I do this on a few other places on the Web and was thinking about whether it would be preferable to do it here.
I'd be willing to entertain any questions related to a ruling or play, what the proper call or mechanic may be, etc. As I said, I do this same thing on another web site or two and have had a tremendous positive response from many people.
If the honchos here think it'd be beneficial, I'd be up to doing it here as well. Obviously, I'd pop in to answer questions when my time permits, which is usually late nights or during the day on my night game dates, or when I'm on vacation.
The purpose of such a thread would simply be to inform one on the knowledge of the rules or the intricacies of the game, along with similar topics. Permit me to explain that my knowledge of the rules is damn good, as I have spent many a year honing my ruls skills. I state this so one doesn't question my ability to answer such queries. BTW, I'll be happy to answer questions that might reference NCAA rules or Williamsport Rules, though I admit it's been some time since I've worked those levels!
If this thread is to succeed, it's probably best if it is made a sticky thread to keep it at the top (if that's possible here). Also, I'd have some ground rules that would need to be followed, some a bit unique to this board:
1.) No questions about personal information will be answered.
2.) No questions about gay ball players. Please, that's for another thread, and I've already commented on that--unnecessarily, I might add--a long time ago. This also includes no questions about who the hottest players are. It might be difficult to believe, but when I work, my mind is not on such things. I am focused on doing my job, period.
3.) No questions about why "such-and-such" MLB umpire blew this call or that one. I don't spend my free time sitting in front of ESPN watching highlights of all the games I didn't work. To put it bluntly, I could care less.
4.) I reserve the right to decline to address a certain topic if I believe it's not prudent to do so.
Again, my intention here is simply to provide for an informative and fun forum on the rules of baseball, and then some.
Feel free to chime in with your opinions, and if this doesn't come to fruition, I won't take it personally.
Full Version: Your Opinions on an "Ask the Ump" Column???
Thanks Ump, I like the idea. I'm not nearly the gung-ho, knowledgeable baseball fan that a lot of guys on here are, but when I go to games with friends, we always come up with a question that no one around us can answer. You've got such a quirky sport! I'll start posting them here if you're up for answering.
I have a question already: A while back, were there not AL umpires and NL umpires?
I can't remember when the "merger" occurred, but living in an AL city (Toronto), I got used to certain umpires and umpire crews, but then started hearing all these new names and seeing all these new faces (maybe even yours Ump).
So my question is: Do you like it now that umps ump in both leagues and there is now supposedly 1 strike zone and not 2 (an AL and an NL)?
Ooh, and I have a second question: Do the umpire crews remain the same all season and/or season to season. If so, do you have umpire "conventions" where you get to meet your fellow umps?
(I know these questions have nothing to do with rules... they were just what came to mind.)
[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]
I can't remember when the "merger" occurred, but living in an AL city (Toronto), I got used to certain umpires and umpire crews, but then started hearing all these new names and seeing all these new faces (maybe even yours Ump).
So my question is: Do you like it now that umps ump in both leagues and there is now supposedly 1 strike zone and not 2 (an AL and an NL)?
Ooh, and I have a second question: Do the umpire crews remain the same all season and/or season to season. If so, do you have umpire "conventions" where you get to meet your fellow umps?
(I know these questions have nothing to do with rules... they were just what came to mind.)
[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]
I would love to see "Ask the Ump" become a regular feature, but I wonder if it might be best to have a regular column rather than a thread. I so enjoyed the q & a during the world series; I learned a lot from that.
I vote wholeheartedly in favor of an "Ask the Ump" column featured as a valuable new fixture on the OutSports website and, like smrobbins65, I most definitely encourage you and the Outsports editors to offer this service as a column that can be accessed easily through a permanent hypertext link appearing on the homepage (rather than a thread on the Baseball Message Board) because I consider this enterprise worthy of a prominent placement on this site. You are a highly skilled and articulate umpire, working in the top echelon of sports --Major League Baseball-- and I feel we can all count ourselves fortunate to be the beneficiaries of your expertise. I sincerely mean it when I say that I'm filled with pride and gratitude knowing that a man of such evident professional integrity is a member of our gay "team" and is willling to share his knowledge of the game with us. Am I allowed to cheat on this poll by stuffing the ballot box with multiple "Yes" votes? Can you tell I'm mildly enthusiastic about this idea?
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
I do this on a few other places on the Web
Two-timing slut.
[quote] and was thinking about whether it would be preferable to do it here.
I think it would be a good idea.
I do this on a few other places on the Web
Two-timing slut.
[quote] and was thinking about whether it would be preferable to do it here.
I think it would be a good idea.
[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
Two-timing slut.
ROFLMAO!
Two-timing slut.
ROFLMAO!
[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
I have a question already: A while back, were there not AL umpires and NL umpires?
I can't remember when the "merger" occurred, but living in an AL city (Toronto), I got used to certain umpires and umpire crews, but then started hearing all these new names and seeing all these new faces (maybe even yours Ump).
So my question is: Do you like it now that umps ump in both leagues and there is now supposedly 1 strike zone and not 2 (an AL and an NL)?
The merging of the two leagues' staffs took place following the mass resignation of the 22 umpires in Richie Phillip's failed fiasco. The following season saw a consolidation of the two staffs, and as you know, the eventual elimination of the two league presidents.
As far as do I like it? Well, there are several old-timers who never liked it and still don't like it. To me, it's all irrelevant. The biggest difference is that we now visit all the cities; however, we visit cities less often than we did before. For example, I'm in Pittsburgh less often now than I was before. Cities like Chicago or New York, where they obviously have two teams, see us visit almost as much as before.
Contrary to popular belief, there really was NOT "two strike zones." The strike zone wasn't different in one league or another. This was some mythical perception, believe me. Regardless, this is moot with one umpire staff.
[quote]
Ooh, and I have a second question: Do the umpire crews remain the same all season and/or season to season. If so, do you have umpire "conventions" where you get to meet your fellow umps?
(I know these questions have nothing to do with rules... they were just what came to mind.)
Each year, prior to the season, the Commissioner's Office assigns a Crew Chief and 3 umpires to his crew. The crew chief, especially if he is one with a lot of seniority (Brinkman, Froemming, Crawford, et. al.), traditionally has the privilege of selecting one, sometimes two if he's REALLY lucky, fellow umpires to be on his crew. The remaining members of his crew are assigned by MLB.
The crews remain the same throughout the year, but there are changes within the crew due to an injury, illness, etc. Each crew goes on vacation as a crew, having a weeklong period off (Monday through Sunday--we get a few of these each season ), but an individual umpire may also be on vacation while his crew is not. This latter situation results in a Triple-A umpire replacing him (as do the 2nd game of doubleheaders--that's a bit different story).
Crews can also change for other reasons, reasons known to the Commissioner's Office. Last year, for example, I was on one crew the first half of the season, then switched to another for the second half. No, I wasn't in trouble; instead, there were other reasons unrelated to me (thankfully).
The crews rarely, if ever, remain exactly the same from year to year; however, parts of the crew often remain from season to season. For example, if you look at Brinkman's crew, he and Derryl Cousins have been together for some time. When Jim Evans was around, he liked to have younger umpires on his staff so he could work with them and teach them. It is truly sad that Jim is no longer in the game.
As far as do we have umpire "conventions," not exactly. However, we have a union meeting each year in mid-February, along with mandatory meetings conducted by MLB. This year, for example, we met in Phoenix in mid-February, though MLB split us up into two halves: Half of us were flown in for 3 days, the other half for the other 3 days. After this was our union meeting, this year held in Orlando.
Here are the 2002 crew assignments:
Crew A
Mark Hirschbeck - cc
Paul Schrieber
Jim Reynolds
Matt Hollowell *
Crew B
Steve Rippley - cc
Gary Darling
Paul Emmel
Tim Timmons
Crew C
Dale Scott - cc
Jim Joyce
Jeff Nelson
Ron Kulpa
Crew D
Ed Montague - cc
Jerry Layne
Hunter Wendelstedt
Mike DiMuro
Crew E
Gerry Davis - cc
Mike Winters
Greg Gibson
Dan Iassogna *
Crew F
Tim Welke - cc
Gary Cederstrom
Brian O'Nora
Alfonso Marquez
Crew G
Mike Reilly - cc
Jeff Kellogg
Jerry Meals
Eric Cooper
Crew H
Joe Brinkman - cc
Derryl Cousins
Marty Foster
Andy Fletcher
Crew I
Bruce Froemming - cc
Ed Rapuano
Larry Poncino
Tony Randazzo
Crew J
Jerry Crawford - cc
Joe West
Brian Gorman
Phil Cuzzi
Crew K
John Shulock - cc
Dave Phillips
Mike Everitt
Doug Eddings
Crew L
Larry Young - cc
Bill Hohn
Fieldin Culbreth
Bill Miller
Crew M
Dana DeMuth - cc
Charlie Reliford
Kerwin Danley
Marvin Hudson
Crew N
Tim McClelland - cc
Chuck Meriwether
Ted Barrett
Brian Runge
Crew O
Rick Reed - cc
Tim Tschida
Mark Wegner
Bill Welke
Crew P
Randy Marsh - cc
Angel Hernandez
Larry Vanover
Lazaro Diaz
Crew Q
John Hirschbeck - cc
Wally Bell
CB Bucknor
Mark Carlson
DL (current)
Terry Craft
DL (indefinite)
Greg Bonin
Dan Morrison
Rocky Roe
cc - Denotes Crew Chief
* - Denotes AAA fill-in
[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
I have a question already: A while back, were there not AL umpires and NL umpires?
I can't remember when the "merger" occurred, but living in an AL city (Toronto), I got used to certain umpires and umpire crews, but then started hearing all these new names and seeing all these new faces (maybe even yours Ump).
So my question is: Do you like it now that umps ump in both leagues and there is now supposedly 1 strike zone and not 2 (an AL and an NL)?
The merging of the two leagues' staffs took place following the mass resignation of the 22 umpires in Richie Phillip's failed fiasco. The following season saw a consolidation of the two staffs, and as you know, the eventual elimination of the two league presidents.
