Peace offering.....

ccsdad -

I'll take the olive branch. I will also withdraw, and apologize for, my earlier comment about you being a troll. I believe your intentions are honorable - you want to enforce the rules exactly as they are written, every time, with no exceptions. I believe this is honorable because you want to do the right thing, but misguided.

I think we all agree that the best game an umpire can have is when he's invisible - he has no impact on the game, he enforces the rules consistently and impartially, and no one remembers anything about him in that game.

With that in mind, consider the following 2 situations (FED rules):

1. Tie score, bottom of the last, 2 out. Batter hits a bomb to center, puts his head down and busts it to 1st. The ball goes over the fence (HR signaled by the BU), hits the scoreboard and bounces back onto the field. F8 picks it up and throws it to F4. The batter rounds 1st, sees F4 with the ball, and retreats to 1st, not knowing he hit a home run. The 1B coach says "it's a home run you dummy" and shoves the batter/runner towards 2nd base. That's a coach physically assisting a runner (3.2.2.) and the runner is out.

2. Tie score, bottom of the last, R3. F1, off the rubber, takes his sign from the coach, or his dad in the stands, then takes the rubber and delivers the pitch (not a "quick pitch"). That's a balk (6.1.1.) and the runner from 3rd is awarded home.

Do you make these calls or do you use your judgment, consider the "spirit of the rule" and ignore the violations?

CCC
I will never take any discussion personally, in person or on the internet. I will always argue my point if I feel I am correct. I will continue to discuss any rule question you have. I will weigh in on Dash's response at a later time.
We understand that you want to call the rulebook as written, while laudable not always practical. Dash says you want to be invisible whenever possible. From my side there are times the game doesn't allow you to do that.
We are taught to try and keep the game flowing whenever possible. The problem is sometimes things happen where you have to make a call that creates a mess. If the situation presents itself then we have to make that call. On the other hand there are times to enforce a ruling and many guys will pass to not make waves or create problems. This is more where you are having a problem with the umpiring community. If this happens then I support you 1000%. I hate to see an official not make a tough call just to stay in the manager's good graces. On the other hand there is a term we use,OOO, it stands for over officous oaf. This a guy that pulls out a highly technical ruling to show what he knows, many times incorrectly. As a training official I don't want to see either.
I am viewed by some as an OOO when I veiw them as guys that pass on calls they should make to make the game fair. I had an argument with a partner the other night about two BI calls that he passed on. In both cases the batter stepped accross the plate, interfering with the throw to second. He thought the batter should be able to finish his swing, even if he steps out over the plate. I countered with 99% of the time they only "complete the swing" like that with a stealing runner. My point is he is allowing them to gain an advantage not allowed by the rules there by disadvantaging the defense. He sees it as no big deadl and just baseball. This a beleif held by many and it is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

I think we all agree that the best game an umpire can have is when he's invisible - he has no impact on the game...

As Jim Evans has said, this is a receipe for disaster.

I don't know about small boy ball, but at higher levels, this doesn't fly. Game management at the college level would be impossible if we opereated under this philosophy.

Additionally, this philosophy matches the fan cry of "another umpire who thinks he's the show" when a balk is called with a runner on third.

Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule, and, as the only official representative of Baseball on the field, protect the integrity of the game.

You can either do your job, or you can remain invisible, You can't do both.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

I think we all agree that the best game an umpire can have is when he's invisible - he has no impact on the game...

As Jim Evans has said, this is a receipe for disaster.

I don't know about small boy ball, but at higher levels, this doesn't fly. Game management at the college level would be impossible if we opereated under this philosophy.

Additionally, this philosophy matches the fan cry of "another umpire who thinks he's the show" when a balk is called with a runner on third.

Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule, and, as the only official representative of Baseball on the field, protect the integrity of the game.

You can either do your job, or you can remain invisible, You can't do both.

I think you missed the point, which was if you do your job correctly, which we all assume is calling a fair game by the rules, when the games over the umpire and his calls will not be a topic of discussion. I thinks that's the invisible part he was refering to.

I think the point Jimmy and I were making is sometimes you have to make calls that are absolutely the correct call but will raise one team or the other in a fit. You balk the winning run in, call an interference that ends a big game, these types of calls have to be made according to the rules.
The invisible part comes in when you don't pull out a 20 second rule in the middle of a game that is going well. Or call a no catch on an outfielder who catches the ball to end an inning but runs in tossing the ball up to himself and drops it in the infield. These are the types of stupid calls that can ruin a good game that is flowing by an umpire trying to show what he knows.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:

I think we all agree that the best game an umpire can have is when he's invisible - he has no impact on the game...

