Quote:
Originally posted by NSump
Quote:
Originally posted by David Emerling
As an experienced umpire, would you handle a situation differently if the participants weren't aware that you are a seasoned veteran?
As long as you umpire in the same region, where your reputation was established, that works fine. But what about umpires who travel to areas where nobody knows them, or they call a tournament game for an out-of-town team?
[Edited by David Emerling on Apr 26th, 2004 at 01:07 AM]
|
No difference. Same action, same response. [/B]
|
Then why did you previously say:
So, I will teach them to use the ejection as a tool to keep control. As they mature as umpires, they will need to use that tool less and less for two reasons. One, they will be better umpires. But more importantly, they will have established themselves as no-nonsense umpires. Here, I rarely eject any more. It is not that I have changed my "standards", but rather my reputation remains. Many players still think I "throw a lot of guys out."
If using "that tool" will be "less and less" because "they will have established themselves as no-nonsense umpires" - why even make this point if the participants will get the same response for the same action?
I guess what you're saying is that the players will SENSE that you are a no-nonsense umpire and won't even TRY such a thing - knowing full well that a no-nonsense umpire would never tolerate such a disrespectful act. Is that it?
I think each umpire needs to establish his own set of tolerances for such things based on his personal temperament. I think it's alright to say that you should ALWAYS eject an individual for a certain act, as long as you realize that that is YOUR personal criteria. Another umpire might have a completely different set of "rules" for ejections. What works for him may not work for you - mostly because you are two completely different people.
For instance, I will not always eject a player or coach for foul language. I'm sure some umpires have a standard rule for ejecting under those conditions. I wouldn't be too quick to fault such an umpire. Personally, I consider the age of the individual, the specific word that is used, and whether anybody else heard it.
A loud, "You're an a&%hole!" will always be an ejection. It's personal and particularly foul. He's gone!
A loud, "That's bullsh*t!", in an adult game, will probably not result in an ejection. The word isn't all that bad, especially in an all-adult context, nor is it personal.
A player's under-the-breath expletive is almost always ignored by me, especially if it is clearly done in spontaneous frustration. I'm not so sure I would allow a 9-yr-old to drop an F-bomb, however.
My point is that there is no reason for umpires to try to standardize their ejection criteria the same that we try to standardize our application of the rules. Everybody understands that ejection criteria is a personal thing for an umpire ... almost like his strikezone. Coaches, fans, and players tend to accept the fact that a particular umpire might have a wide strikezone, or, that he likes to call 'em low. Just the same, they will recognize that some umpires are much quicker to pull the trigger for certain infractions whereas others might show more tolerance.
The key is that each umpire should know himself. An umpire's demeanor, mannerisms, professionalism, and all the little things he does during a game (even his body language and the way he looks) tend to send a subliminal message.
There is something inexplicable about how one umpire's seemingly slack tolerance will NOT backfire on him whereas another umpire's tolerance for a similar act DOES.
Trying to establish Rules for Ejections is often a misguided effort.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN