Section 6.1 (Offensive Interference) of the MLB Umpire Manual--don't we all have one of these on our nightstands--reads:

"While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act such as grabbing, tackling, intentionally slapping at the baseball, punching, kicking, flagrantly using his arms or forearms, etc. to commit an intentional act of interference unrelated to running the bases."

Seems to cover last night's situation pretty well.

~Adam

Scottie, this is what we call "authorized person" interference. Policemen are authorized to be on the field. So are photographers, ballboys/girls, etc. If a live ball should contact them, it remains live. It's interference only if said person intentionally contacts the ball. If that happens, the ball is immediately dead and the umpires rule accordingly.

Now, what does "accordingly" mean? It means we impose penalties (or not) or award bases (or not) to nullify the act of interference. It's not a ground rule double, either (a myth, BTW, commonly believed when spectator interference occurs).

[ October 20, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]

But if we use your logic, then actions such as Alex's would always be legal, for he'd be able to do what he did only if someone were tagging him. After all, a runner would not be able to do what Alex did if a fielder does not have a chance to said runner.

Gotta run. Catch you guys later...

So I'm reading everything about the series on MLB.com. All the columns are rich in detail except the one I was most looking forward to reading: the one about the umpires. Nothing more than the basic information is given. Where are the quotes from the crew about what it's like to be officiating this historic series? Why not an interview with Ed Montague or the two who've never before worked a Fall Classic?

Not that you have any say in this, Ump. I just was disappointed and needed to vent. Since you can't reveal whether you're still working, can you at least tell us your pick and why?

Fever, MLB has restrictions on what we're allowed to publicly say, though these restrictions are, for the most part, applicable to the games in question. Regardless, all of us umpires--gay/straight, black/white, etc.--tend to be a mostly private lot. Sure, there may be one or two of us who lean a little toward the "hamming it up" side, but personally, I'm not one of these.

I think I can accurately speak for most of us when we say that we really don't mind not being featured or quoted in news stories. The game isn't about us at all. We're human; we're a part of the game, of course, but we're there to ensure that those around whom the game centers play by the rules in a fair setting. At least that's how I look at it.

Personally, I'm a generally quiet, private individual, as are most of my peers. This is why we don't mind not being in the media's eyes.

I was watching the Jays-A's game last night, and at one point I noticed the home plate umpire seeming to transfer a ball from the bag on his left hip to the one on his right hip. And I started wondering:

- Is it standard for umps to have 2 ball bags? Is one for 'good' balls and one for 'bad?'
- Generally speaking, how many balls do you keep in your bags?
- It didn't seem like the ump had one of those pitch/out counters... do you ever forget the count or the number of outs?
- Do you carry any other items on your person during the game ie. hand-warmers, breath mints, gum, lip balm, eye drops, water, broom, Kleenex ... ???

(running in and yelling)
Two balls, one in each bag. Women umps don't have any! (running away, laughing maniacally) eek! wink

Joe, you have way too much time on your hands.

Canmark,

Some of us use one ball bag, some use two. I personally use two so that I don't have to keep turning around and asking someone to bring me more. The ball bags are designed to hold 6 or so balls in each, but that's a bit too much. I generally have 4-5 balls in each bag.

We don't have one bag for "good" balls and one for "bad" balls. Any such "bad" ball is tossed from the game anyway.

Many of us do not use an indicator (that's the thing to which you referred above). I do. In fact, having used it during my entire career, I'd kinda feel naked without it. The guys who don't use an indicator generally let the scoreboard keep the count for them. Personally, I don't trust a scoreboard, even in the major leagues. That's why I use an indicator, since what I have is official.

There have been times I have forgotten the count or number of outs, though this doesn't happen that often in the major leagues, because each park has so many scoreboards around that the number of outs and the count is displayed all over the place. It's rather difficult to miss it.

I don't carry any other pertinent items on me when I work the plate, other than what I need. On the bases I may occasionally have some gum, though I don't chew gum as much as some of my peers. One base umpire will always carry a stopwatch as well. Other than that, there's nothing else we need to have on us while out there.

A stopwatch? He has time to clock the runners???

I see you lost your head honcho, Sandy Alderson. Any possibility he'll be replaced by an umpire?

My professionalism precludes me from saying anything more than good riddance. I know I am not the only one among my peers who feels this way.

Well then, good for you guys. Who would your choice be to replace him?

Ump... given the amount of rain we've been getting lately, and the recent complaints* at a Mets-Nats game, can you explain the procedure for calling a game due to rain.

