Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
This is most certainly not a positive statistic, and it's not something to brag about, for sure. Show me an umpire with no coach ejections over a long period of time, and I'll show you an umpire who isn't doing their job right.
Coaches often times eject themselves, with absolutely no input from the umpire. I guess all of your games have gone perfectly, with no abusive language or personal comments directed toward you by any coaches, and I find that extremely hard to believe.
|
So that's it, huh? Must not be doing their job. Or I'm a wimp. You shouldn't have such a narrow-minded view of umpires who solve (and win) conflicts without any coach ejections. Nor should you, LDUB.
My conflicts have been resolved virtually always to my satisfaction without ever having to toss a guy. I just don't let it get out of hand. I gain control of situations quickly with as few words as possible. And I also set it all up well at the plate meeting. There are many benefits to avoiding the ejection. I gain better results from these guys later in games or down the road when I
don't toss them when they know I could or should. It's the way I do things. I don't back down, and I don't throw it around, either. All of my background and training have been put to use in my on-field conflict resolution actions. It's easy to win a conflict with an ejection. It's difficult to win a conflict without the use of that particular tool.
But there's just been no need to toss a coach ... yet.
The first time I decided not to toss a guy who crossed the line, I told him, "Mel, I know you think you're gone, but I'm going to make you stay and sit on that bench with your mouth closed and watch the entire game."