Where do you put him?

How can you make this determination with what you describe without being there to talk with the guy... 2nd/3rd yr really doesn't mean a whole lot. I know umpires who have been around for a long long time and have shaky knowledge and poor execution of 2 man base mechanics... this is another have to be there situation...

Are you saying that in your area, the senior of the 2 umpires decides who works where in a varsity game? If so, thats just potential trouble....What if both of you are equal and want, or dont want the plate?....Here, the game assignor decides varsity positions, with lower games decided between the 2 umpires in pregame.

quote:

Originally posted by archangel:
Are you saying that in your area, the senior of the 2 umpires decides who works where in a varsity game? If so, thats just potential trouble....What if both of you are equal and want, or dont want the plate?....Here, the game assignor decides varsity positions, with lower games decided between the 2 umpires in pregame.

Where we are, the partners decide 95% of the time (all levels)... unless someone is going to be evaluated on the dish.

quote:

Originally posted by archangel:
Are you saying that in your area, the senior of the 2 umpires decides who works where in a varsity game? If so, thats just potential trouble....What if both of you are equal and want, or dont want the plate?....Here, the game assignor decides varsity positions, with lower games decided between the 2 umpires in pregame.

Okay, you're the assigner. Where do you put him?

Put the experience guy behind the plate and I say this from first hand experience. I had a game one time where one of the umps was really good but the other guy was brand new and the few JV games I saw him work he was terrible in all aspects of the job.

As they walked up to the plate for the pregame meeting the inexperienced guy was doing the plate. After the meeting was over I walked with the experienced guy up the first baseline as my pitcher was warming up and asked him why he wasn't behind the plate. He said he had never worked with him and the other guy wanted to do it.

Needless to say it was quite a mess in the game with virtually any call the plate umpire made. There was no strike zone as each pitch was a total guess and he would take forever to make the call. He called one of my runners safe on a bang bang play at the plate and when the other coach came out he change his call. Then here I came to discuss it. At this point the experienced guy stepped in because myself and the other coach were on this guy hard. In all honesty we both probably should have been tossed.

It was a very ugly game that could have been avoided due to the fact there are fewer close calls on the bases. I've had games where the bad ump is on the bases and while there were calls that were horrible it's easier to overcome.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
Put the experience guy behind the plate and I say this from first hand experience. I had a game one time where one of the umps was really good but the other guy was brand new and the few JV games I saw him work he was terrible in all aspects of the job.

As they walked up to the plate for the pregame meeting the inexperienced guy was doing the plate. After the meeting was over I walked with the experienced guy up the first baseline as my pitcher was warming up and asked him why he wasn't behind the plate. He said he had never worked with him and the other guy wanted to do it.

Needless to say it was quite a mess in the game with virtually any call the plate umpire made. There was no strike zone as each pitch was a total guess and he would take forever to make the call. He called one of my runners safe on a bang bang play at the plate and when the other coach came out he change his call. Then here I came to discuss it. At this point the experienced guy stepped in because myself and the other coach were on this guy hard. In all honesty we both probably should have been tossed.

It was a very ugly game that could have been avoided due to the fact there are fewer close calls on the bases. I've had games where the bad ump is on the bases and while there were calls that were horrible it's easier to overcome.

This was brought up during a preseason D-1 weekend in Arizona. I was having a drink with a coach-acquaintance and his wife. His opinon:

"Put the newbie behind the plate. He'll affect both teams equally and we can do some amount of adjusting.

"But if you put him on the bases, there is no way we can adjust for poor positioning and bad calls. And we work too d@mn hard to get on base. I'd want the best guy on the bases to make sure once we get there we don't get screwed."

LOLOLOLOL - Jimmy before this game I would have agreed with this guy and I would bet he never had a guy like this one. Plus there is a level of proportional competenance (I have no idea if that's a legit thing to say but it makes me sound smart so I'm going with it). His poor ump at the college level would probably be the best I would see all year. Only way my guy sees a college field is with a ticket, hot dog and pepsi in his hands.

I personally put the experienced guy on the plate. He can control the pace, make most of the calls and take the lead on sticky rules questions. I understand that a bad call could be devastating, but probably less game changing than a bad call on a play at the plate.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
You arrive at what you believe will be a moderately competitive varsity game. You find that your partner had to cancel and the assigner could only find a second or third year guy with no varsity experience and with shaky knowledge of two man mechanics.

Where do you put him...on the dish or bases?

Love to hear some coaches' opinion on this as well. This came to me from a coach.

"shaky knowledge of two man mechanics."
Well if that's cause he's only worked 1 or 3 man, and has a top notch mastery of the bucket, put him back there. Discuss the few rotations he'll have to come out and cover him where you can.