*Both team managers protested the Mets-Nats game at RFK, and blamed the umps for not calling the game sooner.

canmark,

Deciding when to call a game is one of the most difficult decisions we have to make. The decision to call a game rests solely with the crew chief once the umpires have jurisdiction over the game. Before they do, it's up to the home team's management. (Note: This changes when it's the final series at that park between the two teams following June 1 of each year.) He won't do it on a whim, either. Before a game will be called, he consults the head groundskeeper, who usually has access to a Doppler radar and other sources.

We are "encouraged," shall I say, to do everything we can to get games in. Oftentimes, we're urged to do so by the home team's management. They can frequently get on our nerves with all the convincing they attempt to do in order to pressure us to not call a game.

These games mean money. Big money. We are very much aware of this, which is why we try as much as we can to get each game in.

I haven't been to RFK yet this season, but I can tell you that from what I've heard from several of my comrades, it's really a mess, even when it's dry. Of course, this is just a temporary situation (we hope), as RFK won't be their permanent home.

I hope this sometimes vague information has answered your question.

Hi Ump,

What managers give you the hardest time complaining and arguing during a game / throughout a series?

[ June 08, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Billinjc ]

I have a question -- any thoughts on using instant replays to determine whether a home run is legit or not? Such as if it's down the line and ruled fair when it was foul or vice versa. Or, as recently happened to Mike Lieberthal of the Phillies, a ball hit the top of the fence and bounced back and was ruled in play, but after the manager put up a complaint the umps conferred and overruled themselves, calling it a home run (which it clearly wasn't). Seems like there are an increasing number of conferences in these situations when it might be easier to consult a replay.

Bill,

This is difficult to answer, not because of which names to mention, but because I don't know if I'd come across as less than professional by naming such persons.

However, without going into big details, I can tell you that there are some true firecrackers and some real Ghandis among the ranks of MLB managers. The same can be said for an individual or two who is no longer a manager, chief among them would be Larry Bowa. To be blunt, he was a raving lunatic. He'd never listen, he just screamed and hurtled insults at you. (Sorry to knock your town's former manager, JIP. )

Piniella isn't much better, either, as he can easily go ballistic. Add Hargrove to this category, though he isn't quite up to their caliber.

As far as managers who, at least with me, haven't been much of a problem, I'd include Alou and Torre among these. Ironically, Torre was ejected Wednesday night (along with NY first baseman Tino Martinez) when they got into a checked swing argument with Larry Vanover. I give Torre credit, because he rarely goes as ballistic as some of his peers.

There is one manager who, in my opinion, is cut throat and vindictive, and who is one of the best at playing dirty and holding grudges, in many respects. However, in the interests of his privacy, I will not reveal the name of the Cardinals manager.

Joe,

I honestly don't know if MLB is going to ever go this route. Certainly not anytime soon, if you ask me. As far as what my own thoughts might be...that's a good question. Personally, I am presently against it, and not because I arrogantly think we're immune from making mistakes--we're not; rather, I don't think Baseball can properly adopt it without messing around with the still-lingering problem of the game's length and pace, a problem that still is of concern to the Commissioner's office. As long as that is an issue, I don't see them adopting anything that would, even in a small sense, slow down or interrupt the game as much as instant replay would.

The call to which you refer is one of the most difficult to make, and it is one that even I have kicked. Two years ago I was working third base in Baltimore when in a night game there was a high fly hit right down the line. The ball hugged the foul pole, and I thought it turned to the left for a foul ball. I signaled it foul, but because my view--still the best on the field--was just not good, I immediately upon making the call of foul turned around and signaled to Tim Tschida working the plate that I needed help on the call. We brought in the other two guys on the crew and discussed it. I explained to them that the lights were so poor up there with the foul pole being such an optical problem that I couldn't completely tell if the ball was fair or foul, but that I thought it was based on what I saw. Tim chimed in and simply said he saw it all the way and that it stayed fair the whole time. He asked me if I wanted to reverse myself and signal a home run. I smiled and told him he could do it, so we broke up our pow-wow and he signaled a home run.

A few years ago MLB really stressed the crew get together to discuss situations like this or anything else that was unclear or out of the ordinary. The emphasis was on getting the call ultimately right and not our appearance or pride. I don't disagree with this line of thinking.

How does an umpiring crew prepare for a game where there is a good probability that there will be a fight? For example, I fully expect that Jose Guillen will be drilled with a Bartolo Colon fastball tonight during the Nationals vs. Angels game during one of his at bats. The players know this is going to happen, the fans do, and I assume the umpires do as well. Are there comments made during the exchange of line-up cards? Does the league contact the umpires before the game to advise them on a preferred course of action?