As Jim Evans has said, this is a receipe for disaster.

I don't know about small boy ball, but at higher levels, this doesn't fly. Game management at the college level would be impossible if we opereated under this philosophy.

Additionally, this philosophy matches the fan cry of "another umpire who thinks he's the show" when a balk is called with a runner on third.

Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule, and, as the only official representative of Baseball on the field, protect the integrity of the game.

You can either do your job, or you can remain invisible, You can't do both.

I think you missed the point, which was if you do your job correctly, which we all assume is calling a fair game by the rules, when the games over the umpire and his calls will not be a topic of discussion. I thinks that's the invisible part he was refering to.

No, I didn't miss the point. An umpire can do his job correctly and still have coaches and fans screaming. He can call a balkk and bring in the tying or winning run. Is he invisible then. Nope, but he did his job sccurately.

He can recognize that even though the catcher tagged the sliding runner high on the chest, he was far enough up the line that the tag beat the foot on the plate. While coaches and fans are screaming about "a high tag is safe, always...don't you know that?" is he invisible? No.

When the umpire breaks up a confrontation between players before it escalates, or perhaps tosses a plater for something only the umpire heard....is he invisible? No.

And I sssure you any umpire who makes the "fair" call you've been asking for in another thread will not be invisible.

The entire concept about the best umpire is the invisible umpire in total BS. No umpire I know in college ball, Minor League or Major League baseball believes it or works it.

Umpire should have no consideration at all for how visible they are. They should just do their job. If it's the type of game where nothing happens, great, and if it's the type of game where everything crazy happens.., that's fine, too.

Thanks cccsdad,
I personally think the umpire is as much a part of the game as second base or one of the player. If he does his job perfectly he can still be criticized --- and usually is. My son was a two way player in college. If he was pitching and the ump was liberal with the strike zone I thought he was doing a good job. If my son was hitting and the same ump was liberal with the strike zone I thought he was being too liberal with the strike zone. I can remember when my son was tossed for taking out a catcher --- a terrible call! My son was also a catcher and he has been taken out by runners and the runner tossed --- great call! . It is a high profile job with few compliments and many criticisms. I also know many coaches that force the umpire into a high profile confrontation over "nothing" just to help him motivate his team.
Fungo

I too accept, and hope I didn't ruffle any feathers.

The invisible ump: 41 first pitch fly outs followed by a solo HR to dead center, and just pray he kept both feet in the BB and touches all the bases.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

No, I didn't miss the point.

Yes you did.
[quote*An umpire can do his job correctly and still have coaches and fans screaming.[/quote]
No doubt about that.

quote:

He can call a balkk and bring in the tying or winning run. Is he invisible then. Nope, but he did his job sccurately.

No, he is not invisible, and he ruined the game (in the situation I described) by calling a balk for something the rule was never intended to penalize. That is being an OOO (Overly Officious Official) and having no concept of why the rule is there in the first place, and lacking any sense of judgment as to when to enforce it. That is NOT doing your job accurately. As Jim Evans would say, that is horse$hit umpiring.

He can recognize that even though the catcher tagged the sliding runner high on the chest, he was far enough up the line that the tag beat the foot on the plate. While coaches and fans are screaming about "a high tag is safe, always...don't you know that?" is he invisible? No.

When the umpire breaks up a confrontation between players before it escalates, or perhaps tosses a plater for something only the umpire heard....is he invisible? No.

And I sssure you any umpire who makes the "fair" call you've been asking for in another thread will not be invisible.

The entire concept about the best umpire is the invisible umpire in total BS. No umpire I know in college ball, Minor League or Major League baseball believes it or works it.

Umpire should have no consideration at all for how visible they are. They should just do their job. If it's the type of game where nothing happens, great, and if it's the type of game where everything crazy happens.., that's fine, too.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I think the point Jimmy and I were making is sometimes you have to make calls that are absolutely the correct call but will raise one team or the other in a fit. You balk the winning run in, call an interference that ends a big game, these types of calls have to be made according to the rules.
The invisible part comes in when you don't pull out a 20 second rule in the middle of a game that is going well. Or call a no catch on an outfielder who catches the ball to end an inning but runs in tossing the ball up to himself and drops it in the infield. These are the types of stupid calls that can ruin a good game that is flowing by an umpire trying to show what he knows.

Well put Mike. And the two situations I described would be examples of stupid calls which, although correct by the rules, would ruin the game and change the outcome through terrible umpiring.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule...

Bingo. And that means knowing the INTENT of the rule, and under what circumstances it should be enforced.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
You can either do your job, or you can remain invisible, You can't do both.

