Fri May 06, 2005, 08:52pm
|
 |
Get away from me, Steve.
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,785
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
Quote:
Originally posted by CoachJM
Rich & GB,
Come on now, I thought the umpires had to follow the rules too.
"Rule 2.0
THE MANAGER is a person appointed by the club to be responsible for the team's actions on the field, and to represent the team in communications with the umpire and the opposing team. A player may be appointed manager.
....
(b) The manager may advise the umpire that he has delegated specific duties prescribed by the rules to a player or coach, and any action of such designated representative shall be official. The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires."
Since "communications with the umpire" is a "specific dut[y] prescribed by the rules" which the manager may "delegate ... to a ... coach", it would seem that you're refusal to talk to such a coach could be deemed "contrary to these rules" - i.e., illegal.
Am I missing something here? ;-)
Certainly not suggesting that the umpires should tolerate a "committee of coaches" in any discussion.
JM
(edited to reflect the actual text of the rules & add the "committee" comment)
[Edited by CoachJM on May 6th, 2005 at 07:45 PM]
|
Missing nothing coach, just guilty of coachlike logic and stringing together items to attempt to justify your position. It really doesn't necessarily follow that "communications with the umpire" is a "specific duty" may "delegate ... to a ... coach", however what does properly always remain in place is "The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires".
Thanks for your input, however.
|
Typical spaghetti logic from a coach that has figured out how to open up a rule book. Thank you, drive thru. Here's your cheese.
|