Ump,

Could you explain how one determines when a balk is committed? I go to games dozens of times a year, and I feel like I know one when I see one yet have never quite figured it out. What in the pitcher's actions on the mound cause a balk to be called??

Somewhere in these Ask the Ump threads the question about a balk was asked before. It's a quite complicated rule, and the interpretations can be interesting sometimes. If you do a search of this forum you might be able to find the relevant discussion sooner.

In games where there is a potential for possible intentional throwing at batter, fights, etc., we often will receive from the MLB office instructions or recommendations as to what may or must be done. Sometimes these come in the form of an order--the crew does what we're told--but usually it's akin to a heads up, alerting us of what may happen. The crew chief is contacted by MLB, and he informs the rest of the guys on his crew and explains to us how either MLB or he wishes to handle a situation should one arise.

As of this morning we hadn't received any official directive about checking all pitchers' mitts for pine tar, but who knows? I wouldn't be surprised if MLB sends some sort of directive about this stuff soon, unless they just don't care.

On this note, it is my personal opinion that the attitude in Baseball is becoming more and more of a "if I can get away with it..." attitude, and this truly is a shame. Baseball has legal ways players can try to gain advantages, and the game tends to take care of itself in these respects, but when its participants resort to cheating--steroids, pine tar on gloves, emory boards, corked bats, etc.--they should be severely punished. Of course, the Players Association would never permit that.

As Joe mentions below, it is, indeed, a complicated rule, not so much from our point of view anymore, but more so from a fan's perspective, which is understandable. It's probably the most misunderstood rule in baseball.

I'll reiterate what I've mentioned before, a few points to understand about balks:

• Balks are NOT defined as a pitcher deceiving a runner(s)--they can legally deceive runners all they want.
• Balks really cannot be defined by a simple definition.
• Balks are more correctly defined as a certain illegal act as specified in Rule 8.05 of OBR.
• There are several "textbook" balks specifically mentioned in the rule book; however, there are many other ways a pitcher can balk that are not as easily and clearly specified in the rules
• Except under NFHS Rules, balks are NOT dead balls; every balk is a delayed dead ball. Moreover, if a balk is called it can sometimes be ignored and disregarded if certain things occur.
• There are several myths about balks, among them the aforementioned dead ball belief; a "fielder's balk" (ain't no such thing); a pitcher having a 45-degree angle; and more.

I hope this info helps you somewhat. It's not easy understanding balks, and it's not easy explaining them.

I remember that game! At least I remember an awfully similar one. Was the home run in question down the left field line? I remember having friends over that night and listening to the game on the radio outside. Several of us ran inside to see the replays, and, yes, it was a fair ball.

This may have been either the same game or series that the Orioles made their final out during a rundown from third to home. Is my memory holding up here?

(Why am I sharing this? Who knows. )

Your memory serves you well, Fever. As to mine on whether that game ended with a rundown, I honestly couldn't recall. I can remember the botched foul ball call because it's something big and obviously stuck out, especially considering that I was the one involved.

But as far as the ending of that game specifically, considering it wasn't as unforgettable, shall I say, as what happened earlier, well...

I've caught a couple of notable "umpire actions" in recent Red Sox games.

Saturday night at Fenway, Pirates batter Ryan Doumit was hit in the upper arm by a Tim Wakefield knuckleball, but home plate umpire Jerry Crawford charged Doumit with a strike for failing to move out of the way -- in fact, in replay Doumit can be seen actually moving his arm into the ball. Good call by Crawford, one rarely seen. Man, was Doumit surprised...

And tonight at Jacobs Field, home plate umpire Sam Holbrook could be seen apologizing to Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek and pitcher David Wells for a blown call, a remarkable display of professional courtesy.

Ump, Do you like Francona? He seems pretty level headed most of the time.

And on a COMPLETELY different subject, has anyone bought Tony LaRussa's book? LOL

Terry's not so bad. There are worse.

Whew! I'm beat, Ump. I worked 5 games this weekend in the terrible heat and humidity. I had a noon doubleheader on Saturday, working the plate for the first game, then an evening game behind the plate. Today I had another noon doubleheader, the first game behind the plate.

Every half-inning I was wiping myself off with a towel because I was sweating so much. I drank some cold Gatorade every half-inning as well, and the home team was pouring ice cold water all over my head and down my back from the 4th inning on. It was awful out there!

Today was definitely more humid than yesterday, but because there was a light wind off the lake for the first time in several days, and because my doubleheader was in a near western burb closer to the Lake, I did a little better. Of course, pouring all that water over me helped, I'm sure.

You guys don't do doubleheaders, do you? And how do you handle such intense heat and humidity? One of my friends who is an MLB Umpire told me about Under Armour some years back, and I swear that's the absolute best stuff I have ever worn! It makes a world of difference, in my opinion.

