Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
You mean the PU shouldn't be running out to the BU telling him he screwed up? 
I couldn't agree more with Steve here. (1) How many times over the years have we discussed Ol' Smitty or "the guy last night" which "sold" and inaccurate rule interpretation? How many times have we had folks on this and other boards openly state that the next time another umpire jumps in on a call/ruling uninvited, it would be the last time that person would work with them?
(2) How many of us have had an opinion differing from that of the umpire who made the call and interjected themselves (Tom, that's for you) into the play uninvited? How many have found a way to get ones partner's attention in an effort to have a discussion prior to a final ruling? If they do, fine. If they don't, we will discuss it later.
Even when teaching a rookie umpire, I will let them make the call. I will also pre-game with them that if they see me pointing to myself and they are being questioned by the coach, I have input available. I do this as a matter of maintaining protocol on the field so teams don't see anything different than from a regular game. How many times have we been victims of what the "other guy" did in the game last night or last weekend's tournaments? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Cite the same thing Steve has, 10.3.B (ASA) and ask the clinician to explain it.
(1) I have asked coaches to protest when they insisted I was wrong because the "other guy" ruled otherwise. (2) What are you going to do when the umpire interjecting him/herself is WRONG? Being wrong when discussing it after the game is one thing, on the field would be a disaster.
|
Let me try to explain what I believe Shagpal is just not getting; not getting to the point that everyone else is getting aggravated. Pretty clear he (Shagpal) wants to push any ASA button he can, and Mike is clearly ASA, but if it is just not reading past what he thinks he sees, I'm giving it one last try.
I could be misunderstanding Mike, but I don't think so; I read two separate thoughts partially combined. I have inserted bold, underlined, and numbered the two thoughts I see.
(1) Talking about the coach being unhappy because this isn't what another umpire ruled another time at another game, and doesn't want to accept tonight's ruling. Mike suggests the protest on tonight's ruling to get back to playing softball; tonight. "Other guy" now means another game, not "the umpire interjecting".
(2) Talking about why a partner should NOT interject now in THIS game; how do you resolve when the unsolicited interjection is wrong?? This probably could or should have been in a different paragraph, but I don't believe Mike is suggesting he ever told a coach to protest because his partner and he disagreed on the current play.
Now, I could be wrong, and if so, respond accordingly. Discourse related to the game is why we are here.
But, and the bigger issue to many of us, I believe, is that we don't contribute to this board (or others) to watch members create endless posts picking at created differences because of one's preferred brand of softball, or even the perceived personality of the other member. Let's keep it about the game, please??