Ask The Ump?

Sunglasses/shades for pitchers....

Pitcher had shades on. Dark, black. UmpiSre asked him if it was a prescription, which they are. I would think they only reason he would ask is if he was intending him to take it off.

We have had this discussion before. Shades/sunglasses are not an automatic no no, correct? If the umpire deems them distracting (like if they were mirrors, or those colorful maybe?

Ruling on glasses please....
 
Basically you already nailed it....anything reflective and deemed distracting can and should be removed.

players can get regular glasses, can get clear lenses that are prescription.

saying it’s unfair to the kid isn’t accurate because kids who don’t need glasses or wear contacts can’t wear distracting shades either.
 
:mad:

The umpire asking if the sunglasses were prescription was flat out the wrong thing to do.

Sunglasses are not illegal.... period. Anything that is distracting to the batter or umpire is..... regardless the fact they are prescriptive.

There are way too many (1 is too many) umpires that simply "don't like" sunglasses and try to come up with something to justify the removal of the glasses.
 
AllSports12 said:
:mad:

The umpire asking if the sunglasses were prescription was flat out the wrong thing to do.

Sunglasses are not illegal.... period. Anything that is distracting to the batter or umpire is..... regardless the fact they are prescriptive.

There are way too many (1 is too many) umpires that simply "don't like" sunglasses and try to come up with something to justify the removal of the glasses.
Click to expand...

I agree...what most of us would consider “normal” sunglasses in my opinion are not bad. But there are some of those “fancy” ones that are super reflective and multi colored...those are usually the issue
 
CoachHoversten said:
I agree...what most of us would consider “normal” sunglasses in my opinion are not bad. But there are some of those “fancy” ones that are super reflective and multi colored...those are usually the issue
Click to expand...
Yep.....

and I have seen exactly 0 of those worn or attempted to be worn by a pitcher in a game I have worked.


There's something about sunglasses and umpires..... Can't wear them on your hat.... Can't pitch with them.... Can't....

Just stop with the MSU (making %#@! up) and manage the game properly.
 
AllSports12 said:
A classic "we put a regulation in just to say we did something".

Anyone wanna take a stab at how those balls are rubbed up prior to the game? ;)
Click to expand...
I think it's nice you assume they are rubbed up prior ;) I have done ten games, 9 on the plate thus far, and all the balls I have received at pregame are pearly whites from the coach.

This past weekend, we had to stop for this a few times. Both teams were annoyed, but them's the rules as my father used to say.

In the sixth inning, R2, R3, no outs. Batter smokes one to third. We end up with a rundown between 3rd and home (out), another one between third and second (out), and then one between first and second on the batter runner (safe) - our mechanics were a thing of beauty on this one, for the record - but after the play ends, my partner calls time and he and I get together. He says to me, "Ok, so all nine defensive players participated in those rundowns. Are we to assume none of them went to their mouths just before touching the ball,?"

To me, he made a valid point. While the pitcher is the one who will touch it the most often, what about the catcher? I watched one on the JV field as we were leaving cough into his hand and then receive a pitch and throw back to the pitcher.

But, as I stated, them's the rules so we move on.

Interestingly, last night a pitcher never once did this and threw a no-hitter.
 
umpire16 said:
I think it's nice you assume they are rubbed up prior ;) I have done ten games, 9 on the plate thus far, and all the balls I have received at pregame are pearly whites from the coach.

This past weekend, we had to stop for this a few times. Both teams were annoyed, but them's the rules as my father used to say.

In the sixth inning, R2, R3, no outs. Batter smokes one to third. We end up with a rundown between 3rd and home (out), another one between third and second (out), and then one between first and second on the batter runner (safe) - our mechanics were a thing of beauty on this one, for the record - but after the play ends, my partner calls time and he and I get together. He says to me, "Ok, so all nine defensive players participated in those rundowns. Are we to assume none of them went to their mouths just before touching the ball,?"

