Under the Lights

There is a clear distinction made(at least at the HS level, I'll check my NCAA and MLB books) in between the webbing of a fielders glove and issues involving the catcher's or umpire's equipment. I'm about 95% certain that the same distinction is made at the NCAA level. For the record I've probably watched or witnessed this (lodged pitch) called a half dozen times. In those half dozen times I have seen: A) A one base award B) A two base award C) Nothing......just let the runners run :jump: D) A balk. Yes, a balk. The umpire equated it to the "hidden ball trick". At least he got the award right.

I assume your using MLB rules?? I'm very interested, as I never knew there was a difference(or at the very least a different wording) in this case. To clarify the ball being "stuck": A ball that goes behind the catchers gear and falls out when he stands up isn't stuck or lodged IMO. Now, if he has to do the shimmy shimmy to get it to fall out or reach in and get it, then it is stuck. I'd also cite safety issues at the HS level, as we use the same "quick kill" for balls that get stuck in between a poorly sealed backstop or loose nets on the backstop.

For the record I'm using NFHS rules: As per the "dead ball" and "delayed dead ball" table, under the "dead ball" heading: 5-1-1: "Ball dead immediately when a pitch or ball thrown by pitcher from plate goes into stand, bench, over or through fence, backstop, or touches a spectator (in live ball area) or lodges in umpire's or catcher's equipment." I define "lodged" as not coming out in a natural course of events. So in the example I cited, the player had to get the ball out of his catching gear. That would be lodged in my book. Correct on #3. Many people don't realize the 'ol 1 from the mound, 2 from the field applies to this situation as well.

1. Incorrect 2. Correct 3. Incorrect

Here are a few more: 1. 1-2 count. 0 out. Runners on 1st(R1) and 3rd(R3). Pitcher delivers the ball to the plate legally, but the pitch is in the dirt and is taken by the batter. The catcher jumps up and starts looking around for the ball. Upon seeing this R3 breaks for home. The catcher finds the ball behind his chest protector and quickly pulls it out and tags R3. What is the call? 2. Same scenario but the ball is found in the umpire's ball bag. 3. Bases loaded. 1 out. 0-0 count. Batter hits a chopper in the infield to the SS. SS fires the ball to the plate but the throw is low and in the dirt and becomes lodged in the catcher's shin guard(this actually happened). What is the call? Place all runners.

Since you've already answered 1, 3-5 I'll give #2 a shot. Batter is out. As long as ball contacts the mitt first it is live and thus the batter is able to be put out. If it had contacted anything else first it would be a foul ball.

My problem with this assessment is that I don't see the two situations we've discussed (free blocking zone and contacting the receiver) as judgement calls. IMO there SHOULDN'T be any judgement as to whether the ball is in or out of the FBZ in a shotgun situation. Same with the contacting of a receiver before the ball is in the air. I understand completely that the rule book leaves this in a situation of ambiguity. I would just like to see someone have some correspondence with the KHSAA to see how they want it called, and then apply that across the board. Surely someone can provide some kind of clarification, anything has to be better than week to week not knowing. IMO asking officials to make "judgements" in the situations described only leads to the huge variances we see in HS officiating today. No doubt, you guys are in a tough position with the setup the way it is. And of course that's not ALL we want........

:thumb::thumb: Yep. This would be the 2nd (the 1st has already been mentioned) rules interpretation that I consistently see called differently in different areas. Both can have a major effect on how the game is played.

Sam is a GREAT guy. And an even better official to boot. Coaches and especially fans know it all, didn't they tell you that in official school? :lol::lol: In my experience many of the most unpopular calls are usually.......correct. And for the calls that aren't, it does happen, I say don't judge the man until you walk a mile in his shoes. People act like HS officials are paid professionals (which is hilarious and comical), yet they wouldn't even sniff at giving up their time and self proclaimed knowledge to better the sport. You want HS officials to call games as well as professionals?? Then pay them on par with those guys. Ref, good luck to you this upcoming season. :thumb:

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but what do you do when you have different interpretations of the same rule? When one week guys going across the middle are being planted on their backsides and the next when you do the same your team is flagged for it? I think coaches, players, fans (whom I could really care less about), and officials just want to know exactly WHAT is the correct interpretation. There is not, and should not be, room in the rules for gut feelings, personal thoughts, "the way its called around here", etc, etc.

Sorry, I wasn't in any way implying that you were a part of this. In my experience there are entirely too many closed minded, set in their ways individuals for my taste. They know the rules and could care less about what your darn rule book says. Coaches that have a disregard for the rules are in the same group IMO. But saying that coaches do wrong is in no way a satisfactory reason for any offical to disregard the rules. Do things to the best of your ability. If you make mistakes, it is OK, but learn and improve from those mistakes. Seek out answers, learn from others, never compromise your integrity. I think those are the qualities that make a great official. Sorry for any confusion, this issue just gets my goat a little bit........ On a side note one of the best officials I know, Sam Holbrook (baseball) gave me this gem a while back: "I've never called a perfect game. But I've never given up on doing it either."

:thumb: Absolutely. Give respect and get respect.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!! The best part is that these guys actually attend the meeting, but refuse to take anything away from it......I guess that would really be a colossal waste of time. What is amazing is the exact opposite approach is being taken in other sports. This has nothing to do with interpreting the rule correctly, and everything to do with the ego of a small percentage of officials. And to think that these guys signed up to help kids.........sad.