Stay cool!

MLB Umpire,

As some (or most) Amateur Umpires, I am always fascinated in watching you guys work. I am one person who loves going to / watching games and watching the umpires work. I love to learn everything I can about the "best" in the profession.

I have some questions about your equipment. I have noticed in past games many umpires wear a charcoal gray Wilson chest protector which appears to be much thinner than the Wilson Platinum and also does not have the large shoulder caps & upper arm protection (some guys Ive noticed are Marquez, Froemming, Hohn, Barksdale). I have also noticed another one worn by Davis, Wendelstedt & Reliford which is a dark gray color. Just wondering if you wouldnt mind informing me about what the pros wear. Thanks!

A variety of equipment is worn by us. There really isn't any one type. Only our uniforms are standard. As far as some examples, I personally wear the West Vest and wouldn't trade it for anything. A couple guys, like Teddy Barrett, wear the Carlucci protector, which is custom made and custom fit to a guy's individual body specs. That one's not cheap though. It starts at something around $225 or so and goes up from there.

Most of our equipment you can buy from the two largest suppliers, Gerry Davis Sports and Honig's Whistle Stop. They sell the same stuff we use.

Hope this info helps.

Oh it does, thanks. Ive noticed some who wear the Wilson Platinum (I own one too), but have noticed a lot of guys wearing a gray one with a large W at the top - which is nothing Wilson sells now. Thats what threw me off.

I wanted to ask you some more. As an amateur umpire, what do you recommend using for rules study? Studying straight from the rule books, purchasing J/R?? A combination? Everything possible?

I know you are under constant scrutnity and pressure, and I have noticed that Reliford's crew has had quite a few situations this past week (hes not working as I type). Three ejections including the much hyped one in Boston with Wells. My question is: what is the reaction to this? Is it common to hear things (from above)about you handling a situation wrong? Handling one 100% correctly? Or does the benefit of the doubt go to you guys always (Guccione in this case was involved in all 3 ejections)? Thanks.

While reading the rule book never hurts, the rule book is so lacking in many things. I'd strongly recommend what is often referred to as the "Jaska/Roder" manual. You can obtain it from www.rulesofbaseball.com. If you work amateur ball like Federation (NFHS) and/or NCAA, get the blue version, which is the one that has the rules differences cited. The green version is the same thing, except that it doesn't contain the rules differences and comparisons.

In addition to this, it helps to acquire certain videos produced by professional umpires, past and present. I'd stay away from ones produced by amateur umpires. Jim Evans has a great one on balks, for example. Click here for more info:

http://www.umpireacademy.com/tapes.html

I'd also stay away from books called "Knotty Problems" or similar titles. It's best to utilize publications like the aforementioned Jaksa/Roder manual. BTW, Evans also has an annotated rule manual. It's huge--something like 6" thick, and not cheap, but it's a great publication, guaranteed.

We're not perfect, that's for sure. Yes, we do hear from our supervisors if they believe we mishandled a situation, particularly an ejection. While we may get the benefit of the doubt usually, that doesn't mean we're immune from criticism.

hey ump,
A close call at first was changed last night in the Boston-Tampa Bay game. I don't remember seeing a call llike that overturned. Does it happen often? Who has the power to overturn a call?

I had a question about that myself. Laz Diaz said he saw Schilling touch first. Okay, that's fine, but my question is shouldn't he, as the plate umpire, been watching the runner who was scoring instead of watching the play at first?

Also, I was not impressed at all by the lack of professionalism that was shown by Diaz in ejecting Lou.

How many games on the MLB level have you worked, Sooner?

Why does that matter? He's expressing his opinion. I didn't see that particular ejection, but I've had the same thought about other situations.

Aww, thanks Joe.

And I really was just curious as to if the home plate umpire should be paying attention to the runner who was going to be attempting to score or not. If I came off in a bad way asking that, I appologize, but I'm pretty sure I didn't.

All right, gentlemen. Let's be nice now. There's no need to bicker.

To answer the question that is on the table, umpires cannot simply overrule another umpire's call unless the umpire originally making the call asks for help. On some situations, like a ball that goes out around a foul pole that is called either fair or foul at first, the overruling, if there is one, will come after a specific call has been made. Other times umpires employ what I personally refer to as "don't change the call, change the umpire."