Sometimes doing your job causes you to be invisible (the coaches and fans will think you had a great game), sometimes it causes you to be the most visible man on the field (at least half will think your incompetence cost them). I did not intend to imply otherwise, or that you should EVER make a call based on what anyone's reaction to it would be.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
...protect the integrity of the game.

That should be the desired result of any call, whatever the consequences.

My dad and I were talking about the home run thing the other day.. "helping a runner"...

When Mark McGuire hit #62 against the Chicago Cubs at Busch Stadium, he could have been called out numerous times.. to start, he missed first base and the first base coach grabbed him and pulled him back, then he shook hands with every fielder in the path of him going around the bases.

quote:

then he shook hands with every fielder in the path of him going around the bases.

Wouldn't this be interference (or is it obstruction)???????

Sorry guys but trying to bring some levity to the thread.

As long as their are fans, players and coaches who have no clue and umpire will never be invisible because they will prove they have no clue. You guys do a great job.

Dash, I never stated or implied at anytime that it was not important to know the intent of the rule. and I intended no reference what so ever to any balk call you referenced.

My point is simply this: There are many, many times an umpire, in the proper discharge of his duties will not be able to remain "invisible."

I side with Evans and other professional instructors and share their opinion that "invisibility" should never be a goal of an umpire.

I don't see how anything this simple can be misconstrued, so with this, I will leave this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Dash, I never stated or implied at anytime that it was not important to know the intent of the rule. and I intended no reference what so ever to any balk call you referenced.

My point is simply this: There are many, many times an umpire, in the proper discharge of his duties will not be able to remain "invisible."

I side with Evans and other professional instructors and share their opinion that "invisibility" should never be a goal of an umpire.

I don't see how anything this simple can be misconstrued, so with this, I will leave this thread.

Jimmy, I agree 100% with all of this. (That's why I quoted you saying "Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule.") IMO, that hits the nail on the head.

As for being misconstrued - most likely a poor choice of words on my part. My bad.

quote:

No, I didn't miss the point. An umpire can do his job correctly and still have coaches and fans screaming. He can call a balkk and bring in the tying or winning run. Is he invisible then. Nope, but he did his job sccurately.

He can recognize that even though the catcher tagged the sliding runner high on the chest, he was far enough up the line that the tag beat the foot on the plate. While coaches and fans are screaming about "a high tag is safe, always...don't you know that?" is he invisible? No.

When the umpire breaks up a confrontation between players before it escalates, or perhaps tosses a plater for something only the umpire heard....is he invisible? No.

And I sssure you any umpire who makes the "fair" call you've been asking for in another thread will not be invisible.

The entire concept about the best umpire is the invisible umpire in total BS. No umpire I know in college ball, Minor League or Major League baseball believes it or works it.

Umpire should have no consideration at all for how visible they are. They should just do their job. If it's the type of game where nothing happens, great, and if it's the type of game where everything crazy happens.., that's fine, too

Yes you did.

Everyone with half a brain understands that in most games there are going to be close plays and or calls that coaches, players and fans don't agree with.

I think the assumption was (obviously missed by some) those things aside, the umpires job is not to become part of the show, but rather to make sure the show goes the way it should according to the rules.

You missed his point totally. By the nature of game, the umpire is going to involved in EVERY play whether he's calling balls and strikes, outs, balks, obstructions, or whatever. But we've all seen umpires that think they are the show.

You do your job, you live with the complaints, knowing it goes with the job, and you be as fair and impartial as you can be while enforcing the rules using your experience and common sense.

That's the point he was making, sorry you missed it.

quote:

Yes you did.

Everyone with half a brain understands...

1. No, I didn't. See Dash's and Mr. Taylors posts in agreement.

2. Everyone with half a brain? So much for your peace offering. I think it best I refrain from responding to your posts in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

quote:

Yes you did.

Everyone with half a brain understands...

1. No, I didn't. See Dash's and Mr. Taylors posts in agreement.

2. Everyone with half a brain? So much for your peace offering. I think it best I refrain from responding to your posts in the future.

Your initial response was..

quote:

Our job is to see that neither team gains an advantage not intended by rule, and, as the only official representative of Baseball on the field, protect the integrity of the game.

You can either do your job, or you can remain invisible, You can't do both.

This response in itself shows that you missed the point. I guess in your opinion, unless the umpire is running all over the place screaming, "balk, obstruction, dead ball" etc, he's not or cant be doing his job.

Again, we all made the assumption (except YOU) he was referring to not "being the show".

You know the type of umpires he's referring to and so do I, so let's not get into that debate.