As far as do I like it? Well, there are several old-timers who never liked it and still don't like it. To me, it's all irrelevant. The biggest difference is that we now visit all the cities; however, we visit cities less often than we did before. For example, I'm in Pittsburgh less often now than I was before. Cities like Chicago or New York, where they obviously have two teams, see us visit almost as much as before.
Contrary to popular belief, there really was NOT "two strike zones." The strike zone wasn't different in one league or another. This was some mythical perception, believe me. Regardless, this is moot with one umpire staff.
[quote]
Ooh, and I have a second question: Do the umpire crews remain the same all season and/or season to season. If so, do you have umpire "conventions" where you get to meet your fellow umps?
(I know these questions have nothing to do with rules... they were just what came to mind.)
Each year, prior to the season, the Commissioner's Office assigns a Crew Chief and 3 umpires to his crew. The crew chief, especially if he is one with a lot of seniority (Brinkman, Froemming, Crawford, et. al.), traditionally has the privilege of selecting one, sometimes two if he's REALLY lucky, fellow umpires to be on his crew. The remaining members of his crew are assigned by MLB.
The crews remain the same throughout the year, but there are changes within the crew due to an injury, illness, etc. Each crew goes on vacation as a crew, having a weeklong period off (Monday through Sunday--we get a few of these each season ), but an individual umpire may also be on vacation while his crew is not. This latter situation results in a Triple-A umpire replacing him (as do the 2nd game of doubleheaders--that's a bit different story).
Crews can also change for other reasons, reasons known to the Commissioner's Office. Last year, for example, I was on one crew the first half of the season, then switched to another for the second half. No, I wasn't in trouble; instead, there were other reasons unrelated to me (thankfully).
The crews rarely, if ever, remain exactly the same from year to year; however, parts of the crew often remain from season to season. For example, if you look at Brinkman's crew, he and Derryl Cousins have been together for some time. When Jim Evans was around, he liked to have younger umpires on his staff so he could work with them and teach them. It is truly sad that Jim is no longer in the game.
As far as do we have umpire "conventions," not exactly. However, we have a union meeting each year in mid-February, along with mandatory meetings conducted by MLB. This year, for example, we met in Phoenix in mid-February, though MLB split us up into two halves: Half of us were flown in for 3 days, the other half for the other 3 days. After this was our union meeting, this year held in Orlando.
Here are the 2002 crew assignments:
Crew A
Mark Hirschbeck - cc
Paul Schrieber
Jim Reynolds
Matt Hollowell *
Crew B
Steve Rippley - cc
Gary Darling
Paul Emmel
Tim Timmons
Crew C
Dale Scott - cc
Jim Joyce
Jeff Nelson
Ron Kulpa
Crew D
Ed Montague - cc
Jerry Layne
Hunter Wendelstedt
Mike DiMuro
Crew E
Gerry Davis - cc
Mike Winters
Greg Gibson
Dan Iassogna *
Crew F
Tim Welke - cc
Gary Cederstrom
Brian O'Nora
Alfonso Marquez
Crew G
Mike Reilly - cc
Jeff Kellogg
Jerry Meals
Eric Cooper
Crew H
Joe Brinkman - cc
Derryl Cousins
Marty Foster
Andy Fletcher
Crew I
Bruce Froemming - cc
Ed Rapuano
Larry Poncino
Tony Randazzo
Crew J
Jerry Crawford - cc
Joe West
Brian Gorman
Phil Cuzzi
Crew K
John Shulock - cc
Dave Phillips
Mike Everitt
Doug Eddings
Crew L
Larry Young - cc
Bill Hohn
Fieldin Culbreth
Bill Miller
Crew M
Dana DeMuth - cc
Charlie Reliford
Kerwin Danley
Marvin Hudson
Crew N
Tim McClelland - cc
Chuck Meriwether
Ted Barrett
Brian Runge
Crew O
Rick Reed - cc
Tim Tschida
Mark Wegner
Bill Welke
Crew P
Randy Marsh - cc
Angel Hernandez
Larry Vanover
Lazaro Diaz
Crew Q
John Hirschbeck - cc
Wally Bell
CB Bucknor
Mark Carlson
DL (current)
Terry Craft
DL (indefinite)
Greg Bonin
Dan Morrison
Rocky Roe
cc - Denotes Crew Chief
* - Denotes AAA fill-in
[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[quote]Originally posted by fielderschoice:
I vote wholeheartedly in favor of an "Ask the Ump" column featured as a valuable new fixture on the OutSports website and, like smrobbins65, I most definitely encourage you and the Outsports editors to offer this service as a column that can be accessed easily through a permanent hypertext link appearing on the homepage (rather than a thread on the Baseball Message Board) because I consider this enterprise worthy of a prominent placement on this site. You are a highly skilled and articulate umpire, working in the top echelon of sports --Major League Baseball-- and I feel we can all count ourselves fortunate to be the beneficiaries of your expertise. I sincerely mean it when I say that I'm filled with pride and gratitude knowing that a man of such evident professional integrity is a member of our gay "team" and is willling to share his knowledge of the game with us. Am I allowed to cheat on this poll by stuffing the ballot box with multiple "Yes" votes? Can you tell I'm mildly enthusiastic about this idea?
Thank you for your kind words. I'll leave it up to Cyd or Jim to decide whether they want it as a permanent column on the title page. I hadn't thought of that, but I do think it's a nice idea.
As far as being a member of the same team, well...I'm not alone, let me assure you of that, fielder. Unless more of my peers are rather hush-hush, I know personally of one other member of the team among my peers, but I shall not elaborate on that.
Cheers.
I vote wholeheartedly in favor of an "Ask the Ump" column featured as a valuable new fixture on the OutSports website and, like smrobbins65, I most definitely encourage you and the Outsports editors to offer this service as a column that can be accessed easily through a permanent hypertext link appearing on the homepage (rather than a thread on the Baseball Message Board) because I consider this enterprise worthy of a prominent placement on this site. You are a highly skilled and articulate umpire, working in the top echelon of sports --Major League Baseball-- and I feel we can all count ourselves fortunate to be the beneficiaries of your expertise. I sincerely mean it when I say that I'm filled with pride and gratitude knowing that a man of such evident professional integrity is a member of our gay "team" and is willling to share his knowledge of the game with us. Am I allowed to cheat on this poll by stuffing the ballot box with multiple "Yes" votes? Can you tell I'm mildly enthusiastic about this idea?
Thank you for your kind words. I'll leave it up to Cyd or Jim to decide whether they want it as a permanent column on the title page. I hadn't thought of that, but I do think it's a nice idea.
As far as being a member of the same team, well...I'm not alone, let me assure you of that, fielder. Unless more of my peers are rather hush-hush, I know personally of one other member of the team among my peers, but I shall not elaborate on that.
Cheers.
One more vote for a permanent (at least in-season) presence on the home page! What a great asset and generous offer from the U-man
My first question - after all postseason play is over, how much time away from official duties do umpires get? Are their "refresher" or "update" seminars to attend? Thanks!
My first question - after all postseason play is over, how much time away from official duties do umpires get? Are their "refresher" or "update" seminars to attend? Thanks!
It a fantastic idea. All we need to figure out is how to do it. Brainstorming: Readers sent Ump25 questions. He picks and chooses which ones he wants to answer, sends it to us and we post it.
OR
Users post questions here, Ump25 answers whatever he chooses on our site.
OR
We hire Miss Cleo to channel Ump25's answers.
It's late and I'm a bit loopy, but it's a wonderful idea.
OR
Users post questions here, Ump25 answers whatever he chooses on our site.
OR
We hire Miss Cleo to channel Ump25's answers.
It's late and I'm a bit loopy, but it's a wonderful idea.
[quote]Originally posted by Jim at Outsports:
It a fantastic idea. All we need to figure out is how to do it. Brainstorming: Readers sent Ump25 questions. He picks and chooses which ones he wants to answer, sends it to us and we post it.
OR
Users post questions here, Ump25 answers whatever he chooses on our site.
I like this option the best, Jim. I'd take the Miss Cleo option only if you all call a 900 number where I'd rake in millions then retire to the Caribbean.
[quote]
OR
We hire Miss Cleo to channel Ump25's answers.
It's late and I'm a bit loopy, but it's a wonderful idea.
It a fantastic idea. All we need to figure out is how to do it. Brainstorming: Readers sent Ump25 questions. He picks and chooses which ones he wants to answer, sends it to us and we post it.
OR
Users post questions here, Ump25 answers whatever he chooses on our site.
I like this option the best, Jim. I'd take the Miss Cleo option only if you all call a 900 number where I'd rake in millions then retire to the Caribbean.
[quote]
OR
We hire Miss Cleo to channel Ump25's answers.
It's late and I'm a bit loopy, but it's a wonderful idea.
[quote]Originally posted by Wurm:
One more vote for a permanent (at least in-season) presence on the home page! What a great asset and generous offer from the U-man
My first question - after all postseason play is over, how much time away from official duties do umpires get? Are their "refresher" or "update" seminars to attend? Thanks!
Good question, Wurm. Most of us prefer to not have much to do with baseball during the offseason for obvious reasons--it gets tiring! Some of us, myself included recently, have been busy with official business.
Last offseason, I spent a lot of time going to New York to work on umpire evaluations and a new manual reflecting the consolidation of the two leagues. This new manual, BTW, will be available publicly in some format eventually.
Literally from the end of the season last November until February I was one of those kept awful busy with this stuff.
If nothing else it builds up one's frequent flyer miles.
As far as refresher or update courses, as I mentioned above, we have annual preseason meetings that focus on certain things. In 2001, for example, we all gathered in Phoenix in mid-January for a weeklong retreat to officially go through our new dictates on the strike zone. This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
One more vote for a permanent (at least in-season) presence on the home page! What a great asset and generous offer from the U-man
My first question - after all postseason play is over, how much time away from official duties do umpires get? Are their "refresher" or "update" seminars to attend? Thanks!
Good question, Wurm. Most of us prefer to not have much to do with baseball during the offseason for obvious reasons--it gets tiring! Some of us, myself included recently, have been busy with official business.