To me, he made a valid point. While the pitcher is the one who will touch it the most often, what about the catcher? I watched one on the JV field as we were leaving cough into his hand and then receive a pitch and throw back to the pitcher.

But, as I stated, them's the rules so we move on.

Interestingly, last night a pitcher never once did this and threw a no-hitter.
Click to expand...

This is a good story, but never in my life would I call time, halt the game, and get together with my partner to discuss whether possibly a defensive player licked their fingers. Talk about a pace of play issue...if you are that concerned with it, simply give the pitcher a new ball and move on.

As for the pearly whites, I have been about 50/50. In fact, I asked AllSports several questions about how to mud the balls b/c I had never had to do that, and so far, I have just used the good old infield dirt and it works fine, although it makes my hands dry and dusty.
 
AllSports12 said:
:mad:

The umpire asking if the sunglasses were prescription was flat out the wrong thing to do.

Sunglasses are not illegal.... period. Anything that is distracting to the batter or umpire is..... regardless the fact they are prescriptive.

There are way too many (1 is too many) umpires that simply "don't like" sunglasses and try to come up with something to justify the removal of the glasses.
Click to expand...
I concur. As soon as he asked I knew the reasoning and thought it was absurd as these truly just look like dark glasses and not the wrap around shades or anything like that. I was surprised.

I have, though, seen a kid try to wear those flashy
umpire16 said:
I think it's nice you assume they are rubbed up prior ;) I have done ten games, 9 on the plate thus far, and all the balls I have received at pregame are pearly whites from the coach.

This past weekend, we had to stop for this a few times. Both teams were annoyed, but them's the rules as my father used to say.

In the sixth inning, R2, R3, no outs. Batter smokes one to third. We end up with a rundown between 3rd and home (out), another one between third and second (out), and then one between first and second on the batter runner (safe) - our mechanics were a thing of beauty on this one, for the record - but after the play ends, my partner calls time and he and I get together. He says to me, "Ok, so all nine defensive players participated in those rundowns. Are we to assume none of them went to their mouths just before touching the ball,?"

To me, he made a valid point. While the pitcher is the one who will touch it the most often, what about the catcher? I watched one on the JV field as we were leaving cough into his hand and then receive a pitch and throw back to the pitcher.

But, as I stated, them's the rules so we move on.

Interestingly, last night a pitcher never once did this and threw a no-hitter.
Click to expand...
No offense,
but your partner sounds like the type whom misses routine plays but will see the protector in the BP not wearing a helmet in a heartbeat to stop the game.

To be quite honest, if someone (player, coaches) are that paranoid about the Rona then quite simply they should not be out there playing.


but I digress......


With that said, at the JV level I have seen three games now with just one umpire. One was for a scrimmage and I just assumed they didnt want to waste $$ on a second, but it has been two games now.

Are some places so hard up they are only going to use 1 umpire below the varsity level?

BTW....2 did great, one was lazy and used he one umpire excuse for every close play in the field.
 
thavoice said:
With that said, at the JV level I have seen three games now with just one umpire. One was for a scrimmage and I just assumed they didnt want to waste $$ on a second, but it has been two games now.

Are some places so hard up they are only going to use 1 umpire below the varsity level?
Click to expand...

One on a JV game is going to become more frequent.... Officiating numbers are way down across the board.
 
thavoice said:
I concur. As soon as he asked I knew the reasoning and thought it was absurd as these truly just look like dark glasses and not the wrap around shades or anything like that. I was surprised.

I have, though, seen a kid try to wear those flashy

No offense,
but your partner sounds like the type whom misses routine plays but will see the protector in the BP not wearing a helmet in a heartbeat to stop the game.

To be quite honest, if someone (player, coaches) are that paranoid about the Rona then quite simply they should not be out there playing.


but I digress......


