Getting ready for baseball
5.11.2008
For most of the umpires I work with, the season started 2 months ago, when high school started up with their spring leagues. I don't start my umpiring until school ends, which will be 2 Mondays from now, but I get into it pretty fast, with 48 games so far this summer and a probable 25-40 more. If you want an interesting hour of surfing, checkout the videos on youtube for baseball umpires; there's a bunch of videos of blown calls, some of the San Diego chicken, a few "what is the correct call" ones, and a few angry parents thinking their kid was robbed when they really weren't.
It made me remember of one of these calls from last year, which was my first real "injury" situation I've ever had as an umpire, but also was one of the most controversial calls (apparently) I ever made:
I was field umpiring, with an old friend and respected umpire who umpired games I played in being at the plate. There was nobody on base and the batter hits a pop-fly behind the pitcher, at the grass. I focused on the runner for first-base tag (expecting the plate umpire to make the catch/no catch call), but also turned my head to watch the catch myself. (my philosophy here is that if I have nothing immediate, it's always a good idea to just have 2 sets of eyes on a situation, even if one is just glancing) I watch the second baseman have position, but collide with the shortstop while making the catch in the air. 2B drops to the ground and lands on a leg funny, falling to the ground in pain; I call time immediately (another philosophy thing, no matter the level I don't keep play going with an injury) and check on the player. Eventually, we feel it's best to call for an ambulance and get the player off the field that way.
Here's the controversy, though. I go to grab his glove after the whole thing settles down to bring it back, and the ball is still in it. The player came down with the ball, threw off his glove, and the ball was still inside it. Neither myself or the plate umpire made a call on the catch, and in the end I make the call that it was not a catch, the runner gets 1st base. The reason for this is that I took a strict interpretation to the rules on a catch: under the rules, he never made a "controlled" release of the ball from the glove, so it isn't a catch.
I learned later that this had made it to some umpiring lists and that this actually became quite a conversation. I'm surprised that the end result of opinion was that it should be called a catch.
Wonder what's in store this year...
It made me remember of one of these calls from last year, which was my first real "injury" situation I've ever had as an umpire, but also was one of the most controversial calls (apparently) I ever made:
I was field umpiring, with an old friend and respected umpire who umpired games I played in being at the plate. There was nobody on base and the batter hits a pop-fly behind the pitcher, at the grass. I focused on the runner for first-base tag (expecting the plate umpire to make the catch/no catch call), but also turned my head to watch the catch myself. (my philosophy here is that if I have nothing immediate, it's always a good idea to just have 2 sets of eyes on a situation, even if one is just glancing) I watch the second baseman have position, but collide with the shortstop while making the catch in the air. 2B drops to the ground and lands on a leg funny, falling to the ground in pain; I call time immediately (another philosophy thing, no matter the level I don't keep play going with an injury) and check on the player. Eventually, we feel it's best to call for an ambulance and get the player off the field that way.
Here's the controversy, though. I go to grab his glove after the whole thing settles down to bring it back, and the ball is still in it. The player came down with the ball, threw off his glove, and the ball was still inside it. Neither myself or the plate umpire made a call on the catch, and in the end I make the call that it was not a catch, the runner gets 1st base. The reason for this is that I took a strict interpretation to the rules on a catch: under the rules, he never made a "controlled" release of the ball from the glove, so it isn't a catch.
I learned later that this had made it to some umpiring lists and that this actually became quite a conversation. I'm surprised that the end result of opinion was that it should be called a catch.
Wonder what's in store this year...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home