Last offseason, I spent a lot of time going to New York to work on umpire evaluations and a new manual reflecting the consolidation of the two leagues. This new manual, BTW, will be available publicly in some format eventually.
Literally from the end of the season last November until February I was one of those kept awful busy with this stuff.
If nothing else it builds up one's frequent flyer miles.
As far as refresher or update courses, as I mentioned above, we have annual preseason meetings that focus on certain things. In 2001, for example, we all gathered in Phoenix in mid-January for a weeklong retreat to officially go through our new dictates on the strike zone. This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
[QUOTE] [/QUOTE
This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
[quote]Originally posted by MikeOC:
[QUOTE] [/QUOTE
This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
Good point. Maddux was definitely getting the outside part of the plate to right handed batters. He'd start out on the corner and keep going further and further out. This season he's not doing so well: more walks, fewer strikeouts and more hits. Perhaps they're not giving him so many liberties anymore.
I was watching a game recently and one of the broadcasters (I think it was John Cerutti, the former Jays pitcher) said that umpires were either "vertical" or "horizontal," by which he meant they gave the pitcher leeway high-low or inside-outside.
As umpires are only human, is it only natural that each umpire's strike zone is different (even though they are supposed to be the same). And Ump, what is your opinion of those computer graphic replays that we see on TV that tell us exactly where/how the ball crossed the plate--and thus whether the ball was a "strike" or "ball."
[QUOTE] [/QUOTE
This centered around focusing on higher pitches and narrowing the zone, among other things our superiors wanted us to do.
]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
Good point. Maddux was definitely getting the outside part of the plate to right handed batters. He'd start out on the corner and keep going further and further out. This season he's not doing so well: more walks, fewer strikeouts and more hits. Perhaps they're not giving him so many liberties anymore.
I was watching a game recently and one of the broadcasters (I think it was John Cerutti, the former Jays pitcher) said that umpires were either "vertical" or "horizontal," by which he meant they gave the pitcher leeway high-low or inside-outside.
As umpires are only human, is it only natural that each umpire's strike zone is different (even though they are supposed to be the same). And Ump, what is your opinion of those computer graphic replays that we see on TV that tell us exactly where/how the ball crossed the plate--and thus whether the ball was a "strike" or "ball."
[quote]Originally posted by MikeOC:
[QUOTE]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
Truthfully, no, specific players are not discussed, at least not in the manner to which you refer.
I do believe that with the attempt at making the strike zones more uniform and more closely "by the book," one will see less of this perceived bias for or against one pitcher or another.
Our little pow-wow in Arizona 16 months ago was a serious attempt by Major League Baseball to make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to the strike zone, among other things. Our biggest concern, and a very valid one, is that historically, whenever we followed our superiors' mandates regarding the strike zone, we never got support from them, and we were left out to dry.
If we called higher strikes, more strikes, players would complain vociferously, leading to an increase in ejections and their accompanying umpire reports. Of course, ESPN, CNNSI, and other media outlets broadcast all of these incidents, and it appeared that the umpires were becoming trigger-happy and short-tempered. So, to avoid this, we just went back to the so-called same old strike zone.
Last year, in our Arizona retreat, we were promised that this time, MLB was committed to standing behind us 110% as we all attempted to have one, consistent strike zone. In my opinion, there has been progress in this department. One reason why it has been possible is because overall, there have been many more newer and younger umpires, and it is this group that is easier to "mold," so to speak. They don't seem to be as resistant to change as some of the older guard.
[quote]Originally posted by Canmark
And Ump, what is your opinion of those computer graphic replays that we see on TV that tell us exactly where/how the ball crossed the plate--and thus whether the ball was a "strike" or "ball."
Most of the so-called replays, especially the "overhead" shots, aren't accurate, so I don't worry about them. There is no true directly overhead shot. Those are actually back and sometimes off-center of the plate.
Those replays that are accurate really don't bother me much, either, for they usually confirm an umpire's correct call. Sure, we're not perfect, but I'd take our accuracy record any day over a lot of other jobs.
Baseball umpiring is a question of angles, whether it be on balls/strikes or safes/outs. Keep that in mind when next wondering about a call.
[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[QUOTE]
When addressing such topics as strike zone ranges, are explicit players highlighed and exposed? When I read your last statement regarding the narrowing the strike zone, I immediately thought of Glavine. I am sure you are aware of the perceptions that exist amongst batters that Glavine and Maddux are given greater liberties on the outside corners. I would be interested in reading what your outake is on this subject.
Truthfully, no, specific players are not discussed, at least not in the manner to which you refer.
I do believe that with the attempt at making the strike zones more uniform and more closely "by the book," one will see less of this perceived bias for or against one pitcher or another.
Our little pow-wow in Arizona 16 months ago was a serious attempt by Major League Baseball to make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to the strike zone, among other things. Our biggest concern, and a very valid one, is that historically, whenever we followed our superiors' mandates regarding the strike zone, we never got support from them, and we were left out to dry.
If we called higher strikes, more strikes, players would complain vociferously, leading to an increase in ejections and their accompanying umpire reports. Of course, ESPN, CNNSI, and other media outlets broadcast all of these incidents, and it appeared that the umpires were becoming trigger-happy and short-tempered. So, to avoid this, we just went back to the so-called same old strike zone.
Last year, in our Arizona retreat, we were promised that this time, MLB was committed to standing behind us 110% as we all attempted to have one, consistent strike zone. In my opinion, there has been progress in this department. One reason why it has been possible is because overall, there have been many more newer and younger umpires, and it is this group that is easier to "mold," so to speak. They don't seem to be as resistant to change as some of the older guard.
[quote]Originally posted by Canmark
And Ump, what is your opinion of those computer graphic replays that we see on TV that tell us exactly where/how the ball crossed the plate--and thus whether the ball was a "strike" or "ball."
Most of the so-called replays, especially the "overhead" shots, aren't accurate, so I don't worry about them. There is no true directly overhead shot. Those are actually back and sometimes off-center of the plate.
Those replays that are accurate really don't bother me much, either, for they usually confirm an umpire's correct call. Sure, we're not perfect, but I'd take our accuracy record any day over a lot of other jobs.
Baseball umpiring is a question of angles, whether it be on balls/strikes or safes/outs. Keep that in mind when next wondering about a call.
[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Oh, I have nothing but respect for you, Ump, and your fellow Umps. That you can call fair/foul, strike/ball, safe/out in real time with no replays and be 99% accurate is amazing to me. And if it's a bang-bang play, even if the call is proved wrong on the replay, I think there's no reason to complain.
(Now "the catch" in the 1992 World Series--which should have led to a triple play--that's another story. I don't know who the umpire was for that--I hope it wasn't you.)
(Now "the catch" in the 1992 World Series--which should have led to a triple play--that's another story. I don't know who the umpire was for that--I hope it wasn't you.)
An excellent idea.
My question is how generious are umps when it comes to contact with the bag on double plays. I see all the time players coming off the bag at second place before the ball has ever made it to the glove. Please give some insite.
My question is how generious are umps when it comes to contact with the bag on double plays. I see all the time players coming off the bag at second place before the ball has ever made it to the glove. Please give some insite.
UMP _ Thanx for the generous offer to answer our questions. YOU ARE A NICE GUY, AFTER ALL!!!,
[quote]Originally posted by bigstar:
An excellent idea.
My question is how generious are umps when it comes to contact with the bag on double plays. I see all the time players coming off the bag at second place before the ball has ever made it to the glove. Please give some insite.
Permit me to share some comments made by one of the chief major league instructors back when I was in umpire school. I'm paraphrasing him...
"...regarding the so-called phantom tag at second base: There's no such thing....With the prevalence of ESPN and all the replays, there's no way to permit this. If the fielder isn't touching the base, the runner is safe..."
Having said this, the way we rule on it is pretty much as explained in the above paragraph, with some common sense applied. Many times the fielder is straddling the base in such a way as to look like he's not touching it. Other times, he quickly brushes his foot on top of or along side the base, barely touching it. He's doing this not to cheat the runner; rather, to avoid being taken out by the runner on the latter's slide, or to avoid injury. Metal cleats in one's ankle feels good does not.
Does this mean we don't occasionally kick this call? Of course not. If we do, it may be because we somehow got a bad view or something. What I can tell you is that we don't willfully let the fielder miss the bag and still call him out.
[quote]Originally posted by copman
UMP _ Thanx for the generous offer to answer our questions. YOU ARE A NICE GUY, AFTER ALL!!!
Always have been, copper. (Ump25 chips away the ice and stone from his cold heart. )
An excellent idea.
My question is how generious are umps when it comes to contact with the bag on double plays. I see all the time players coming off the bag at second place before the ball has ever made it to the glove. Please give some insite.
Permit me to share some comments made by one of the chief major league instructors back when I was in umpire school. I'm paraphrasing him...
"...regarding the so-called phantom tag at second base: There's no such thing....With the prevalence of ESPN and all the replays, there's no way to permit this. If the fielder isn't touching the base, the runner is safe..."
Having said this, the way we rule on it is pretty much as explained in the above paragraph, with some common sense applied. Many times the fielder is straddling the base in such a way as to look like he's not touching it. Other times, he quickly brushes his foot on top of or along side the base, barely touching it. He's doing this not to cheat the runner; rather, to avoid being taken out by the runner on the latter's slide, or to avoid injury. Metal cleats in one's ankle feels good does not.
Does this mean we don't occasionally kick this call? Of course not. If we do, it may be because we somehow got a bad view or something. What I can tell you is that we don't willfully let the fielder miss the bag and still call him out.
[quote]Originally posted by copman
UMP _ Thanx for the generous offer to answer our questions. YOU ARE A NICE GUY, AFTER ALL!!!
Always have been, copper. (Ump25 chips away the ice and stone from his cold heart. )
I love this! Thanks Ump25!! Here's my first question: you sound kinda hot ... are you single???