With that said, at the JV level I have seen three games now with just one umpire. One was for a scrimmage and I just assumed they didnt want to waste $$ on a second, but it has been two games now.

Are some places so hard up they are only going to use 1 umpire below the varsity level?

BTW....2 did great, one was lazy and used he one umpire excuse for every close play in the field.
Click to expand...

@thavoice... it depends on the county and association. When I was doing HS, I used to work one county (where I lived) and all JV games were one-man except for very select schools (usually wealthy private schools that had really good teams would hire a second ump) and then I joined an association in the county where I worked so I could do games right after work and every single JV game was two-man, there wasn't a single school they assigned that only used one.

So one some levels, it is a school decision, but oftentimes it is a county or umpires association thing.
 
CoachHoversten said:
@thavoice... it depends on the county and association. When I was doing HS, I used to work one county (where I lived) and all JV games were one-man except for very select schools (usually wealthy private schools that had really good teams would hire a second ump) and then I joined an association in the county where I worked so I could do games right after work and every single JV game was two-man, there wasn't a single school they assigned that only used one.

So one some levels, it is a school decision, but oftentimes it is a county or umpires association thing.
Click to expand...

Sad thing, is in the county where I lived, we would get $45 for a solo JV game, and in the other, it was $50 apiece for two-man JV. Seemed kind of backwards....not that it is about the money, but it seems crazy that a solo game would pay less than a two-man.
 
sub-varsity umpiring coverage is going to come down to the combination of umpire availability and schools' willingness to pay.

For the association I am in, we've gotten most (if not all) of our schools willing to pay for two on JV. The issue is that sometimes we don't have the manpower to provide two for all the JV games on weekdays. The junior high level (which we have in our schools we cover) is 100% one-man, obviously.
 
DH Question, NCAA Rule-Set:

I was asked this by a coach at plate meeting (apparently he is known for asking DH questions to new umpires)


Team starts the game batting 9, with a DH for the starting pitcher, let's call him Larry. Larry is a terrible hitter but a very good bunter.

Later in the game, the DH spot comes up in a bunt situation, so Larry bats for the DH and executes a nice bunt, and stays in the game as the P/DH now.

Question: The next time the DH spot comes to bat, can the coach substitute a hitter as the DH and leave Larry in to pitch?

1) NCAA Rules say a pitcher can pinch-hit or pinch-run for the DH and become the P/DH, so no issue with Larry batting for the DH to bunt

2) NCAA Rules say that a pitcher who is P/DH can be substituted for as either or both, so seems like it isn't an issue to let someone who has not been in the lineup bat for Larry and become the new DH and let Larry keep pitching, he just can't reenter the lineup or go play defense if he stops pitching.

  • The thing that holds me up is the wording "in this case", which appears before the rule about P/DH being substituted for as P or DH, but doesn't have to be both. The rule says specifically "it is not mandatory to designate a hitter for the pitcher. If the starting pitcher is listed in the order, the pitcher becomes the DH. IN THIS CASE, the pitcher is considered as two players, P and DH, and can be substituted as such".

--- Does this mean the P/DH can only be both players when they start that way? And that when you "become" the P/DH by batting for the DH in the middle of the game, this rule does not apply?

If it does still apply, why doesn't it say "any P/DH can be substituted as such" as opposed to "in this case"
 
CoachHoversten said:
DH Question, NCAA Rule-Set:

I was asked this by a coach at plate meeting (apparently he is known for asking DH questions to new umpires)


Team starts the game batting 9, with a DH for the starting pitcher, let's call him Larry. Larry is a terrible hitter but a very good bunter.

Later in the game, the DH spot comes up in a bunt situation, so Larry bats for the DH and executes a nice bunt, and stays in the game as the P/DH now.

Question: The next time the DH spot comes to bat, can the coach substitute a hitter as the DH and leave Larry in to pitch?