No one is saying umpires shouldn't be fair or impartial or call the game by the rules, in order to try and be invisible (by the way he was speaking figuratively and not literally). I've seen umpires blow a call, then get intimidated into a make up call.
I've seen umpires change their zone because they were being ******d at. It's that type of officiating he was referring to, not what you’re talking about.
I guess maybe he should have simplified what he was saying so we ALL could understand the point he was making.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
Look, I don't want to be "THAT GUY" ...

Well, from where I sit, it looks like you are "that guy".

Dash made reference to "invisible umpires", and Jimmy03 interpreted it differently than Dash meant. They have cleared up the misunderstanding, and I suspect Dash will find a different phrase in the future, but you continue to comment about which of them "missed the point."

It looks to me like you just want to argue, even if you don't have a dog in the fight. I'd appreciate if you could ease up a little.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
...I suspect Dash will find a different phrase in the future...

Count on it.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
Look, I don't want to be "THAT GUY" ...

Well, from where I sit, it looks like you are "that guy".

Dash made reference to "invisible umpires", and Jimmy03 interpreted it differently than Dash meant. They have cleared up the misunderstanding, and I suspect Dash will find a different phrase in the future, but you continue to comment about which of them "missed the point."

It looks to me like you just want to argue, even if you don't have a dog in the fight. I'd appreciate if you could ease up a little.

Dash made his comment with the assumption we all had a pretty good understanding of the dynamics of a baseball game and how it's managed by umpires.

The initial response to dash's post was insinuating that an umpire in order to do his job, has to be making calls that pi$$ people off. I maintain those calls will happen and they are part of the game, I do not however, concede that a game without those types of calls is one in which the official must not have done his job.

As far as your "dog in the race" comment, you might want to see who started this thread.

Not only do I have a "dog in the race", it's my racetrack. I also find it amusing, when I give my opinion, and don't back down, I'm being "that guy" and arguing or complaining, yet I don't see the same standard being used when others in here, argue their point with just as much passion.

So to quote YOU

quote:

I'd appreciate if YOU could ease up a little.

Just a point of clarification. Two times in this thread reference was made to runners being assisted by base coaches after hitting balls over the fence for home runs. One was in dash's original post and the other referred to Mark McGwire's 62nd home run. Both suggested that the runners could have been called out for being assisted.

That particular violation (runner assisted by a base coach) only applies during a live ball. When the batted balls in those cases passed over the fence for a home run the ball became dead. In neither case could those B/R's be called out for being assisted by a base coach.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
Just a point of clarification. Two times in this thread reference was made to runners being assisted by base coaches after hitting balls over the fence for home runs. One was in dash's original post and the other referred to Mark McGwire's 62nd home run. Both suggested that the runners could have been called out for being assisted.

That particular violation (runner assisted by a base coach) only applies during a live ball. When the batted balls in those cases passed over the fence for a home run the ball became dead. In neither case could those B/R's be called out for being assisted by a base coach.

Neither OBR nor NCAA limits the violation to a live ball situation. FED says the coach can't assist the runner during "playing action," and the touching of awarded bases is certainly playing action, even though the ball is dead. I think the penalty would still apply.

For Fed, at least, Case book 3.2.2 Situation A says otherwise.

I haven't read the caseplay reference but you certainly have a coach assist a runner on a dead ball award BUT it would be a very, very limited basis. There is no rule that says anything about another assisting a runner. Any hand slapping or shaking hands oes not qualify. You see many times players telling each other not to touch the runner before he touches the plate on a HR. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Where you get a problem is when they block out seeing him touch. Also, in NCAA they don't want the players on the dirt area because of taunting issues.

quote:

Originally posted by pilsner:
For Fed, at least, Case book 3.2.2 Situation A says otherwise.

I saw that and it's not really analogous. In situation A, the coach helps a runner to his feet after he tripped (there was no missed base). The ruling is "this type of assistance" is allowed. Helping a runner to his feet after he tripped is very different than grabbing him to make him touch a missed base, for which he would be out on proper appeal.

In situation B(b), the home run is "going over the fence," when the coach physically assists the runner at 3rd. In this case, the runner is out on the coach's assistance. It seems to me that if the runner is out for coach's assistance on a ball that is "going" over the fence, he would also be out on a ball that has "gone" over the fence.

But I can see your point. The answer is not clear from the rule.

IMO, the difference between the explanations (going over vs gone over) is that going over the ball is still considered live and gone over the ball is considered dead.

quote:

I saw that and it's not really analogous. In situation A, the coach helps a runner to his feet after he tripped (there was no missed base).

In your original post there was no missed base but you suggested the runner could be called out (not that he should be) under rule 3-2-2 for being assisted.