[Matt]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I don't consider what UMP25 said to the coach as baiting. Being a smart a$$, maybe but I would have probably gone the same way with this conversation. I have to be honest, I liked the response!

I, too, do not see this as baiting, and furthermore, I don't see it as necessarily being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

I will. As a law-enforcement and military professional, I will always have a negative assessment of someone who refuses to consider using all available options when faced with conflict. It limits your ability to resolve it satisfactorily.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

My conflicts have been resolved virtually always to my satisfaction without ever having to toss a guy.

"Virtually always?" That's an oxymoron. Wordsmithing like this is a sign of someone attempting to convince himself what he says is true.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

Here lies your problem--you view an ejection as a negative act, one that you must initiate. It is not. It is nothing more than a tool that is needed and proper for game management.

Think about police officers and arrests. The arrest is merely the logical end result of a series of actions, of which at least one is negative--it's not the negative action itself. We wouldn't praise a cop that has no arrests, and we shouldn't praise the umpire that keeps participants around at all costs.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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."

This part has already been addressed. If someone has crossed the line, there is a need to toss him.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I rise above it out of respect for the game without the ego-driven spectacle of the ejection. You should try it.

I will say this--anyone who talks about "the game" as some sort of revered entity has a misplaced sense of reverence.

Furthermore, ejections are a part of baseball, and anyone who dismisses them as "ego-driven" really should reconsider being an umpire.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

And lacking in courage, I am not. I just don't ever lose my cool in public---especially on a baseball field when I am in charge.

Again, you conflate an ejection with ego. It's not about personal issues, it's simply a necessary part of baseball. Don't read more into it than what is there. Just like my police officer analogy--sure, there are times where cops take personal satisfaction in removing a less-than-productive member of society from the rest of it. However, the majority of times, an arrest is nothing more than an affirmation that a person has to account for his or her behavior.