This is an excellent post and I agree with many of your points. Here is my perspective on some of your suggestions: As far as officials go, YES, to all of the above. Increase training at the local association level, and pay for the trainer if need be. I know other sports do this without paying the trainer(s), I don't see how the most popular sport in the state should be any different. In other sports I have seen that the state makes "Points of emphasis" each year, and relays said points to officials at a REQUIRED meeting. If there is a misinterpretation, or misapplication, of a rule on a consistent basis can we not get a ruling from the KHSAA and make it a point of emphasis the following year? How hard is that? I know for a fact that this is exactly how it is handled in other sports. I agree wholeheartedly in the "less is more" approach. I think many of our newer officials think it is a bad night if they don't see their flag at least once a night. :lol: The major problem that I see is that games are being changed or decided due to incorrect rules applications. This should never, ever, happen IMO. Coaches are getting smarter about this too. They see that they have crew X, and know that crew X won't call OPI on the "pick" play. Guess what goes in the gameplan that week? I guess I'd just like to see more uniformity across the board. I know that other sports having been moving this way for some time. The best officials are the ones you never notice.......

My only problem with this is it is simply too inconsistently applied. I don't care which way it is called, but pick one and make it a point of emphasis. It shouldn't change if a team travels from WKY to Lexington or Louisville.

As I said: One is a proven commodity, the other is not. That is not at all a slight to Leatherbee, just that he hasn't arrived at that point yet. At the end of the year I don't think there is any doubt he'll be in the conversation, but I don't think you can proclaim him as the best SS in NKY when he hasn't played all that much at the Varsity level, JMO.

I know that, my sarcasm was obviously lost on you...... I have watched both Reed and Leatherby play. They are both fine young men and good HS baseball players. I think that Mr. Leatherby has the POTENTIAL to be a very good HS player. I think Mr. Reed arrived at that point some time last year.

Sorry, I couldn't resist....... True Infielder - a position only reserved for players who attend Ryle high school Ex: Ozzie Smith is a pretty good SS, but he's not a true infielder like Vince Murray.

While I'll agree that throwing money at the problem isn't an end all be all solution, I'll politely disagree that it would not improve the quality. Sure, better training will result in the exisiting officials getting better. However, as you noted better pay would increase the quantity. This does two things: First it allows associations to place officials in games that fit their current ability (thus increasing the quality). Second it allows the association to keep and attract new officials (thus increasing quality). So yes, indirectly, better pay will improve the overall quality (to a point). I agree wholeheartedly about clinics and camps, and for some of us, they aren't really optional (more like a yearly event). I think what your failing to realize is that for a lot of the officials, they are already giving up a lot of their free time to attend approx 20-40 hours of association meetings and training each year. Because this is a hobby for most, its not something they can devote much more time to, many are already pushing the limits (doing 5+ games a week, training, all while having young children and family at home). I can assure you that the problem with the officiating has absolutely nothing to do with the amount or quality of instruction that the officials are getting. Most already attend these outside camps, and really do try to improve and learn each and every year. The real problem is that guys are being placed in games that are over their ability due to lack of numbers. They mess up, look bad, etc. and prematurely decide that this isn't for them. In addition many of the older officials have decided there is simply too much hassle for 50 bucks a game when they could spend that time with their kids, grandkids, etc. You can train a 1st year official till your blue in the face, but I promise there is no substitute for experience in that crucial big game, big situation moment.

:thumb: I would ask the general "official" bashing public this question: Why do you think it is that so few officials come out or stick with officiating? I'd argue that it is exactly the premise that this thread was started on. I think we all get enough of people getting on us at our real jobs, at home, etc. So it's not a suprise to me at all that some grow tired of being harassed by coaches, fans, and the like. So they hang it up or never start at all. And what does that leave you with? More guys who have even less experience calling games. You guys make it sound like this is a profession, and that people are beating down the door to become officials.

Most officials associations have trouble just getting enough bodies to officiate all of their games, much less place QUALITY officials in higher level games. What your seeing is a lack of experience.

It's not a job for nearly all of them, it is a hobby. They give up their own personal time to referee for a very minimal amount (especially with gas prices these days). You want to call and treat it like a job, fine, then pay it like one as well. If you want to improve the quality of officiating, then become one yourself! It's easy to sit by idly and complain........

I'm with you 100% on this. However, I think your idea is a largely utopian one. You'd be a fool to think that your going to get the same type of community involvement from Holmes that you get at Highlands, no matter how much you harp on the parents. Simple socioeconomics, some of these parents work 2 jobs or more, and simply don't have the time or money to donate to the program. On the other hand, if you have 6 grand to shell out for tuition, you are also far more likely to have some extra time or money to donate (at least this has been my experience). I also want to point out that I am not saying the privates are "doing it right" or "doing it wrong". I am simply saying that there are inherent advantages to being a private school that enable them to continue to get a leg up on the public schools. It is far easier to give your compelling speech to a room full of people that wish to make things better than it is to people that only wish to complain about the problem. Bottom line is this: There is probably a reason that the parents of private school students can afford the tuition. They think rationally, make sound decisions, are fiscally responsible, etc, etc. The same can not be said of many of their public school counterparts...........I know you'd like to envision them being the same, but there IS a reason they are NOT.

I'll step up and knock this one out of the park. First, basketball isn't a numbers game. It is very difficult to beat teams because you have a bunch of hardworking average players. All it takes is one very good player on the other team to beat your team. In more team (read number) oriented sports, swimming and diving, cross country, etc. X and T have had much more frequent success.

So you would put those universities on the same level as Yale, Penn, Harvard, MIT, etc.? I'm pretty sure that it has been quite thoroughly proven that smaller is, in fact, better. That's not to say that you CAN'T get a quality education from a bigger school, or that you CAN'T get a poor one from a small school. But in a quick examination across the country, smaller usually means more rigid admissions, higher cost, lower faculty to student ratio, and in the end........a better education. I think they taught me in HS sometime that statements like always and never are the giveaways to true/false questions. While we can't say always or never here, we can say that most of the time this is the case.