Coach casually asking me about partner's ruling

[pl8ump1012]

This is NFHS, in case that matters for the situation, though I don't believe it does.

We had an unexpected delay of about 5 minutes before the start of the game. HT Pitcher had already thrown his warmups when the delay started; I (BU) had already taken my position in A.

HT manager is chatting with 1B coach, then comes over to me and very casually asks me "He [PU] made him [pitcher] remove his eye black. Is that a thing? Pitchers can't have eye black?" 

I wasn't sure how to answer, so I just said, "can i say 'no comment'?" then added "my guess is he judged it to be distracting." 

HT coach gave a "hmm... ok" and walked back to his dugout. That was the end of that.

 

My two questions:

1. IS that a thing? Should I be having pitchers remove their eye black? Was I right that this can fall under umpire judgement about whether or not it's distracting?

2. If I was answering fully honestly, I would have said "that's not a thing. He can wear eye black" (though question 1 above acknowledges that I'm open to being told I'm wrong), but I wasn't about to throw my partner under the bus before the game even started. What's the right way to respond to a coach when they ask an honest question about something your partner ruled on that you disagreed with? (something like this, not something like safe/out, rules interp., etc.)

 

[wolfe_man]

From NFHS Rule 1.4

"...A pitcher shall not wear any item on his hands, wrists or arms which may be distracting to the batter. A pitcher shall not wear white or gray exposed under-shirt sleeves or any white or gray sleeve that extends below the elbow..."

There is nothing there on eye black.  Of course, an umpire could rule it a distraction, but I'd be careful picking up that end of the stick. 

The coach may not have been wanting you to throw your partner under the bus, he may truly have been wanting to know for future cases.  I wasn't there so I can't pick up on his body language or tone. I know that we tend to think that they are trying to get dirt on a partner, but it isn't always the case.

 

[pl8ump1012]

5 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

The coach may not have been wanting you to throw your partner under the bus, he may truly have been wanting to know for future cases.  I wasn't there so I can't pick up on his body language or tone. I know that we tend to think that they are trying to get dirt on a partner, but it isn't always the case.

 

Yeah, I don't think the coach was trying to bait me into throwing him under the bus; I just didn't want to do so with my response if I said, "no, I've never heard of that one before."

[Velho]

Depends on the eye black  

I think you handled it ok.

 

[Richvee]

17 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

I still don't understand why one kid can wear sunglasses on the mound because he has a prescription, but another one without that Rx cannot.

where's this rule? 

[wolfe_man]

13 minutes ago, Richvee said:

where's this rule? 

It may just be local, but in my area of OH we normally get asked to have them remove them (unless Rx).  So I just assume they all have an Rx.

[wolfe_man]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

Depends on the eye black  

I think you handled it ok.

 

LOL

I had an F1 on Tuesday that looked like he'd been firing muzzleloaders all day.  His entire face was blackened.

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, wolfe_man said:

It may just be local, but in my area of OH we normally get asked to have them remove them (unless Rx).  So I just assume they all have an Rx.  If HC or batter says they're distracting (never had it happen yet) then I would check with F1 to see if Rx or not.

You'll find nothing in the rule book regarding this. Tell the kid to get a "plano" Rx from the doc. 

[MadMax]

49 minutes ago, pl8ump1012 said:

This is NFHS, in case that matters for the situation, though I don't believe it does.

Oh but it does, it sooooo does... as I'll explain below... 

50 minutes ago, pl8ump1012 said:

We had an unexpected delay of about 5 minutes before the start of the game. HT Pitcher had already thrown his warmups when the delay started; I (BU) had already taken my position in A.

There shouldn't be a delay like this, especially for the following reason behind it. You as BU is a component of the dynamic of the story here, because that means your partner is PU... or UIC... in a NFHS game. 😬 <- is this the nervous face? Lemme find a nervous face... 😨 <- that's a fearful face... I can go one "worse"... 😱 .

Nothing good can come from this.

54 minutes ago, pl8ump1012 said:

"He [PU] made him [pitcher] remove his eye black. Is that a thing? Pitchers can't have eye black?"