1) NCAA Rules say a pitcher can pinch-hit or pinch-run for the DH and become the P/DH, so no issue with Larry batting for the DH to bunt

2) NCAA Rules say that a pitcher who is P/DH can be substituted for as either or both, so seems like it isn't an issue to let someone who has not been in the lineup bat for Larry and become the new DH and let Larry keep pitching, he just can't reenter the lineup or go play defense if he stops pitching.

  • The thing that holds me up is the wording "in this case", which appears before the rule about P/DH being substituted for as P or DH, but doesn't have to be both. The rule says specifically "it is not mandatory to designate a hitter for the pitcher. If the starting pitcher is listed in the order, the pitcher becomes the DH. IN THIS CASE, the pitcher is considered as two players, P and DH, and can be substituted as such".

--- Does this mean the P/DH can only be both players when they start that way? And that when you "become" the P/DH by batting for the DH in the middle of the game, this rule does not apply?

If it does still apply, why doesn't it say "any P/DH can be substituted as such" as opposed to "in this case"
Click to expand...
You are reading too much into "in this case"

Just remember that the P/DH are actually two separate players. When "Smitty" comes up as a PH for the DH, he's PHing for Larry the DH, not Larry the P.
 
AllSports12 said:
You are reading too much into "in this case"

Just remember that the P/DH are actually two separate players. When "Smitty" comes up as a PH for the DH, he's PHing for Larry the DH, not Larry the P.
Click to expand...
As always, thanks. Just find it odd that when writing that, they mention a specific scenario about starting the game as P/DH and then say " in this case" even though that isn't the only "case" that can create a P/DH. But its a lot of words, and when it was written, they can't catch every connotation of meanings and how it might look.

Thanks for the clarity.

For what it is worth, I did have it correct with the coach. I said exactly that. When he PH for the DH, he becomes the P/DH. He then can be substituted for as either or both. But I did that from memory and only became confused when I went back after the game and looked it up to make sure I was correct and saw that wording and what I perceived as emphasis on "this case".

Thanks AS
 
One more follow up question about the retired batter question I had last week. Again, this is hypothetical:

Runner on 1st, batter strikes out swinging on a pitch in the dirt. He can not safely acquire 1st base because 1st base was occupied with less than 2 outs. He CAN however still commit other acts of interference, swat at the ball, interfere with a fielder, etc.

My hypothetical question...

Can a retired batter be guilty of runners lane interference if he runs to first and the catcher doesn't realize he doesn't have to throw, so he does, and by being out of RL, let’s say he gets hit by a ball in the back that the first baseman would have otherwise caught.

I would think no, because the throw was not even needed, so how can he commit RLI on a play that shouldn't even be made?

My fellow brethren who said I was wrong before have now said I (and you and others) were correct, running to 1st is not in of itself interference, but then this came up, and again, some disagreement.
 
Last edited:
CoachHoversten said:
One more follow up question about the retired batter question I had last week. Again, this is hypothetical:

Runner on 1st, batter strikes out swinging on a pitch in the dirt. He can not safely acquire 1st base because 1st base was occupied with less than 2 outs. He CAN however still commit other acts of interference, swat at the ball, interfere with a fielder, etc.

My hypothetical question...

Can a retired batter be guilty of runners lane interference if he runs to first and the catcher doesn't realize he doesn't have to throw, so he does, and by being out of RL, let’s say he gets hit by a ball in the back that the first baseman would have otherwise caught.

I would think no, because the throw was not even needed, so how can he commit RLI on a play that shouldn't even be made?

My fellow brethren who said I was wrong before have now said I (and you and others) were correct, running to 1st is not in of itself interference, but then this came up, and again, some disagreement.
Click to expand...
Running to first in and of itself is not considered interference. (that principle applies to all runners that are retired)

However, they still must run the bases legally.
 
AllSports12 said:
Running to first in and of itself is not considered interference. (that principle applies to all runners that are retired)

However, they still must run the bases legally.
Click to expand...
So that means if they try to throw to first for the runner who was out due to the dropped third and first occupied and it hits him in the back it can be called and the runners get a base?
 