Oh, um, it's supposed to be a baseball-related umpiring question? Sheesh, OKAY, if you insist. I was wondering how MLB umpires get evaluated. How does the evaluation system work? What happens to the umpires who get "low grades"? To put it bluntly, can an MLB umpire lose his job if he sucks? [thanks in advance!]
Oh, um, it's supposed to be a baseball-related umpiring question? Sheesh, OKAY, if you insist. I was wondering how MLB umpires get evaluated. How does the evaluation system work? What happens to the umpires who get "low grades"? To put it bluntly, can an MLB umpire lose his job if he sucks? [thanks in advance!]
[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
I love this! Thanks Ump25!! Here's my first question: you sound kinda hot ... are you single???
Trying to sneak in some personal queries, eh? Well, this one isn't too problematic.
Let's see, I post on this board. If you use a little deductive reasoning, you'll probably figure out that I am single. (No, I'm not one of these gay guys who is married to cover something up but sleeps around with guys. Call me old-fashioned, but that's adultery, nothing less.)
[quote]
Oh, um, it's supposed to be a baseball-related umpiring question? Sheesh, OKAY, if you insist. I was wondering how MLB umpires get evaluated. How does the evaluation system work? What happens to the umpires who get "low grades"? To put it bluntly, can an MLB umpire lose his job if he sucks? [thanks in advance!]
I was heavily involved with the evaluation program during the offseason. MLB this year has hired various persons in each of the major cities to evaluate umpires. Each evaluator is someone with former professional umpire experience (minor or major league), or someone with former professional managing/coaching or playing experience, or someone with extensive NCAA Division 1 umpire experience.
These evaluators will observe 50+ games in each park to which they're assigned, and often are assigned to multiple parks. For example, the Chicago person will cover Wrigley, Comiskey, and Miller Park in Milwaukee, and probably the Metrodome, Comerica Park, and Jacobs Field. All such evaluators went to a weeklong training course in Phoenix in mid-March. They look for stuff like positioning, hustle, mechanics, etc.
With the new administration in the Commissioner's Office, it is easier now to dismiss an umpire than it has been. Whereas in the past one got tenure after 5 years, it now has been reduced to 3 years. However, this tenure isn't quite the same as that of school teachers, for example, who enjoy much more union protection.
If there is a problem with a major league umpire, MLB will attempt to work with said umpire as much as possible to resolve any issues. Truthfully, at that level, there rarely exists any such problems, at least on-field problems, for after spending many years in the minors, including AAA, it is understood that one is professional enough, qualified enough, to be at the major league level.
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
I love this! Thanks Ump25!! Here's my first question: you sound kinda hot ... are you single???
Trying to sneak in some personal queries, eh? Well, this one isn't too problematic.
Let's see, I post on this board. If you use a little deductive reasoning, you'll probably figure out that I am single. (No, I'm not one of these gay guys who is married to cover something up but sleeps around with guys. Call me old-fashioned, but that's adultery, nothing less.)
[quote]
Oh, um, it's supposed to be a baseball-related umpiring question? Sheesh, OKAY, if you insist. I was wondering how MLB umpires get evaluated. How does the evaluation system work? What happens to the umpires who get "low grades"? To put it bluntly, can an MLB umpire lose his job if he sucks? [thanks in advance!]
I was heavily involved with the evaluation program during the offseason. MLB this year has hired various persons in each of the major cities to evaluate umpires. Each evaluator is someone with former professional umpire experience (minor or major league), or someone with former professional managing/coaching or playing experience, or someone with extensive NCAA Division 1 umpire experience.
These evaluators will observe 50+ games in each park to which they're assigned, and often are assigned to multiple parks. For example, the Chicago person will cover Wrigley, Comiskey, and Miller Park in Milwaukee, and probably the Metrodome, Comerica Park, and Jacobs Field. All such evaluators went to a weeklong training course in Phoenix in mid-March. They look for stuff like positioning, hustle, mechanics, etc.
With the new administration in the Commissioner's Office, it is easier now to dismiss an umpire than it has been. Whereas in the past one got tenure after 5 years, it now has been reduced to 3 years. However, this tenure isn't quite the same as that of school teachers, for example, who enjoy much more union protection.
If there is a problem with a major league umpire, MLB will attempt to work with said umpire as much as possible to resolve any issues. Truthfully, at that level, there rarely exists any such problems, at least on-field problems, for after spending many years in the minors, including AAA, it is understood that one is professional enough, qualified enough, to be at the major league level.
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Okay, Ump, here's my question`e:
while watching a Diamondbacks game recently, I noticed a call made on Juinor Spivey @ third.
(if I'd have know I'd be asking this question of you, I'd have remember more specific details.) Essentially it went like this -- he ran from second to third where he was called out and the commentators noted this call was bad as the third baseman didn't have his foot on the bag. I'm assuming this is a case as you just illustrated of the player avoiding injury. However, my question pertains to this: there was a question of the third base ump having missed a better angle at which to observe the tag. Can an ump take any reasonable postition in order to achieve that end? i.e. inside the diamond? My thinking is "No" since it seems awkward.
Thanks again for answering questions from those of us in the learning curve!!
while watching a Diamondbacks game recently, I noticed a call made on Juinor Spivey @ third.
(if I'd have know I'd be asking this question of you, I'd have remember more specific details.) Essentially it went like this -- he ran from second to third where he was called out and the commentators noted this call was bad as the third baseman didn't have his foot on the bag. I'm assuming this is a case as you just illustrated of the player avoiding injury. However, my question pertains to this: there was a question of the third base ump having missed a better angle at which to observe the tag. Can an ump take any reasonable postition in order to achieve that end? i.e. inside the diamond? My thinking is "No" since it seems awkward.
Thanks again for answering questions from those of us in the learning curve!!
Hey Ump 25:
Send us an e-mail: mail@outsports.com
and we can begin setting up the feature.
Thanks!
Jim
Send us an e-mail: mail@outsports.com
and we can begin setting up the feature.
Thanks!
Jim
This "rules-related" question has to do with a possible future change in game-play. Are there plans to bring the American League and the National League back into alignment by eventually eliminating the Designated Hitter? And if so, has a date been set for making this change? Thanks for answering our questions, Ump25. (And thanks, as well, for your sterling values concerning marital fidelity. I believe BoSoxRudy's question about your "single" status was meant to discern whether you already had a male partner --a HUSBAND-- rather than a wife...)
Concerning the logistics of installing an "Ask the Ump" column as a regular feature on the OutSports website: I can appreciate your reasoning in prefering to incorporate this as an aspect of the Baseball Message Board. I wonder if it would be possible to provide a hypertext link FROM the OutSports homepage directly TO this "Ask the Ump" thread residing WITHIN the Baseball Message Board? I'm no programming genius, but I imagine this could be done!
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]
Concerning the logistics of installing an "Ask the Ump" column as a regular feature on the OutSports website: I can appreciate your reasoning in prefering to incorporate this as an aspect of the Baseball Message Board. I wonder if it would be possible to provide a hypertext link FROM the OutSports homepage directly TO this "Ask the Ump" thread residing WITHIN the Baseball Message Board? I'm no programming genius, but I imagine this could be done!
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]
[quote]Originally posted by smrobbins65:
Okay, Ump, here's my question`e:
while watching a Diamondbacks game recently, I noticed a call made on Juinor Spivey @ third.
(if I'd have know I'd be asking this question of you, I'd have remember more specific details.) Essentially it went like this -- he ran from second to third where he was called out and the commentators noted this call was bad as the third baseman didn't have his foot on the bag. I'm assuming this is a case as you just illustrated of the player avoiding injury. However, my question pertains to this: there was a question of the third base ump having missed a better angle at which to observe the tag. Can an ump take any reasonable postition in order to achieve that end? i.e. inside the diamond? My thinking is "No" since it seems awkward.
Thanks again for answering questions from those of us in the learning curve!!
Considering it wasn't me on that call to which you are referring, I can't say exactly why the call was "bad" as the commentators put it. Obviously, it could have simply been missed. Nevertheless, as to your question about positioning, there are times we may be inside the diamond for calls at third base. One common occurrence is when the plate umpire rotates to cover third. When he does so, if a play is made at third, he will most of the time be in fair territory, in or near the cutout area to make the call.
Permit me to share another little tidbit, a true story from one of my peers and good friends, Joe Brinkman. (Oh, he's gonna kill me if he finds this out, so hush-hush, guys.)
I remember the exact setting. We were sitting down sharing some drinks and shooting the shit about certain plays. He proceeds to tell us that the night before, when he was working third base, that he was out of position on a play at third. There was a runner on second with no outs when the ball was hit to the shortstop. R2 on second base takes off to third when the shortstop throws there to get him.
Joe wasn't expecting a play there AT ALL, because, as he says, "Who the hell runs from second to third with no outs when the ball is hit to short?" Well, he goes to make the call and is caught completely out of position, but he calls the guy out anyway. His explanation? "I figured anyone stupid enough to run from second to third when the ball is hit to short deserves to be called out anyway."
I was laughing my proverbial ass off.
[quote]Originally posted by fielderschoice
This "rules-related" question has to do with a possible future change in game-play. Are there plans to bring the American League and the National League back into alignment by eventually eliminating the Designated Hitter? And if so, has a date been set for making this change? Thanks for answering our questions, Ump25.
Actually, this was one of the official duties with which I was involved during the offseason. An umpire manual was put together to standardize the rules between the two leagues, bringing both leagues into complete uniformity, save for one big difference: The Designated Hitter.
If any change is going to occur with the DH, I personally believe it won't be the elimination of it; rather, the adoption of it by the National League. The Players Association would never go for the unilateral elimination of the DH. That would mean over a dozen guys off the union payroll, and the union would have none of that.
There has been talk of the Owners agreeing to expand the rosters by one or two persons per team in exchange for the elimination of the DH altogether, but we'll see if that ever comes to fruition.
[quote]
(And thanks, as well, for your sterling values concerning marital fidelity. I believe BoSoxRudy's question about your "single" status was meant to discern whether you already had a male partner --a HUSBAND-- rather than a wife...)
I do not.
