Was at a 10U tournament last year with an umpire who's in the "been doing this for 30 years" category - his partner was much newer. Even they couldn't agree which hand was supposed to be used to show B/S by the HPU. Is that mechanic the same across all rulesets and MLB?
Umps not knowing rules
- Thread starter NJSwampdragons
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
@RADcatcher : Even though the usage examples you cite for competent include additional adverbs (highly competent, infinitely competent) which certainly tilt the meaning of the phrases, let's take a look at the base definition of the word: has the necessary ability, knowledge or skill to do something successfully. (emphasis added for clarification).
First there is the issue of defining what a successful umpire looks like. That is why I started the thread last week about what makes a successful umpire. I intended that to generate a conversation about what coaches, players and parents valued most in an umpire, what skillsets we should work on to improve first. That thread was all over the place, some serious responses some not so much. I would say that consistency lead the way, but others might come away with a different take. Rules knowledge, solid mechanics, people skills, a cool head, are ALL valuable skills and a highly competent, or infinitely competent, or elite umpire will work to hone all of them to the highest level possible.
That being said, umpires do not start out at the highest level. They generally start out in rec ball of some sort. Are they successful at that most basic level? I would hope so. To be competent means to be successful, but I will add a bit more to that phrase if you will permit and agree: it means to be successful at the job at hand. I submit that to be successful at that first level, you need to know the rules FIRST. Without that, you cannot be successful at ANY level.
Let's look at an example most of us either have had or will have, learning to drive a car. I would certainly hope that before a state issues a license to someone, they ensure that they are competent to handle a motor vehicle. That they know the rules of the road, how to start, stop and steer the vehicle, how to park it. That is competent. Is that same driver ready to handle a big rig, or a snow storm, or interstate travel during rush hour in a major city? No, those skills are developed along the way, but NOT having them, while perhaps leading to the lack of success in a given situation, DOES NOT prevent them from being competent.
So, back to the discussion at hand: What does it take to make an umpire competent in the sense of being able to function at the most basic level. If we use the most frequent response in the 'what makes a perfect umpire' thread, consistency, as our starting point, we then need to ask consistent at what? In this case, my interpretation is consistency in the application of the rules. To do that you need to KNOW the rules.
Do I agree with you that the BEST umpires have all of the skills and perhaps the 'soft' skills of game and situation management are what separate the good from the truly great umpires? YES! But to be competent, to have the most basic success, you need to know the rules.
First there is the issue of defining what a successful umpire looks like. That is why I started the thread last week about what makes a successful umpire. I intended that to generate a conversation about what coaches, players and parents valued most in an umpire, what skillsets we should work on to improve first. That thread was all over the place, some serious responses some not so much. I would say that consistency lead the way, but others might come away with a different take. Rules knowledge, solid mechanics, people skills, a cool head, are ALL valuable skills and a highly competent, or infinitely competent, or elite umpire will work to hone all of them to the highest level possible.
That being said, umpires do not start out at the highest level. They generally start out in rec ball of some sort. Are they successful at that most basic level? I would hope so. To be competent means to be successful, but I will add a bit more to that phrase if you will permit and agree: it means to be successful at the job at hand. I submit that to be successful at that first level, you need to know the rules FIRST. Without that, you cannot be successful at ANY level.
Let's look at an example most of us either have had or will have, learning to drive a car. I would certainly hope that before a state issues a license to someone, they ensure that they are competent to handle a motor vehicle. That they know the rules of the road, how to start, stop and steer the vehicle, how to park it. That is competent. Is that same driver ready to handle a big rig, or a snow storm, or interstate travel during rush hour in a major city? No, those skills are developed along the way, but NOT having them, while perhaps leading to the lack of success in a given situation, DOES NOT prevent them from being competent.
So, back to the discussion at hand: What does it take to make an umpire competent in the sense of being able to function at the most basic level. If we use the most frequent response in the 'what makes a perfect umpire' thread, consistency, as our starting point, we then need to ask consistent at what? In this case, my interpretation is consistency in the application of the rules. To do that you need to KNOW the rules.
Do I agree with you that the BEST umpires have all of the skills and perhaps the 'soft' skills of game and situation management are what separate the good from the truly great umpires? YES! But to be competent, to have the most basic success, you need to know the rules.
That is just embarrassing. Indefensible. Those that put no effort into are hated by umpires WAY more than even coaches and players hate them. Just not publically. I have at least reached the point where I don't have to work with the 'known problems, but who else do we have' umpires. I would rather work with a newbie with no skills who is willing to learn.
Yes, it is the same; left hand balls, right hand strikes. That at least is easy
Last edited:
I agree with this, but let's turn it around a moment and get an even truer statement:
NOT knowing the rules automatically prevents you from being a competent official, at any level, regardless of the 'soft' skills you might possess.
radness
Possibilities & Opportunities!
