Hello, Mr. Umpire!! It's good to be back with another question.

- - - - -

WARNING: I am in the full understanding that this may be a personal matter whose address may not be appropriate for the Board, nevertheless, I thought that, if there were some insights/thoughts you could share, I would appreciate them.

- - - - -

It came up for me that, one day, you're going to retire.

What kinds of plans does a prominent person such as yourself make? Would you move out of the country, in order to establish a comfortable life, or do you have other plans that would include some type of friend-based security detail, as living outside the United States would not be not to your liking?

NB: Although I am sure that it's obvious, I am not interested in any specifics about what you are planning. What I am trying to find out is: when one's career is national/international in scope, how is it terminated properly via retirement to set the correct stage for the rest of your life in the manner you deserve?

Perhaps, like the ones Billy Bean had, there are coaches/mentors who are in place and available to you who are prepared to discuss a proper retirement when becomes necessary. Is this the case?

[ June 03, 2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Hello, bluebird:

If retirement was but a few years away, I suppose I'd give it more thought, but honestly, I haven't. Financially I'll be fine. Both my current investments and my MLB pension and benefits will see to that.

As far as what I'd like to do in terms of occupying my time, there are several activites that I'm sure will keep me busy. I would like to stay involved in umpiring in a teaching/training role, thereby enabling me to help other umpires, both at the amateur and professional level.

In terms of nonbaseball-related retirement activites, since I enjoy traveling, I'll make it a point to visit places to which I have not yet been. I'm not moving out of the U.S., but there are many places I'd love to visit, and doing so now is difficult, considering I'm kept busy with umpire stuff even during the off-season.

I've been asked, perhaps rhetorically, if some day I'll write my memoirs, or make some big coming out announcement, or settle down with someone. To be honest with you, I can't answer that. I don't know if there's some need for me to write my memoirs; I don't wish to be someone's hero by coming out (is it really necessary?); I don't know if I'll ever settle down with anyone. I just don't know what the future holds in these regards.

The only part of your question that confuses me is your reference to a "comfortable life." My life is quite comfortable now, so I'm not sure why you ask if it would be comfortable in retirement. If you meant in the financial retirement dept., I addressed that above.

Hmmm...that's interesting: by "comfortable" I did mean something akin to "partnered and out to friends"; but I guess that's possible for you now.

I just thought that, being away from your career, you might be somewhat more vulnerable (e.g., to people/press getting curious about your personal life when you no longer had obligations to maintain a security detail)...

Now that I write this, I remember that my understanding is (of a particular nationally-acclaimed newscaster) that he is partnered with a career military man, and they have created the proper logistics to make their lives work.

- - - - -

Well anyway, I am glad that you're comfortable, in every sense of that adjective; and, as always, I appreciate the gift of your sincere expense on behalf of the Discussion Board.

:cool:

[ June 04, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

It's my pleasure to participate here on the board. BTW, I now understand more of what you meant by "comfortable." As I rhetorically commented above, who really knows what the future holds? After all, I can't guarantee I'll even BE in a relationship then. It's been so long I think I forgot how one works.

So Ump, what's the word about the Toronto game "played under protest?" Does that mean anything? Is it possible the play will be reviewed and the game replayed? Does it make a difference that the game was "officially" under protest?

So Ump, what's the word about the Toronto game "played under protest?" Does that mean anything? Is it possible the play will be reviewed and the game replayed? Does it make a difference that the game was "officially" under protest?

Hey ump, there was an interesting "Scorecard" column in SI this week about QuesTec, the camera system to evaluate strikes vs. balls. Besides taking a sarcastic tone ("They've come up with the outlandish idea that - get this - pitches thrown over the plate should be strikes and those that are not should be balls. Whoa."), the column says that umpires are having their performance assessed by this system. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about this.

Not that anybody asked, but here's what I think. I think it's about damn time. Many other sports use high-tech means whenever feasible to improve fairness and accuracy. Of course there are subjective sports like gymnastics and figure skating that can't use lasers or timing devises or anything else to improve the fairness of the subjective scores, but in baseball a strike vs. a ball is not a subjective thing. Or is it? Why not use whatever technology is available to determine whether a ball is over the plate? I don't agree with MLB using this system to evaulate an umpire's performance, but I do think that if high-tech means could be used to help an ump make instant decision on calling a ball or strike, it should be used.

I didn't watch the Toronto game last night, but have been reading the reports. I gather this was the situation:

Runners on 1B and 2B, 0 outs. Ball hit to OF and caught by the leftfielder. Ball is trapped by OF, but third base umpire calls it a caught ball. OF throws to 2B to force/tag out runner(s).