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Okay, Ump, here's my question`e:
while watching a Diamondbacks game recently, I noticed a call made on Juinor Spivey @ third.
(if I'd have know I'd be asking this question of you, I'd have remember more specific details.) Essentially it went like this -- he ran from second to third where he was called out and the commentators noted this call was bad as the third baseman didn't have his foot on the bag. I'm assuming this is a case as you just illustrated of the player avoiding injury. However, my question pertains to this: there was a question of the third base ump having missed a better angle at which to observe the tag. Can an ump take any reasonable postition in order to achieve that end? i.e. inside the diamond? My thinking is "No" since it seems awkward.
Thanks again for answering questions from those of us in the learning curve!!
Considering it wasn't me on that call to which you are referring, I can't say exactly why the call was "bad" as the commentators put it. Obviously, it could have simply been missed. Nevertheless, as to your question about positioning, there are times we may be inside the diamond for calls at third base. One common occurrence is when the plate umpire rotates to cover third. When he does so, if a play is made at third, he will most of the time be in fair territory, in or near the cutout area to make the call.
Permit me to share another little tidbit, a true story from one of my peers and good friends, Joe Brinkman. (Oh, he's gonna kill me if he finds this out, so hush-hush, guys.)
I remember the exact setting. We were sitting down sharing some drinks and shooting the shit about certain plays. He proceeds to tell us that the night before, when he was working third base, that he was out of position on a play at third. There was a runner on second with no outs when the ball was hit to the shortstop. R2 on second base takes off to third when the shortstop throws there to get him.
Joe wasn't expecting a play there AT ALL, because, as he says, "Who the hell runs from second to third with no outs when the ball is hit to short?" Well, he goes to make the call and is caught completely out of position, but he calls the guy out anyway. His explanation? "I figured anyone stupid enough to run from second to third when the ball is hit to short deserves to be called out anyway."
I was laughing my proverbial ass off.
[quote]Originally posted by fielderschoice
This "rules-related" question has to do with a possible future change in game-play. Are there plans to bring the American League and the National League back into alignment by eventually eliminating the Designated Hitter? And if so, has a date been set for making this change? Thanks for answering our questions, Ump25.
Actually, this was one of the official duties with which I was involved during the offseason. An umpire manual was put together to standardize the rules between the two leagues, bringing both leagues into complete uniformity, save for one big difference: The Designated Hitter.
If any change is going to occur with the DH, I personally believe it won't be the elimination of it; rather, the adoption of it by the National League. The Players Association would never go for the unilateral elimination of the DH. That would mean over a dozen guys off the union payroll, and the union would have none of that.
There has been talk of the Owners agreeing to expand the rosters by one or two persons per team in exchange for the elimination of the DH altogether, but we'll see if that ever comes to fruition.
[quote]
(And thanks, as well, for your sterling values concerning marital fidelity. I believe BoSoxRudy's question about your "single" status was meant to discern whether you already had a male partner --a HUSBAND-- rather than a wife...)
I do not.
[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Ump25 quote:
[quote] Permit me to share another little tidbit, a true story from one of my peers and good friends, Joe Brinkman. (Oh, he's gonna kill me if he finds this out, so hush-hush, guys.)
Oooh, love the juicy inside story! But Ump, how do you know Brinkman doesn't read this board?
[quote] Permit me to share another little tidbit, a true story from one of my peers and good friends, Joe Brinkman. (Oh, he's gonna kill me if he finds this out, so hush-hush, guys.)
Oooh, love the juicy inside story! But Ump, how do you know Brinkman doesn't read this board?
So if you're single, how do you meet men when you travel so much? And how can we apply for a "date" when you are visiting our local ballpark?
Oops, I'm supp. to ask a baseball question. How do umpires react to boos from the fans - have you developed teflon, or do boos still bother you?
And when you question a call (in your mind) that you made, do you seek out a replay later to see if you were correct or not?
Thanks for sharing all this info with us. Baby, you're the best!
Oops, I'm supp. to ask a baseball question. How do umpires react to boos from the fans - have you developed teflon, or do boos still bother you?
And when you question a call (in your mind) that you made, do you seek out a replay later to see if you were correct or not?
Thanks for sharing all this info with us. Baby, you're the best!
[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
Ump25 quote:
Oooh, love the juicy inside story! But Ump, how do you know Brinkman doesn't read this board?
I don't think Karen (his wife) would still be with him if he DID read this board!
[quote]Originally posted by scottie
So if you're single, how do you meet men when you travel so much? And how can we apply for a "date" when you are visiting our local ballpark?
I don't, and you can't.
[quote]
Oops, I'm supp. to ask a baseball question. How do umpires react to boos from the fans - have you developed teflon, or do boos still bother you?
And when you question a call (in your mind) that you made, do you seek out a replay later to see if you were correct or not?
Thanks for sharing all this info with us. Baby, you're the best!
I simply ignore the boos and the comments. One has to completely block them out. It's really not that difficult to do, and working your way up from Rookie ball to Long-A to Triple-A helps to build one's teflon coating.
With respect to the replay question: No, I don't seek out replay to see if I was right or wrong. I can't concern myself with that. If I make too many mistakes, believe me, my superiors will make sure I am aware of this.
Ump25 quote:
Oooh, love the juicy inside story! But Ump, how do you know Brinkman doesn't read this board?
I don't think Karen (his wife) would still be with him if he DID read this board!
[quote]Originally posted by scottie
So if you're single, how do you meet men when you travel so much? And how can we apply for a "date" when you are visiting our local ballpark?
I don't, and you can't.
[quote]
Oops, I'm supp. to ask a baseball question. How do umpires react to boos from the fans - have you developed teflon, or do boos still bother you?
And when you question a call (in your mind) that you made, do you seek out a replay later to see if you were correct or not?
Thanks for sharing all this info with us. Baby, you're the best!
I simply ignore the boos and the comments. One has to completely block them out. It's really not that difficult to do, and working your way up from Rookie ball to Long-A to Triple-A helps to build one's teflon coating.
With respect to the replay question: No, I don't seek out replay to see if I was right or wrong. I can't concern myself with that. If I make too many mistakes, believe me, my superiors will make sure I am aware of this.
Hello Ump25,
I've always been a little unclear concerning the rules that determine whether a batter has "checked his swing" in mid-stroke when lunging after a ball, or if the batter "went around," and the swing is called a strike. Often, an appeal will be made to the 1st base or 3rd base umpire to judge this call. Can you enlighten us on the criteria used to draw this distinction?
I've also had only a vague understanding of two other situations occuring in the batter's box:
Is a pitch that is hit by the batter, strikes home plate, and stays within the infield foul lines played as a fair ball?
Is a batter called "out" if he "foul-tips" a pitch directly into the catcher's mit on a two-strike count?
Thanks for your assistance to the baseball-confused...
I've always been a little unclear concerning the rules that determine whether a batter has "checked his swing" in mid-stroke when lunging after a ball, or if the batter "went around," and the swing is called a strike. Often, an appeal will be made to the 1st base or 3rd base umpire to judge this call. Can you enlighten us on the criteria used to draw this distinction?
I've also had only a vague understanding of two other situations occuring in the batter's box:
Is a pitch that is hit by the batter, strikes home plate, and stays within the infield foul lines played as a fair ball?
Is a batter called "out" if he "foul-tips" a pitch directly into the catcher's mit on a two-strike count?
Thanks for your assistance to the baseball-confused...
Thanks sooo much for all the time you are taking to answer our questions.
Question:
In a couple of recent games, a player who was trying to bunt was hit by the pitch. The commentators stated that both times the umps made the incorrect call. The reason they gave was that once a player squares to bunt and the pitch has been delivered, and the player makes no other motion to take the bat away from the plate (other than to get away from the pitch), It should be a called strike. This was the case in both these bunt situations.
Having seen both these calls, I am now very confused (hope I made sense here) as to what the ump bases his call on. Please help.
Thanks
Question:
In a couple of recent games, a player who was trying to bunt was hit by the pitch. The commentators stated that both times the umps made the incorrect call. The reason they gave was that once a player squares to bunt and the pitch has been delivered, and the player makes no other motion to take the bat away from the plate (other than to get away from the pitch), It should be a called strike. This was the case in both these bunt situations.
Having seen both these calls, I am now very confused (hope I made sense here) as to what the ump bases his call on. Please help.
Thanks
[quote]Originally posted by fielderschoice:
Hello Ump25,
I've always been a little unclear concerning the rules that determine whether a batter has "checked his swing" in mid-stroke when lunging after a ball, or if the batter "went around," and the swing is called a strike. Often, an appeal will be made to the 1st base or 3rd base umpire to judge this call. Can you enlighten us on the criteria used to draw this distinction?
Unlike NCAA Rules, which actually have some clearcut ways to define a strike on a check swing, pro rules do not. To put it bluntly, it's a strike simply if we believe it is. In other words, did he swing? If we believe so, then it's a strike. If not, then it's a ball. There is no "front edge of home plate," or "bat crossed the foul line," or any other demarcation to use--a common misperception by some persons.
So, if I am working the plate and a left-handed batter checks his swing but I don't think he swung at it, the correct procedure I do is to exclaim, "Ball, no he didn't go!" If I am asked by the catcher or manager to go to one of my partners for assistance, I am obligated by rule to do so. I then point to the 3rd base umpire in this situation and ask him, "Ben, did he go?" (Uh, I'm substituting a sample name here. )
If I rule a batter DID swing on a check swing, then I point and exclaim, "Yes, he went!" Only a ball call can be overturned by the first or third baseman. If the plate umpire rules a check swing a strike, then this is final and irreversible.
When asked for help, the criteria we use as a base umpire is simply: Did the batter swing? It's completely our judgment. If we thought the batter swung, we say he went.
[quote]
I've also had only a vague understanding of two other situations occuring in the batter's box:
Is a pitch that is hit by the batter, strikes home plate, and stays within the infield foul lines played as a fair ball?
Yes. The ball is judged fair/foul in the above situation by where it is when it comes to a rest, here, in fair territory. It is assumed, BTW, that in your example, the ball was never touched. Home plate is completely within fair territory.
