[Rich]

Originally posted by Mike Walsh

I sympathize with your comment about accidentally talking to the assistants. I do, too. One thing that may help is the new Fed rule that requires the head coach to attend the plate conference. If they send 2 coaches, and the manager is not well known to you, asking which one is the manager may put them on notice that that's who you'll be talking to. (Off topic a little, we have one head coach who hasn't attended a plate conference in 20 years. His senior status has let him push the envelope farther than most. He'll hate this rule.)

I think there is a small link missing in the replies. So far, some very established umpires have all been consistent - basically, if an assistant tries to argue, it will not be tolerated at all. That part is definitive. But how about conversations that are not argumentative. Tee, when you say assistants don't exist, are speaking with respect to arguments only? What about one who between innings asks, "Tee, if they had appealed last inning, would my runner on 2nd have been out for leaving early?". I expect that's OK, but I'd like a little feedback, because one of my all-time favorite argument/ejections started that way, and I still laugh at how I got suckered into it:

Between innings. Coach: You look like you've been doing this a long time. [me: about 10 years] Coach: you obviously know the rules. [me: thanks.] Coach: Your positioning is good, too. [me: thanks.] Coach: You seem to take pride in your work. [me: thanks.] Coach: So how in the hell did you miss that tag at 2nd?

Mike

I would've been laughing as I tossed him.