If he's plain over all shakey, bases, where you can also help him with positioning and barking and you rarely have to turn your back on him.

Ask him for $20 of his money and tell him to watch the game from the parking lot

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I personally put the experienced guy on the plate. He can control the pace, make most of the calls and take the lead on sticky rules questions. I understand that a bad call could be devastating, but probably less game changing than a bad call on a play at the plate.

I know I agree with Mike quite a bit, but Ive had my share of shaky partners and I've convered a good many of them when I did the plate....we may still have some issues but probably far less than if he was UIC....

I like Evans' quote: "The grass is where the snakes live."

IMHO, put the experienced guy behind the plate. There are more calls there, let him get the vast majority of those correct (strikes/balls).

The team that pitches & hits best will win the game, even with a few odd calls on the bases.

Put the newbee behind the plate and who knows what chaos is caused.

I'll trade a good strike zone and some "help" for a few bad calls on the bases anytime. Just me.

A kicked call on the bases can easily change the outcome of a game. An inconsistent zone generally gets everyone swinging the bat.

I'd have the junior guy squat.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
A kicked call on the bases can easily change the outcome of a game. An inconsistent zone generally gets everyone swinging the bat.

I'd have the junior guy squat.

But they spend the game trying to figure out what to swing at. Also, if the experienced guy is behind the plate he can see the whole field and play,"Plug the hole." If the experienced guy is in the field he has no idea what his partner is doing or where he is doing it.
This is a well discussed subject over the years and it usually splits down the middle between some very experienced guys on where to go. Both sides present good arguments for either position.

quote:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain

To paraphrase this proverb....

Better to put the inexperienced ump in the field and have people wonder if he has a clue than to put him behind the plate and remove all doubt.

I agree with MST in that both sides do make some good arguments but I will stick with the putting him in the field.

In my experience at the local field, it's Murphy's Law no matter where you put them. If you have them in the field, they'll royally screw a call there; if you put them on the dish, they'll royally screw a call there.

Being that a large majority of the newer umpires are younger (16 or under), I have a short leash before I take over in a bad situation. I know it's not "acceptable" for an umpire to help without being asked, but these kids get approached by a coach and have no idea what to do.

At that point, I walk in and take the kid aside. I ask what he saw and whether he thought his ruling was correct. If he does, we leave it at that and I corral the coaches back to their benches. If he thinks he needs it to be changed, then I tell him how to fix it (and get ready to corral the other coaches).

After the game, we talk over a hamburger and soda. I explain to them how it can be done better next time, and how to prevent problems in the future.

I will NEVER do this on a high school field, or even one that's assigned through my association. However, at the local field, these kids are doing it for a few extra bucks during the summer. I don't need them getting the full brunt of an irate coach, causing them to hate the job and never return.

That said, I'm putting them on the bases for the reason Mike mentioned. Being on the plate, I have the ability (especially with the smaller-field games) to watch everything and fill in where needed.

Another reason to put the liability behind the plate -

Around here, high school baseball is exclusively 2-man until you get to the playoffs, where it becomes 3 or even 4-man. A 3-man "clinic" is held for playoff umpires following our last association meeting at the end of the regular season. The clinic usually lasts about 20 minutes.

Anyone who has been to a REAL 3-man clinic will remember feeling like a deer in the headlights for the first few days (at least), his brain racing through files of rotations and reverse rotations even when the instructor has told him in advance what the play is going to be. After a week of classroom lectures, intense drills and working at least 6 actual 3-man games, you start to have an idea of where you are supposed to be and what your responsibilities are. You cannot learn 3-man in a 20 minute lecture.

Since playoff umpires are selected based solely on coaches' ratings, it is common to find a crew working a big 3-man game that includes at least one umpire who is totally clueless as to 3-man mechanics.

The only place for this guy is behind the plate. There, he doesn't have to worry about reverse rotations (he stays home), and if he misses a rotation, U1 is on his way home and can easily push him up the line.

Put him on the bases and there will be chaos the first time there is a baserunner and a batted ball.

You have a point with three man but with two man the newbe is on the bases.

MST - I'm with you and that's generally the way it works around AZ.

A clarification might be "the better guy" vs. "the not so better guy". Around our parts, the base guy might be in his mid-60's, but he doesn't necessarily know what he's doing. I can't say he "isn't experienced". We tend to put the better guy behind the dish and let him be the leader/arbiter.

In my LHP son's first start in state tournament, they had four umpires. He was a freshman and inexperienced. I felt obligated to go down to the dugout at Tempe Diablo Stadium and yell, "Loose the balk move tonight!"

quote:

"Loose the balk move tonight!"

As opposed to "tighten the balk move tonight"?