PLAY: Batter bunts the ball and it rolls out toward the mound. It rolls about 5 feet into the cutout area of the infield, then spins backward and rolls across the plate when it rests directly behind the plate, right behind one of the "roof" portions of the plate. RULING: Foul ball.
[quote]
Is a batter called "out" if he "foul-tips" a pitch directly into the catcher's mit on a two-strike count?
Thanks for your assistance to the baseball-confused...
A batter is called out in this situation because this foul tip is strike three. A foul tip is always live and always a strike, and if strike three, the batter is out. By definition, a foul tip cannot go anywhere but to the catcher's hand or mitt. I always am amazed when all these commentators remark that he foul tipped it to the screen. Uh, no can do.
On a related note, keep this in mind, baseball fans. There are 4 types of batted balls, 3 of which are always live:
1.) Fair ball
2.) Foul ball
3.) Foul tip
4.) Foul batted ball
Only # 2 above is dead; the other three are always live.
[quote]Originally posted by Uclaute
Thanks sooo much for all the time you are taking to answer our questions.
Question:
In a couple of recent games, a player who was trying to bunt was hit by the pitch. The commentators stated that both times the umps made the incorrect call. The reason they gave was that once a player squares to bunt and the pitch has been delivered, and the player makes no other motion to take the bat away from the plate (other than to get away from the pitch), It should be a called strike. This was the case in both these bunt situations.
Having seen both these calls, I am now very confused (hope I made sense here) as to what the ump bases his call on. Please help.
Thanks
Part of the definition of a bunt is "...the ball intentionally met with the bat...". When a batter squares around to bunt, if he leaves his bat squared off and is NOT making an INTENTIONAL attempt to tap the ball, it is NOT a swing and therefore not a strike. Generally, I explain to people that if his bat is moving FORWARD, this is a giveaway that he was, indeed, attempting to bunt and if he misses the ball, it is a strike. However, the bat doesn't have to be moving "forward," for if he moves his bat downward or upward, for example, in an attempt to tap the ball, then this, too, will be a strike if missed.
What I am trying to emphasize is this myth that if the ball "breaks the plane of the bat" but the batter was not moving his bat at all, it is NOT a strike. The plane of the bat I put in quotes is another one of those baseball myths, just like "the hand is part of the bat." (It's not.)
So, in short, the umpire was correct in your referenced situations. The commentators were wrong. Gee, what a surprise.
Hello Ump25,
I've always been a little unclear concerning the rules that determine whether a batter has "checked his swing" in mid-stroke when lunging after a ball, or if the batter "went around," and the swing is called a strike. Often, an appeal will be made to the 1st base or 3rd base umpire to judge this call. Can you enlighten us on the criteria used to draw this distinction?
Unlike NCAA Rules, which actually have some clearcut ways to define a strike on a check swing, pro rules do not. To put it bluntly, it's a strike simply if we believe it is. In other words, did he swing? If we believe so, then it's a strike. If not, then it's a ball. There is no "front edge of home plate," or "bat crossed the foul line," or any other demarcation to use--a common misperception by some persons.
So, if I am working the plate and a left-handed batter checks his swing but I don't think he swung at it, the correct procedure I do is to exclaim, "Ball, no he didn't go!" If I am asked by the catcher or manager to go to one of my partners for assistance, I am obligated by rule to do so. I then point to the 3rd base umpire in this situation and ask him, "Ben, did he go?" (Uh, I'm substituting a sample name here. )
If I rule a batter DID swing on a check swing, then I point and exclaim, "Yes, he went!" Only a ball call can be overturned by the first or third baseman. If the plate umpire rules a check swing a strike, then this is final and irreversible.
When asked for help, the criteria we use as a base umpire is simply: Did the batter swing? It's completely our judgment. If we thought the batter swung, we say he went.
[quote]
I've also had only a vague understanding of two other situations occuring in the batter's box:
Is a pitch that is hit by the batter, strikes home plate, and stays within the infield foul lines played as a fair ball?
Yes. The ball is judged fair/foul in the above situation by where it is when it comes to a rest, here, in fair territory. It is assumed, BTW, that in your example, the ball was never touched. Home plate is completely within fair territory.
PLAY: Batter bunts the ball and it rolls out toward the mound. It rolls about 5 feet into the cutout area of the infield, then spins backward and rolls across the plate when it rests directly behind the plate, right behind one of the "roof" portions of the plate. RULING: Foul ball.
[quote]
Is a batter called "out" if he "foul-tips" a pitch directly into the catcher's mit on a two-strike count?
Thanks for your assistance to the baseball-confused...
A batter is called out in this situation because this foul tip is strike three. A foul tip is always live and always a strike, and if strike three, the batter is out. By definition, a foul tip cannot go anywhere but to the catcher's hand or mitt. I always am amazed when all these commentators remark that he foul tipped it to the screen. Uh, no can do.
On a related note, keep this in mind, baseball fans. There are 4 types of batted balls, 3 of which are always live:
1.) Fair ball
2.) Foul ball
3.) Foul tip
4.) Foul batted ball
Only # 2 above is dead; the other three are always live.
[quote]Originally posted by Uclaute
Thanks sooo much for all the time you are taking to answer our questions.
Question:
In a couple of recent games, a player who was trying to bunt was hit by the pitch. The commentators stated that both times the umps made the incorrect call. The reason they gave was that once a player squares to bunt and the pitch has been delivered, and the player makes no other motion to take the bat away from the plate (other than to get away from the pitch), It should be a called strike. This was the case in both these bunt situations.
Having seen both these calls, I am now very confused (hope I made sense here) as to what the ump bases his call on. Please help.
Thanks
Part of the definition of a bunt is "...the ball intentionally met with the bat...". When a batter squares around to bunt, if he leaves his bat squared off and is NOT making an INTENTIONAL attempt to tap the ball, it is NOT a swing and therefore not a strike. Generally, I explain to people that if his bat is moving FORWARD, this is a giveaway that he was, indeed, attempting to bunt and if he misses the ball, it is a strike. However, the bat doesn't have to be moving "forward," for if he moves his bat downward or upward, for example, in an attempt to tap the ball, then this, too, will be a strike if missed.
What I am trying to emphasize is this myth that if the ball "breaks the plane of the bat" but the batter was not moving his bat at all, it is NOT a strike. The plane of the bat I put in quotes is another one of those baseball myths, just like "the hand is part of the bat." (It's not.)
So, in short, the umpire was correct in your referenced situations. The commentators were wrong. Gee, what a surprise.
Ump, thanks for clarifying the myth of the "bat head crossing the front of the plate." The announcers always talk about that, so I just assumed that was the rule.
I was watching this baseball bloopers show on the weekend and they were showing funny incidents that happened to umps. An ump being hit in the 'cup' by a foul ball was ticked by the batter, an ump being bowled over by a baserunner trying to score at home... the ump in this incident was Richie Garcia. Garcia was one of my favorite AL umps, but I believe he got the boot during the ump dispute. Do you know if he's still in the game at some level or doing something else?
I was watching this baseball bloopers show on the weekend and they were showing funny incidents that happened to umps. An ump being hit in the 'cup' by a foul ball was ticked by the batter, an ump being bowled over by a baserunner trying to score at home... the ump in this incident was Richie Garcia. Garcia was one of my favorite AL umps, but I believe he got the boot during the ump dispute. Do you know if he's still in the game at some level or doing something else?
Richie was one of the original 22 umps who resigned in the mass-resignation fiasco of 1999. He was not one of those ordered rehired by the arbitrator. There has been discussion between MLB and Richie to utilize him in a supervisory role.
good stuff, ump. thanks.
Here's three questions for you, Ump (and, by the way, thanks for doing this):
1. How did you get into this line of work?
2. How much interaction do umps get with the players? Is it just at the plate (or base) and how much chit-chat is there during the slow times? Do the umps ever hang out with players or is that considered a potential conflict of interest? (Seems like it could be.)
3. And, if you feel you can answer this, who would you name as the five nicest players/managers in the majors and why? (Use your own definition of "nice.")
1. How did you get into this line of work?
2. How much interaction do umps get with the players? Is it just at the plate (or base) and how much chit-chat is there during the slow times? Do the umps ever hang out with players or is that considered a potential conflict of interest? (Seems like it could be.)
3. And, if you feel you can answer this, who would you name as the five nicest players/managers in the majors and why? (Use your own definition of "nice.")
Hey there ump25. Are you the same Ump25 over at toplessjocks yahoo groups that was discussing Jeff Gordon and one of his pit crew members? Interesting discussion.
[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
Here's three questions for you, Ump (and, by the way, thanks for doing this):
1. How did you get into this line of work?
Good question. I had been umpiring in some capacity for some time before going to umpire school. I started in umpiring altogether in 1978, when I was, shall I say, a youthful individual. I began by doing the in-town Little League type ball, then in a few years joined an association and did higher levels, working my way up. I went to umpire school primarily to get the best training in the world, which I did, of course, and was chosen to go further, to Baseball Umpire Development's (now called PBUC, the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation) 10-day course for placement into the minor leagues.
In terms of why I got into umpiring, well...quite honestly, because I love the game and wanted to be a part of it in a unique way. I love its history, its nostalgia, its charm, its place in America, you name it. There's just something about Baseball that has always captured my heart. Now I have a job which tries to make sure this wonderful game's integrity remains intact.
[quote]
2. How much interaction do umps get with the players? Is it just at the plate (or base) and how much chit-chat is there during the slow times? Do the umps ever hang out with players or is that considered a potential conflict of interest? (Seems like it could be.)
The only interaction we really have with the players is on the field. We exchange a few words here and there, but for the most part we do not get into conversations with them. Some umpires may be a bit more talkative than others, but as for me, I just do my job.
We do not fraternize with the players at all. In fact, we are not allowed to fraternize on or off the field. Granted, our mouths aren't taped shut, but we try to avoid fraternization with the game's participants. We even attempt to avoid visiting the same restaurants when dining out after a game. We don't need someone claiming they saw an umpire buying a drink for a player, or an umpire sitting at the bar conversing with a player. There is big money involved at the major league level, and our superiors are serious about this.