AllSports12 said:
No, the batter/runner is already out on the strikeout.
Click to expand...
Yes, i realize he is out. The question I think that is being asked, or what I am asking is this, if the catcher, unknowing of the rules, throws to first in this instance and hits the runner who was not running in the proper lane.

Is there anything to that or is it a play on?
 
thavoice said:
Yes, i realize he is out. The question I think that is being asked, or what I am asking is this, if the catcher, unknowing of the rules, throws to first in this instance and hits the runner who was not running in the proper lane.

Is there anything to that or is it a play on?
Click to expand...
Again, merely running after being put out is not interference. However if a runner or batter/runner does, they still must do it legally.

In this case, the retired batter/runner is not legal, therefore interference has occurred and the ball becomes dead immediately. We already have the batter/runner out on the strike out, so we enforce the remaining penalty as normal.... that being all runners are returned to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch.
 
CedarBuck92 said:
yes. If you want more info please message me. Don't want to get onto AllSports bad side on this forum.
Click to expand...

you asked a legitimate question; AS won’t come down on you for that! And he is quick to point out when an umpire errs, just doesn’t want to get into a smear fest is all.

Anyways, I have two things about this:

1) A player should not be ejected for jewelry unless they flat refuse to remove it or conceal it (if it’s of a religious nature). If this was the case, the ejection would be for unsportsmanlike conduct , not “wearing a necklace”. If he was ejected for wearing a necklace, it would be something like “he walked up to bat, umpire notices it and tosses him no questions asked”.

is this what happened? (Or in the field , not necessarily at bat)

2) What level was this? In NCAA, all player ejections come with a minimum one game suspension, not sure about HS.

Final thing...all ejections require a report. If he truly got tossed solely for wearing a necklace, I’m sure the umpire is going to hear about it
 
Last edited:
CedarBuck92 said:
yes. If you want more info please message me. Don't want to get onto AllSports bad side on this forum.
Click to expand...
Nothing bugs me more than when an umpire makes something up........ Nothing..... I have no problem putting that on here as long as it doesn't turn into bashing......

Feel free to post what you saw.....

That said, here is the rule...........

Rule 1-5 - Player Equipment

ART. 12 . . . Jewelry shall not be worn (See 3-3-1d) except for religious or medical medals. A religious medal must be taped and worn under the uniform. A medical alert must be taped and may be visible.

Rule 3-3 - Bench and Field Conduct

ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:
d. wear jewelry (players participating in the game) or wear bandannas;

PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.

At the plate conference before every game the umpires ask Head Coach this question.......
"Are your players legally equipped?"

The Head Coach must answer "yes" for the game to begin.....

As far as the suspension....... Umpires have nothing to do with suspensions. That is handled in Columbus.
 
Last edited:
AllSports12 said:
Nothing bugs me more than when an umpire makes something up........ Nothing..... I have no problem putting that on here as long as it doesn't turn into bashing......

Feel free to post what you saw.....

That said, here is the rule...........

Rule 1-5 - Player Equipment

ART. 12 . . . Jewelry shall not be worn (See 3-3-1d) except for religious or medical medals. A religious medal must be taped and worn under the uniform. A medical alert must be taped and may be visible.

Rule 3-3 - Bench and Field Conduct

ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:
d. wear jewelry (players participating in the game) or wear bandannas;

PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.

At the plate conference before every game the umpires ask Head Coach this question.......
"Are your players legally equipped?"

The Head Coach must answer "yes" for the game to begin.....

As far as the suspension....... Umpires have nothing to do with suspensions. That is handled in Columbus.
Click to expand...
I think I found our issue. A previous player was asked to remove his bracelet but a warning was never given to the coach. Granted all players should have understood that jewelry needed to come off at that time.

Thank you for answering my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top