- Dec 13, 2019
- 7,270
- 113
Unfortunet as it maybe,
Its nice to read the behind the scenes...
radness
Possibilities & Opportunities!
- Dec 13, 2019
- 7,270
- 113
Unfortunetly what you suppose hypothetically is already invalidated by the amount of umpires who come up with incorrect rulings on the field.
Only to bluff there way badly through it.
With lousy people skills.
Tends to make it worse.
Atleast an umpire who has good people/facilitation skills can smooth over bumps easier.
Just what i've noticed
@texasheat : I don't know what you do or do not know without your telling me. If your evaluation of the female umpire in your earlier post was based on where her head was positioned in relation to the strike zone, then say that. I wasn't there, I have no idea even now, if her dropping three inches did or did not put her in a good position to judge balls and strikes. If that is what leads you to say she is a terrible umpire ,then spell it out. The point I was trying to make, and it isn't just you who does this, is that judgments get made without giving all of the relevant, available information.
Since we are talking about umpires, let's see how that plays out on a ball field. A fielder puts down a tag and the runner is called out. No one sees the ball come out, NO ONE, not the calling umpire, not his partner, neither of the HCs. The fielder, however, knows she didn't keep control of the ball. The out stands , of course, but does that make it the right call? No, it wasn't.
I still don't if you know the correct way for an umpire to set up, but I will assume you do. That being said, I STILL don't know if that is the reason you called an umpire 'terrible'. So, was she set up correctly with eyes as close to the top of the zone and on the inside edge while still being able to see the entire strike zone?
Since we are talking about umpires, let's see how that plays out on a ball field. A fielder puts down a tag and the runner is called out. No one sees the ball come out, NO ONE, not the calling umpire, not his partner, neither of the HCs. The fielder, however, knows she didn't keep control of the ball. The out stands , of course, but does that make it the right call? No, it wasn't.
I still don't if you know the correct way for an umpire to set up, but I will assume you do. That being said, I STILL don't know if that is the reason you called an umpire 'terrible'. So, was she set up correctly with eyes as close to the top of the zone and on the inside edge while still being able to see the entire strike zone?
I agree 100%, the worst officials are the ones who don't know and try to bluff their way through it with terrible people skills. Are they out there? Yes. Why are they getting assignments? Because there is a dire shortage of umpires.
Atleast an umpire who has good people/facilitation skills can smooth over bumps easier.
Just what i've noticed
Serious question here: Would you rather have the umpire be able to smooth over a bad situation or have him/her avoid it in the first place by getting the call right?
radness
Possibilities & Opportunities!
- Dec 13, 2019
- 7,270
- 113
Since even the right call can and does get challenged.
Smooth is best!
Think someone else commented to this.
?Westwind maybe?
⬇
The umpire should go
un-noticed doing their role.
Surely have seen examples of the umpire that's much too loosey-goosey facilitating a game and umpires that are far too pronounced in their rigid authority in their uniform approach that alone can effect game dynamic.
The overly chatty.
Or
Non approachable.
People notice.
@EdLovrich
question please
What are your thoughts on umpires who will tell the catcher
"I think I missed the call on that pitch."
Do you ever do that?
Last edited:
I have said, "Coach, if I saw it from your angle, I might have called it differently?
Let me ask you, if an umpire came to you and said, "Coach, I got that one wrong, flat out missed it." Would you want it to get changed? Or, are you going to be satisfied knowing it was wrong and that it is going to stay wrong and that is the end of it? What good is served by an umpire admitting he got a call flat out wrong other than stroking a coach's ego? (I realize that is inflammatory language, I use it on purpose because it has been stated that stroking our own egos is one of the reasons we get into this job in the first place. I just want to make sure we are all getting our egos taken care of)
As to what I say to catchers? I have told a catcher, "I sure would like to see that pitch again." Or, "Call that pitch again" I think most catchers are smart enough to read between the lines.
Let me ask you, if an umpire came to you and said, "Coach, I got that one wrong, flat out missed it." Would you want it to get changed? Or, are you going to be satisfied knowing it was wrong and that it is going to stay wrong and that is the end of it? What good is served by an umpire admitting he got a call flat out wrong other than stroking a coach's ego? (I realize that is inflammatory language, I use it on purpose because it has been stated that stroking our own egos is one of the reasons we get into this job in the first place. I just want to make sure we are all getting our egos taken care of)
As to what I say to catchers? I have told a catcher, "I sure would like to see that pitch again." Or, "Call that pitch again" I think most catchers are smart enough to read between the lines.
Similar threads