[quote]
3. And, if you feel you can answer this, who would you name as the five nicest players/managers in the majors and why? (Use your own definition of "nice.")
I'll come back to this one, as it is very late right now and I'm whooped.
[quote]Originally posted by thumper
Hey there ump25. Are you the same Ump25 over at toplessjocks yahoo groups that was discussing Jeff Gordon and one of his pit crew members? Interesting discussion.
Yeah, I had answered someone's questions about Gordon, but I made sure to emphasize that I was only relaying a rumor that had been floating around. I also had suggested that people take it for what it's worth. Personally, I don't believe the rumor about Gordon, but who am I to know the truth in that regard? It figures the first time I ever stumbled across that yahoo group and I end up getting into a discussion. Oh well, enough of that for me.
Here's three questions for you, Ump (and, by the way, thanks for doing this):
1. How did you get into this line of work?
Good question. I had been umpiring in some capacity for some time before going to umpire school. I started in umpiring altogether in 1978, when I was, shall I say, a youthful individual. I began by doing the in-town Little League type ball, then in a few years joined an association and did higher levels, working my way up. I went to umpire school primarily to get the best training in the world, which I did, of course, and was chosen to go further, to Baseball Umpire Development's (now called PBUC, the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation) 10-day course for placement into the minor leagues.
In terms of why I got into umpiring, well...quite honestly, because I love the game and wanted to be a part of it in a unique way. I love its history, its nostalgia, its charm, its place in America, you name it. There's just something about Baseball that has always captured my heart. Now I have a job which tries to make sure this wonderful game's integrity remains intact.
[quote]
2. How much interaction do umps get with the players? Is it just at the plate (or base) and how much chit-chat is there during the slow times? Do the umps ever hang out with players or is that considered a potential conflict of interest? (Seems like it could be.)
The only interaction we really have with the players is on the field. We exchange a few words here and there, but for the most part we do not get into conversations with them. Some umpires may be a bit more talkative than others, but as for me, I just do my job.
We do not fraternize with the players at all. In fact, we are not allowed to fraternize on or off the field. Granted, our mouths aren't taped shut, but we try to avoid fraternization with the game's participants. We even attempt to avoid visiting the same restaurants when dining out after a game. We don't need someone claiming they saw an umpire buying a drink for a player, or an umpire sitting at the bar conversing with a player. There is big money involved at the major league level, and our superiors are serious about this.
[quote]
3. And, if you feel you can answer this, who would you name as the five nicest players/managers in the majors and why? (Use your own definition of "nice.")
I'll come back to this one, as it is very late right now and I'm whooped.
[quote]Originally posted by thumper
Hey there ump25. Are you the same Ump25 over at toplessjocks yahoo groups that was discussing Jeff Gordon and one of his pit crew members? Interesting discussion.
Yeah, I had answered someone's questions about Gordon, but I made sure to emphasize that I was only relaying a rumor that had been floating around. I also had suggested that people take it for what it's worth. Personally, I don't believe the rumor about Gordon, but who am I to know the truth in that regard? It figures the first time I ever stumbled across that yahoo group and I end up getting into a discussion. Oh well, enough of that for me.
Great feature. Thanks for doing this Ump.
My question: What causes you to eject a player or manager from a game? Is there some rule on this, or is it just your personal opinion of what is unsportsmanlike?
My question: What causes you to eject a player or manager from a game? Is there some rule on this, or is it just your personal opinion of what is unsportsmanlike?
I have a question about umpire scheduling. Do you find that you visit each ballpark and ump for each team equally, or do you find that you ump for some teams more than others?
Ump.....some years ago I was friendly with a MLB ump who told me that player almost exclusively get ejected during an argument (aside from arguing balls and strikes) when the player makes a personal comment. This umpire, who was in some noteworthy fights, told me that as soon as the player used the word "you", he began to ponder an ejection. In fact, I think I was ejected from the my relationship with him because I hurled one to many personal insults!!!Was this simply his personal preference or do other umps adhere to this way of thinking?
[quote]Originally posted by Tim H.:
Great feature. Thanks for doing this Ump.
My question: What causes you to eject a player or manager from a game? Is there some rule on this, or is it just your personal opinion of what is unsportsmanlike?
Tim H. and boxer, with respect to ejections, there are certain lines that, if they are crossed, will result in someone being ejected. While every umpire is human and one umpire might be more thick-skinned than another, for the most part there are certain no-no's. In no particular order of priority, the following things will almost always result in an ejection:
[quote]Originally posted by Canmark
I have a question about umpire scheduling. Do you find that you visit each ballpark and ump for each team equally, or do you find that you ump for some teams more than others?
The scheduling is all done out of the New York offices, and ever since the consolidation of the two league umpire staffs into one overall MLB staff, the main results have been that (a) We visit all the MLB cities now rather than just part of them; and (
When we do visit cities, it's less often than before. Whereas I used to visit Wrigley Field in Chicago, for example, 4, 5, or 6 times or more each year, now it might only be once or twice there and once or twice at Chicago's Comiskey.
They try to keep us balanced among all the cities, but it always seems that there are a couple cities which seem to be visited more often than others.
If you're real nice, I can tell you which of the major cities tends to be among the favorites of many MLB Umpires.
[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Great feature. Thanks for doing this Ump.
My question: What causes you to eject a player or manager from a game? Is there some rule on this, or is it just your personal opinion of what is unsportsmanlike?
Tim H. and boxer, with respect to ejections, there are certain lines that, if they are crossed, will result in someone being ejected. While every umpire is human and one umpire might be more thick-skinned than another, for the most part there are certain no-no's. In no particular order of priority, the following things will almost always result in an ejection:
- Showing up an umpire. For example, after a called strike, the batter takes his bat and draws a line to indicate where he thought the pitch really was.
- Directing profanity toward an umpire. Cursing a call, such as \"That call was f**king horseshit!\", won't get one ejected, but saying, \"You're horseshit\" will.
- Using any personally insulting language toward an umpire. For example: \"You're terrible,\" \"You suck,\" \"You're worthless,\" \"You're blind,\" etc. Notice that while some of these are admittedly rather mild (\"You're blind\"), they all have one thing in common: They are directed at an umpire personally. That is unacceptable.
- Bumping or other physical contact upon an umpire.
- Questioning our integrity. This one is perhaps the action that infuriates me the most. Question my judgment on a fair or foul, or a strike or ball, OK; but don't ever question my integrity! I take my job, my role, seriously. I believe that as an MLB Umpire, I must always be above reproach and free from falsehoods or any impropriety that casts shadows upon the game. To have someone even remotely question this pisses me off to no end.
[quote]Originally posted by Canmark
I have a question about umpire scheduling. Do you find that you visit each ballpark and ump for each team equally, or do you find that you ump for some teams more than others?
The scheduling is all done out of the New York offices, and ever since the consolidation of the two league umpire staffs into one overall MLB staff, the main results have been that (a) We visit all the MLB cities now rather than just part of them; and (
When we do visit cities, it's less often than before. Whereas I used to visit Wrigley Field in Chicago, for example, 4, 5, or 6 times or more each year, now it might only be once or twice there and once or twice at Chicago's Comiskey.They try to keep us balanced among all the cities, but it always seems that there are a couple cities which seem to be visited more often than others.
If you're real nice, I can tell you which of the major cities tends to be among the favorites of many MLB Umpires.
[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
If you're real nice, I can tell you which of the major cities tends to be among the favorites of many MLB Umpires.
[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Oh, but Ump25, we're ALWAYS nice.
So, tell us. We're on our hands and knees waiting anxiously for your reply.
But back to the ejection issue. As I recall, in the movie Bull Durham there was a no-no word (I think it was "cocksucker") that, if said, would automatically get you ejected. Is this so? And what's so bad about being called a cocksucker?
If you're real nice, I can tell you which of the major cities tends to be among the favorites of many MLB Umpires.
[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]
Oh, but Ump25, we're ALWAYS nice.
So, tell us. We're on our hands and knees waiting anxiously for your reply.
But back to the ejection issue. As I recall, in the movie Bull Durham there was a no-no word (I think it was "cocksucker") that, if said, would automatically get you ejected. Is this so? And what's so bad about being called a cocksucker?
And while we're being nice, can you also tell us which are your least fav. cities to go to? Is your best and worst list based upon the ballparks exclusively, but also the hotel you stay at, other things to do during off time?
On my knees, anxiously awaiting your reply
On my knees, anxiously awaiting your reply
Canmark and Scottie,
OK, off your knees already. Look where it got Monica Lewinsky.
The two cities which top the list of most of us are Chicago and New York, in that order. Now, this is no scientific study, mind you; rather, in talking to many of my peers when we discuss such things, the Windy City comes up #1, with the Big Apple right behind.
Our most preferred hotel happens to be in Chicago. Admittedly, we stay at the major hotels, and they're not lacking for comfort and luxury. The one in which many of us stay when we're in Chicago is probably the tops of all the ones in any city. Forgive me if I don't specify which one, for I do not wish to have people trying to contact us there. People who need to reach us know how to, and MLB does not permit us to give out this information publicly.
Chicago and New York are great places to go, especially in the dining out department. If we also have some free time, many of us like to visit places in such cities (museums, parks, shops, etc.). This does not mean other cities aren't nice. On the contrary, places like Denver, San Francisco, and Phoenix are also good places to visit.
As far as "worst" cities, well...we don't have such categories. Some of us have the attitude of "Hey, I don't care WHAT city I visit, they're all OK with me." I have this same opinion as well, but I admit, there are a few places that aren't as appealing as others. You didn't hear it from me ( ), but Montreal is probably tops on that list. Many don't like the Twin Cities, but I have no problem with that locale. I have my own reasons for preferring to be there as much as possible.
Let's face it: When racking up 150,000 to 200,000 miles a year in air travel, it's refreshing to be in a nice city.
OK, off your knees already. Look where it got Monica Lewinsky.