Your partner is an idiot. It's not "a thing". It's never been "a thing". Your partner made it his own "thing". As my good friend @wolfe_man points out, and I'm sure others will too, there's nothing explicitly in the Rulebook(s) about it. At any level, or any code. Instead, your partner chose to implement his own code of morality / ethics / sportsmanship, scooping up that whole arcane attitude of "Not on my field!" (which is synonymous to "Get off my lawn!"; which is also a sibling of Karens approaching total strangers and saying, "You know what your problem is... ?"). I'm going all-in that this "projection of sportsmanship" is your partner's reason behind removing the eye black. If I'm wrong, I – MadMax – am wrong... but I've been in baseball as a player and as an umpire long enough to know what I'm talking about on this topic. Maybe his (your partner's) claim is that the eyeblack could / would / might end up on a baseball and act as a "foreign substance". Maybe. But I doubt he processed it that far... Instead, I'm betting he's fully in the camp of, "That's intimidation! That's intimidation to the opposing team! No fun here! No competition here! Not on my field!... Get off my lawn!". 

This forced, projected, deliberate, heavy-handed "officiating" often gets painted as "preventative umpiring". It isn't. Preventative Umpiring is more along the lines of whispering to a pitcher, "Hey, make sure you completely stop. That last one ya kinda rolled right through it." These guys who are chasing players back into dugouts, making big ta-doos about jewelry, going through all this blabbering about "how to approach an umpire" ultimately are doing these things because it is their attempt at "conflict avoidance"... which usually means they are weak at "conflict resolution". 

Yeah, I'm on a soapbox. And to some of my colleagues here, it may appear I'm on a soapbox... in the median... of a six-lane highway. But these same colleagues also know I've mentioned before this phenomena I've labeled "viral umpiring". Where some guy, somewhere, either misinterprets, misapplies, or (worse) makes up a rule, and then positions it into "his" game, patting himself on the back that he provided a/the solution to his umpiring "situation". This has damaging effects, though, as it ripples out and affects not only his officiating going forward, but his umpire partner(s), the coaches, and to a minor degree, the players. So while one guy believes, in his own opinion, that eyeblack isn't to be worn by the pitcher on his field, now at least 3 others think that is true in all games going forward! 

How fortunate you ( @pl8ump1012 ) came here to inquire! Bravo! 

Now, I also acknowledge and appreciate that you, pl8, didn't draw a line in the sand, or depth charge your partner from 96' away. Does this "ruling" ultimately affect the proceedings and outcome of the game? No. So I (too) wouldn't make a big thing about it, and step in to correct my partner. If he's making a "ruling" that affects the playing status or eligibility of the players, or affects the proceedings of the game, then we must step in, as umpires, and correct it. Example – calling a Balk on a move / feint to 2B. Your PU partner believes that a F1 has to throw to 2B, or that he has to throw to a fielder at the base. This is not true, and that explanation is in the Rulebook as such. So I as a BU must step in and correct that. It's not a Balk. 

I get infuriated at YouTube clips – two infamous ones in particular – that not only show improper rulings, but the partners don't step in (even after, not just in the moment in realtime!) to correct it!! One is the softball foul ball, with a 3-man crew, where the foul ball – the actual ball itself – is retrieved by the on deck hitter, who throws it to-and-past the F1... and the 3BC starts jumping up and down and sends R3 and R2 in to score! ... and the crew lets the play (non-play, actually) stand!!! Another is one where R2 (only) feints a steal of 3B, and the catcher (F2), after receiving the pitch throws to F5 at 3B... and the PU calls a Balk!!! For what? For throwing to an unoccupied base!!! That was his actual explanation! And his BU partner does nothing to correct it! 

Here's the point where the NFHS Rules component of your tale comes into play... NFHS (unfortunately) places a "deification" clause in regarding the PU / UIC that whatever he (ultimately) rules is the be-all, end-all, absolute final say on anything regarding the game. Way too many guys take this to an extreme, and get this "I'm infallible" god-complex (small g) and puff their chest out and take this "my game, my way" attitude into these games which are, at their very nature, a competitive arena. We're not supposed to compete; we're supposed to officiate. 

So yeah, eyeblack ain't a "thing". At the risk of going into an even longer diatribe, and threatening any kind of productivity in my day, I'll just leave it there, and give ya a pat on the back as to how you handled it in that moment, and encourage you to keep atop your handling of situations in regards to how they relate to the Rulebook(s). 

[SH0102]

Heaven forbid the coach just ask the HPU who made the ruling?

[Senor Azul]

The following online case play is all that I could find so far concerning eye black for FED.

2013 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 13: The visiting first baseman comes to the batter’s box with eye black painted on his face from under his eyes extending to his jaw, looking like inverted “bat wings.” Is this legal? RULING: Unless the extensive eye black is deemed to be profane, intimidating or taunting intended to embarrass, ridicule or demean, the face paint is legal. (3-3-1f-2)

[MadMax]

9 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

The following online case play is all that I could find so far concerning eye black for FED.