But, the umpires later determine that it was trapped. And say that all runners are safe, despite the fact that one of the runners was tagged out in the confusion.

So my question is: what is the ruling when an umpire makes a mistaken call which is later overruled/changed.

I mean, in a safe/out call, the change only affects that player. But in this case, whether the ball was caught or not caught affects 2 runners at 2 different bases. If the call is "caught" then the Jays forced out the 2B runner who went to third without tagging (plus the batter). If the call is "not caught" then the Jays tagged out the confused runner from 1B (but the batter is safe at first).

Either way, we should have gotten at least 1 out, but were given 0 outs.

Boston,

A game played under protest means that the offended team claims a rule or ruling was violated. It could mean player eligibility or something not related to an umpire's decision, but usually means the offended team claims that an umpire erred when making a ruling. Judgment calls cannot be protested. One cannot protest the call of an out/safe, or catch/no catch, etc.

In order for a protest to be valid, it must be made before the next pitch, play, or attempted play. If not, one cannot protest no matter what. On game-ending plays, said protest must be made by noon the next day.

This is what "officially" refers to.

If an umpire makes an incorrect ruling, it should be reversed immediately, and is usually done so with the crew consulting and the crew chief announcing the final decision. Judgment calls are a different thing, for even if they are clearly incorrect, they cannot be protested.

There are a few specific situations where an umpire's incorrect call that put a runner in jeopardy can be reversed and a runner's disposition changed. For example: A runner is on first and the batter has a 3-1 count. The next pitch is ball four, but the second base umpire does not hear or see the plate umpire call ball four. R1 had been stealing on the pitch, and as he slides into second, the catcher's throw nails him, where the umpire calls him out. R1 gets up and walks off the base when the offense yells to him to get back on it because it was really ball four and he was pushed up to second. The defense tags him again while he's off the base.

Because the second base umpire's original call was erroneous--R1 was free to advance to second on the batter's walk--R1 is not out, even after he's tagged again off the base. The umpire is to call "time" and place R1 back on the base safely.

Well, you asked for my thoughts, so I'll give them to you, and I state them here not because I'm against evaluations; I, along with some others, helped design the current evaluation system.

The Questec system is a joke, pure and simple. It's highly inaccurate and doesn't take into consideration many factors, from the catcher butchering a pitch to backdoor curve balls, etc.

None of the Questec cameras have direct viewpoints. They're stationed at several different angles, and whether looked at individually or combined with all the other cameras, they can't get a true, realistic look at the pitch.

How can something so objective determine something so subjective? It's asinine.

ESPN earlier this season did a nice piece on this system, presenting both sides. However, one fact was clear, and ESPN emphasized this: Questec is not in any way entirely accurate. Unfortunately, MLB is grading us on it, and unless we call a certain number of strikes based on what the Questec operator records, we are in trouble.

The players hate it, we hate it, but our superiors think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's not. It's absurd.

Thanks for the reply; it's good to hear it straight from the ump's mouth, so to speak. I totally agree that it's an awful idea to use Questec to evaluate umpires' performance. What I meant by "about damn time" was that it's about time they think about using high-tech means to make the game as fair and accurate as possible, just as some other sports use advanced timing or measurement systems. Apparently Questec isn't the answer, but I suspect there will be one in coming years.

Umpires need to be evaluated for several reasons, not the least of which is that over time, we must be held to the same standards and abilities to which we were held in our first year of service. However, using such ridiculous and inaccurate systems like Questec is NOT the way to go about this.

Hi! This may be a dumb question, but when I was watching the Rocket's failed attempt for win #300 against the Cubs, FOX showed a shot of Kerry Wood in the Cub's dugout and in the background next to the sunflower seeds was a can of Pam. What would a can of non-stick cooking spray be doing in a MLB dugout? What would be its purpose?

Thanks!

Chris

[ June 09, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: YankeeFan ]

They ran out of Crisco? :confused: eek!

Yankeefan, it's simple: We use it on our shoes.

Many players and most umpires spray Pam on the bottom of our shoes when the ground is a bit wet from poor weather. It prevents our shoes from becoming so clogged with dirt as quickly as they would had nothing been applied. When that wet mud becomes coagulated on our shoe bottoms, it can literally add a couple pounds of weight to our shoes, and this creates more problems for the plate umpire especially, since plate shoes are much heavier to begin with.

See, you learn something every day, eh?

[ June 09, 2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: The Umpire ]

I sure did! I never would have thought of that in a million years...thanks a lot Ump, I appreciate it!

[ June 09, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: YankeeFan ]

The home plate ump wears different shoes than the field umps? How come? I'm guessing the ump working the plate has steel-toed boots to protect against foul balls or something...