The two cities which top the list of most of us are Chicago and New York, in that order. Now, this is no scientific study, mind you; rather, in talking to many of my peers when we discuss such things, the Windy City comes up #1, with the Big Apple right behind.
Our most preferred hotel happens to be in Chicago. Admittedly, we stay at the major hotels, and they're not lacking for comfort and luxury. The one in which many of us stay when we're in Chicago is probably the tops of all the ones in any city. Forgive me if I don't specify which one, for I do not wish to have people trying to contact us there. People who need to reach us know how to, and MLB does not permit us to give out this information publicly.
Chicago and New York are great places to go, especially in the dining out department. If we also have some free time, many of us like to visit places in such cities (museums, parks, shops, etc.). This does not mean other cities aren't nice. On the contrary, places like Denver, San Francisco, and Phoenix are also good places to visit.
As far as "worst" cities, well...we don't have such categories. Some of us have the attitude of "Hey, I don't care WHAT city I visit, they're all OK with me." I have this same opinion as well, but I admit, there are a few places that aren't as appealing as others. You didn't hear it from me ( ), but Montreal is probably tops on that list. Many don't like the Twin Cities, but I have no problem with that locale. I have my own reasons for preferring to be there as much as possible.
Let's face it: When racking up 150,000 to 200,000 miles a year in air travel, it's refreshing to be in a nice city.
Ump, when are you going to publish your autobiography? I hope you're gonna autograph our copies...
Hi, Ump - Thanks for doing this; it's been really interesting. My question is more personal than baeball-related, so I totally understand if you prefer to not respond: I wonder if you've given any thought to maybe coming out publicly once you've left baseball? I know Dave Pallone came out, but he was sort of "outed" by legal issues. It'd be nice to see someone come out without having any baggage attached to the process.
[quote]Originally posted by Lots-of-us:
1. How did you get into this line of work?
which takes me right to: how does one get into this line of work? I have often thought that even as a late bloomer, I might enjoy doing this sort of thing. Clearly it's too late for me to become a rookie, but perhaps an Ump? (yeah, I know about "The Rookie" but I don't have that much natural talent.)
As per everyone's comments thus far -- thank you so much for availing yourself to us for these questions.
1. How did you get into this line of work?
which takes me right to: how does one get into this line of work? I have often thought that even as a late bloomer, I might enjoy doing this sort of thing. Clearly it's too late for me to become a rookie, but perhaps an Ump? (yeah, I know about "The Rookie" but I don't have that much natural talent.)
As per everyone's comments thus far -- thank you so much for availing yourself to us for these questions.
Thanks Ump for answering our questions. That's mighty nice of you. As soon as I think of a question I'll ask.
Cheers,
~Larry~
Cheers,
~Larry~
[quote]Originally posted by Canmark
Ump, when are you going to publish your autobiography? I hope you're gonna autograph our copies...
Me? An autobiography? Like the masses really want to read that.
[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man
My question is more personal than baeball-related, so I totally understand if you prefer to not respond: I wonder if you've given any thought to maybe coming out publicly once you've left baseball? I know Dave Pallone came out, but he was sort of "outed" by legal issues. It'd be nice to see someone come out without having any baggage attached to the process.
Well, considering I plan on being in the game for many years to come, coming out after retiring is far from my mind.
Truthfully, I really don't think about having to come out, now or after I leave the game. I also don't subscribe to the belief that I should come out to "show other persons out there," or to "prove to the world that...". I don't need to make such a statement for the benefit of the rest of mankind when my own life is what comes first.
No, I am not selfish. I'm a very generous, caring individual. However, only I know my own life and what needs to be done in it. I also don't wake up every day and say, "Gee, I'm a gay Major League Baseball Umpire." Hell, I don't even wake up and say, "I'm gay."
Dave Pallone was unfairly forced to reveal himself because of false and cruel accusations against him. He was guilty till proven innocent, if you will, and it cost him a career for which he worked very hard to achieve.
I've worked many years to accomplish what I have accomplished, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize this. If this means I simply remain my own quiet, discrete self, that's perfectly fine with me.
[quote]Originally posted by smrobbins65
which takes me right to: how does one get into this line of work? I have often thought that even as a late bloomer, I might enjoy doing this sort of thing. Clearly it's too late for me to become a rookie, but perhaps an Ump? (yeah, I know about "The Rookie" but I don't have that much natural talent.)
If you wish to attempt to pursue umpiring professionally, here's what you'd need to do.
First, attend one of the two professional umpire schools: Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring or the Harry Wendelstedt School for Umpires. The former is located in Ormond Beach, Florida, the latter in Kissimmee.
Joe Brinkman Umpire School closed when Joe retired from teaching in the mid-90's. He sold his assets and rights to Jim.
Each school is a little more than 5 weeks long and begins in early January. Each school's top students (roughly about the top 15 or so from each school, out of 100+ attendees) are selected by the school's instructors to go on to an advanced course run by PBUC, the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation. This 10-day intensive course is designed to perfect the skills learned at the schools. From PBUC, one of three things happens to a student: (1) They're sent home and it's over for them; (2) They're sent home and put on a reserve list, to be called when openings in Rookie Ball pop up--something that is very frequent; (3) They're hired and begin their professional careers in Rookie Ball (a.k.a. Short-A ball). Obviously, #3 or #2 are the preferred outcomes.
One works his way up from Rookie Ball to Long-A to AA, to AAA. At the AAA level, you hope that you catch the eyes of the major league supervisors/evaluators, who look out for the AAA standout umpires. If the major leagues do not express potential interest in a AAA umpire within 5 years or so of that umpire making it to AAA, that umpire is usually released and his professional umpiring career is finished.
There is no age limit to attending umpire school. However, the unwritten rule is that the major leagues want a new umpire to begin at the major level when he's in his mid-30's, roughly. Considering it takes an average of 10 years or so to work one's way up through the minors into the majors, this means someone who first attends umpire school should be no older than his late 20's at the oldest. Anything older and he doesn't stand a realistic chance to make it to the majors.
BTW, one note about the two schools: Jim's Academy is far and away the superior of the two schools. His training is more intensive and much more detailed. In fact, he has a Master's Degree in Education from the University of Texas. His entire approach is different and so much better. Just look at all the umpires in the minor leagues right now. A sizeable majority are graduates of Jim's Academy.
I say this with an objective face, for I did not attend the Academy, nor did I attend Harry's, either. I'm just giving you an honest assessment and recommendation.
Ump, when are you going to publish your autobiography? I hope you're gonna autograph our copies...
Me? An autobiography? Like the masses really want to read that.
[quote]Originally posted by Munson Man
My question is more personal than baeball-related, so I totally understand if you prefer to not respond: I wonder if you've given any thought to maybe coming out publicly once you've left baseball? I know Dave Pallone came out, but he was sort of "outed" by legal issues. It'd be nice to see someone come out without having any baggage attached to the process.
Well, considering I plan on being in the game for many years to come, coming out after retiring is far from my mind.
Truthfully, I really don't think about having to come out, now or after I leave the game. I also don't subscribe to the belief that I should come out to "show other persons out there," or to "prove to the world that...". I don't need to make such a statement for the benefit of the rest of mankind when my own life is what comes first.
No, I am not selfish. I'm a very generous, caring individual. However, only I know my own life and what needs to be done in it. I also don't wake up every day and say, "Gee, I'm a gay Major League Baseball Umpire." Hell, I don't even wake up and say, "I'm gay."
Dave Pallone was unfairly forced to reveal himself because of false and cruel accusations against him. He was guilty till proven innocent, if you will, and it cost him a career for which he worked very hard to achieve.
I've worked many years to accomplish what I have accomplished, and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize this. If this means I simply remain my own quiet, discrete self, that's perfectly fine with me.
[quote]Originally posted by smrobbins65
which takes me right to: how does one get into this line of work? I have often thought that even as a late bloomer, I might enjoy doing this sort of thing. Clearly it's too late for me to become a rookie, but perhaps an Ump? (yeah, I know about "The Rookie" but I don't have that much natural talent.)
If you wish to attempt to pursue umpiring professionally, here's what you'd need to do.
First, attend one of the two professional umpire schools: Jim Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring or the Harry Wendelstedt School for Umpires. The former is located in Ormond Beach, Florida, the latter in Kissimmee.
Joe Brinkman Umpire School closed when Joe retired from teaching in the mid-90's. He sold his assets and rights to Jim.
Each school is a little more than 5 weeks long and begins in early January. Each school's top students (roughly about the top 15 or so from each school, out of 100+ attendees) are selected by the school's instructors to go on to an advanced course run by PBUC, the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation. This 10-day intensive course is designed to perfect the skills learned at the schools. From PBUC, one of three things happens to a student: (1) They're sent home and it's over for them; (2) They're sent home and put on a reserve list, to be called when openings in Rookie Ball pop up--something that is very frequent; (3) They're hired and begin their professional careers in Rookie Ball (a.k.a. Short-A ball). Obviously, #3 or #2 are the preferred outcomes.
One works his way up from Rookie Ball to Long-A to AA, to AAA. At the AAA level, you hope that you catch the eyes of the major league supervisors/evaluators, who look out for the AAA standout umpires. If the major leagues do not express potential interest in a AAA umpire within 5 years or so of that umpire making it to AAA, that umpire is usually released and his professional umpiring career is finished.
There is no age limit to attending umpire school. However, the unwritten rule is that the major leagues want a new umpire to begin at the major level when he's in his mid-30's, roughly. Considering it takes an average of 10 years or so to work one's way up through the minors into the majors, this means someone who first attends umpire school should be no older than his late 20's at the oldest. Anything older and he doesn't stand a realistic chance to make it to the majors.
BTW, one note about the two schools: Jim's Academy is far and away the superior of the two schools. His training is more intensive and much more detailed. In fact, he has a Master's Degree in Education from the University of Texas. His entire approach is different and so much better. Just look at all the umpires in the minor leagues right now. A sizeable majority are graduates of Jim's Academy.
I say this with an objective face, for I did not attend the Academy, nor did I attend Harry's, either. I'm just giving you an honest assessment and recommendation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.