2013 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 13: The visiting first baseman comes to the batter’s box with eye black painted on his face from under his eyes extending to his jaw, looking like inverted “bat wings.” Is this legal? RULING: Unless the extensive eye black is deemed to be profane, intimidating or taunting intended to embarrass, ridicule or demean, the face paint is legal. (3-3-1f-2)

And if this is all Senor Azul could find... that's saying something.

This is my point exactly. According to whom??!! One man's melodic music is another man's chaotic cacophony. 

[LRZ]

Two options, imo.

(1) Go to your partner, away from coaches and players, and say something like, "Bill, there's nothing in the rule book about pitchers wearing eye black." The HPU then decides what to do.

(2) "Coach, it's my partner's call. You'll have to ask him." This might be appropriate if it's unclear why your partner made his ruling.

Depends on your relationship with your partner and how open he/she is to your questioning him. If the partner is an "I've been doing this for 30 years" umpire, #2 might be your only option.

[maven]

Max, I hope you'll consider including a TL;DR version with your rants.

[kylehutson]

38 minutes ago, maven said:

Max, I hope you'll consider including a TL;DR version with your rants.

Why is that? They're informative and entertaining

[LMSANS]

Then again, in NJ….

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, LMSANS said:

Then again, in NJ….

Not any more! 

For the uninformed (and this probably includes @MadMax because he resides some distance away), for many years the NJSIAA required umpires to police eye black. No player was allowed to have anymore than a single horizontal line. Anything else, including what they called war paint, was considered potentially intimidating and fell into the unsportsmanlike realm and had to be corrected or the player could not take the field.

This policy has changed for the 2022 season.

[dumbdumb]

we don't want just a situation ruling on the batter with eye black. we want a definitive ruling like this for the pitcher with eye black. they could just use the same words in the situation 13 example for the pitcher, or not, whatever they want to rule. NFHS too chicken poop (that goes to all the other levels for different situations, LL, HS, Collegiate, MLB, etc.) to answer that one, since having other things the pitchers wearie or carrie are in their rules and situations. why just take care of the batters for a situation ruling. i guess pitchers don't count cause they are not important and don't hit home runs like Babe Ruth.

[LMSANS]

On 4/20/2022 at 7:09 AM, Kevin_K said:

Not any more! 

This policy has changed for the 2022 season.

Not down the shore. Too many guys still want to stick their nose in this.🥴

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, LMSANS said:

Not down the shore. Too many guys still want to stick their nose in this.🥴

They need to get over it. Are the same guys still telling kids to take the sunglasses off their caps?  

[Replacematt]

On 4/20/2022 at 6:55 AM, dumbdumb said:

we don't want just a situation ruling on the batter with eye black. we want a definitive ruling like this for the pitcher with eye black. 

Why?

[MadMax]

On 4/20/2022 at 4:55 AM, dumbdumb said:

we don't want just a situation ruling on the batter with eye black. we want a definitive ruling like this for the pitcher with eye black.

 

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Why?

I’m with @Matt on this one, I’ll just use more words… why do we need any definitive anything regarding eye black? Who cares?! 

Lemme tell ya, the old (no specific number, but mindset) guys sitting in a meeting are putting way more paranoia and angst into this than the kids who are using it are trying to express. 

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, MadMax said:

 

I’m with @Matt on this one, I’ll just use more words… why do we need any definitive anything regarding eye black? Who cares?! 

Lemme tell ya, the old (no specific number, but mindset) guys sitting in a meeting are putting way more paranoia and angst into this than the kids who are using it are trying to express. 

because then i would like to know what you are going to do when his girlfriend gives him the black eye from a dispute and he has to pitch looking like spot the dog.

[Catch18]

guys sitting in a meeting are putting way more paranoia and angst into this than the kids who are using it are trying to express. 

I’m sure I’ve never seen a more abject and succinct painting of a we vs. them fight of amateur umpires going looking for something that should be a nothing - I’ve got bigger fish to fry in a game.

And I doubt that’s going to be a game management skill showcase I wanna die on in order to boost the coach’s rating on my composite post-season score. {clap clap clap}

[wolfe_man]

NFHS Questionnaire just came out - and one of the questions was about defining eye black as a single line. I answered "No" I am not in support of a clarification for this, only because I could not answer "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"

Seriously, why is this such a big deal?  It's eye-black.  What's next, are we going to say their bat has to be a certain shade? Or maybe their gloves have to color-coordinate with their uniforms?

Agree with you @Catch18, this is not a hill I want to die on either.  I think we have bigger issues than eye black and jewelry to deal with here.