Is this being taught these days in pro-school and clinics?

[BrianC14]

On 2/13/2017 at 3:25 PM, RichMSN said:

Just got my new mechanics manual today.

I turned, as I do every 2 years, to see who is supposed to take the BR to third on a bases empty triple.

And they still have it wrong.  Oh, well, right in the trash with it.

Edited to add: How can they FINALLY properly designate the plate umpire as PU and then refer to the third base umpire in a 3-umpire crew as U2?

My goodness, it's like this in every sport -- it's almost like the NFHS has to be different just for the sake of being different.

THANK YOU!

In my area, nobody uses Fed mechanics.  But there's always that exception, where last week, "Heaven's Gift to Umpiring" tells me he's going to cover the plate from inside the diamond on a particular situation.  

Then, in real time, (he's at the plate in game 2) decides that since he didn't signal a rotation (R1 only) that he didn't need to rotate up to 3B on a base hit.  Meanwhile, I'm left to stretch myself out between 2B and 3B as B/R hustles his way into 2B.

Fed mechanics should be banned.