Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
"This remains a game."
It is NOT a game, it is a competition . . .
They keep score, therefore there are winners and losers.
Emerling is a loser, he tries to play both ends against the middle as a coach/umpire.
His thoughts are "ratish" at best.
Tee
|
Give me an example of how one who both umpires and coaches would play "both ends against the middle." How would such a thing manifest itself?
That rolls off the tongue so easily, yet, it's not clear what you mean.
Within my commmunity, how do you explain that this has not proven to be the least bit of a problem? I coach without major incidents and everybody seems content and I umpire without major incidents and everybody seems content. Nobody is complaining. Nobody even comments on it. It's no big deal, really.
I have attended both umpiring clinics (MLB umpire Andy Fletcher runs one each year here in Memphis) and I have attended some coaching clinics. I like learning stuff about the rules AND about how the game is played.
Coaches don't think about strategies 24/7 any more than umpires think about rules 24/7. There's not much new under the sun when it comes to baseball strategy. That is a much more static state of affairs than the dynamic state of rules with their ever changing and conflicting interpretations. I find even
that fascinating.
And I take the time to teach my players the rules. We have a lot of fun doing that sometimes. I ask them questions and they compete with one another answering them. It's like Jeopardy! (We just finished a 13U season) They KNOW the infield fly rule and WHY it exists. They actually know the difference between interference and obstruction. They know WHY they take leadoffs from 3rd base in
foul territory. Our catcher does not get confused when a third strike is not caught like I see so often with other teams. My batters do not duck and back away out of the batter's box when a teammate is stealing as is VERY common in this age group. They know they can stand there like a statue.
Many coaches at this age level do not take the time to teach baseball rules. I do!
Is this playing both sides against the middle?
Do I ever use my knowledge of the rules as a weapon? Sure!
Example: We occupied the first base dugout. One of my batters chases a curveball in the dirt and the catcher grabs it cleanly on the short hop. Strike three. Nobody reacts. The catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher while my batter walks back towards our dugout. He wasn't aware that the catcher had not caught the ball. I say nothing. As he gets closer to me, I say, under my breath, "Run to 1st, Justin." He looks at me perplexed. "Just go to 1st and do it now!" He does. He's safe. And I could tell by looking at the PU that he was extremely aware of the status of the batter the whole time, indicating to me that he KNEW that the catcher had not caught the ball. Naturally, the other team complained that the batter was "out of the baseline" but it didn't do them any good.
That kind of thing? Is this what you mean by playing both sides against the middle?
Or how about if I confidentally protest a ruling - which I've done on about 3 occasions over the years, winning all three within minutes of the tournament director's arrival?
1) Batter attempts to bunt a low inside pitch, misses, and it hits him on the foot. Umpire awards him 1st after admitting to me that the batter did, indeed, attempt to bunt it.
2) Bases loaded, 1 out. My batter hits a pop-up that is not ruled an infield fly, but it
should have been. The defense misplays it and the ball drops. My runner from 3rd scores on the play. The umpire retroactively calls the Infield Fly and sends him back to 3rd claiming the ball was dead when it was dropped.
3) The ball slipped from the opposing pitcher's hand with runners on base. The ball never crossed a foul line. The umpire called time and ruled it a "no pitch." The umpire claimed that had it crossed the foul line he would have called it a ball (true), but since it didn't, it was a "no pitch" (not true) I had a runner on 3rd in a tied game.
A coach needs to be an advocate for his team. Coaches who don't know the rules and unknowingly allow gross misapplications of the rules to unfairly disadvantage their team are doing their team a disservice. That's bad coaching!
Do I protest everytime an umpire misapplies a rule? No. Only when it matters. Which goes back to my philosophy of: Only fight the battles that are worth fighting. Oftentimes, it's either not worth it ... or it doesn't matter. In all 3 protests above - IT MATTERED.
Do I ever put some pressure on umpires? Sure! It's all part of the game. When I umpire, it doesn't surprise me when coaches turn up the heat on me. This doesn't happen often - but it happens. I understand how it works. As long as no lines are being crossed, it's all baseball.
In games I coach, there are less conflicts with the umpires than most teams experience.
In games I umpire, I seldom have problems with the coaches (or players, or fans, or other umpires) and have one ejection of a coach in my 9-year umpiring career.
So, I'm not so sure what god-awful thing is going to befall me as a result of playing a dual role. I don't think I'm doing a disservice to my players. I don't think the participants of the games I umpire are being cheated. And, I'm quite certain the game of baseball is not worse off as a result.
My free time has taken a huge hit, however. [g]
David Emerling
Memphis, TN