This occurs when an umpire may be screened out or unsure of something for a particular reason, and instead of making a call, asking for help, and having it changed, he will first go to a partner for assistance, ask for confirmation, then make a final call. When I teach at offseason amateur clinics, I emphasize this in two-man crews where the base umpire is in either the "B" or "C" position and has to make a call at first where it appears the first baseman may have pulled his foot off the bag. Instead of calling a batter-runner out, for example, then being forced to go to the plate umpire for help and changing your call, it's better to immediately go to your plate partner and say something like, "John, did he have the bag?" or "John, was his foot on the base?" If your partner acknowledges that he did, then you call the out. Of course, if you were SURE F3 wasn't on the base, or the B-R beat the throw, there's no need for help, as you've called him safe.

As far as a plate umpire watching runners come home, that is a critical responsibility, especially when time play situations exist, for he is the one who must determine if a runner touches or passes home before the final out of an inning occurs on the bases (force plays and B-R not reaching or touching first excepted, of course).

I hope this information helps, gentlemen.

What are your thoughts, Joe? I'll see if I can address them for you.

You didn't. Don't worry about it.

Thanks for the response, MLB UMPIRE.

I'm all for getting the call right... especially on such things as whether a ball is fair or foul. I just had never seen it done like that on a close call at first at the Major League level. I'm sure there's plenty I haven't seen though...

Thanx - UMP, I have been learning a lot from your column. I am so baseball dumb I couldn't even THINK to ASK these questions but they are helpful to me just the same!

[ July 25, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: copman ]

For example, I occasionally see an umpire get vocally agressive in an argument -- i.e. make a call, and then almost before the player or manager gets a chance to object, turn to said player/manager and start yelling. I think the appropriate response should be for an umpire to explain why he made his call, eject a player or manager if warranted, but otherwise should stand there calmly instead of making things worse.

Thanks MLB UMPIRE, very much appreciate your response. It is truly interesting to read any insight you have to anything.

And Joe, I agree 100% with you. That was what really bothered me was how Diaz was quite out of control himself. Sure, Lou's a hothead and I know I wouldn't be able to just calmly say... well, I'll put it this way. I saw the most polite ejection ever at a 14U AAU baseball tournament a couple summers ago. The umpire let the coach go on and on and when all he wanted to say (read yell) was out, the umpire said so nicely and calmly "you, sir, are disqualified." Obviously, if someone is up in your face, chances are you're going to get right back in it. Anyways, I'm rambling and not making sense. Just wanted to say I agree with you, Joe.

Ump,
I was talking about this yesterday, and was wondering if you or other major/minor league umpires take advantage of the fact that your games are taped.

If a player or coach argues a bang-bang play or any other type of close call, do you after the game, check the video to see if you were right?

Just wondering...

Josh

Joe,

I've always had the philosophy that umpires should never defend their calls; rather, we should explain them. I believe that with this being the major leagues and so much money and therefore so much pressure being put on people, it is easy to get overly emotional. While I do try to maintain some civility and a sense of decorum, there are times when I become quite irritated, to say the least.

I cannot speak for every other MLB Umpire, of course, and I don't want to be condescending to them, implying that I know better. Every one of us has had, more than once I'm sure, situations where we may have been a bit too argumentative. Having said this, there are certain things that will assuredly result in umpires getting quite pissed off. When someone in any manner questions my integrity, for example, I get very angry. Disagreeing with a safe/out, ball/strike, or perhaps a rule application is one thing, but to accuse me of being unfair, of not calling things the same for both teams, etc., well...I have NO patience for that and will dump said person without hesitation.

That's a good question, Josh. I personally don't go out of my way to watch a later replay of my calls. If the television is on in the umpire's room and they happen to be showing something, we don't rush to turn it off; we'll watch it. Innate curiosity is frequently enough to get someone to watch such replays. However, for the most part, we don't pay attention to such things.

This is different from situations where we are sent videos of situations requiring our attention. Those range from umpire errors that we need to look at or unique incidents that we study.

I'm watching tonight's Jays-Angels game, currently going into the 18th inning, and am wondering, "Do umpires get, like, overtime pay for extra inning games?" If a game is rained out, do you still get your full pay? Do you get any extra pay for a double header (above being paid for 2 games)? Or are you on just straight salary?

I wish, canmark! We are paid a yearly salary and receive no extra compensation for extra-inning games. It doesn't matter whether a game is 18 innings, 9, or rained out. Our pay is unaffected.

We receive a salary year-round, with an expense check cut to us at the end of the season. This check represents our per diem amount. The good thing about that is that it's nontaxable, so getting such a sizeable check in is nice.

We do receive extra pay for working special event games (All-Star and post-season games). However, those bonuses are pooled together and split among all full-time major league umpires, so it amounts to a per-umpire bonus of roughly $20,000.

These are the only differences to our otherwise salaried pay.