[Ranger]

These posts are entertaining but way too argumentative. Talk about coach and player conduct! If BJ Moose has an opinion and Warren Willson wants to argue or object, that is one thing. But what I feel has happened is that WW wants to browbeat BJ into submission rather than simply express his point of view. So now I will offer a few observations of my own.

These two have different philosophies. This is not the end of the world. I have known many WWs in my career. They certainly have the "book" on their side. And I suppose for that style, the book is all the justification they need. The statement that WW made that seems to be the foundation of his personality on this matter was: "It isn't our job to be judges of the seriousness of a specific offense." This statement by Warren reflects the style and personality of Warren Willson and does not reflect the opinion of most umpires I know. This is dangerous and a career threat and a style that will lower the ceiling that the umpire career can attain.

ALL OFFENSES ARE NOT EQUAL. They should not all attract the same response. There are many tools that an experienced and imaginative umpire has in his bag. My bag contains many tools to be appropriate to all levels of poor conduct. These tools range from simple posture and facial expressions to the all out use of responses far more severe than ejections.

Another basic problem here is how do WW and BJ each define the word "OBJECTING" to a decision? They have each drawn a line in the sand but have not been clear on what the standards are. Actually I will betray a personal weakness here. I am the most sensitive and easily offended person I know. But, that does not mean that my job as a sports official is compromised. I feel that if the coach or player is not complimenting my last questionable call, they are "OBJECTING" in at least a small way. Oh sure, sometimes it may initially appear to be a simple question. And sometimes it may appear as a simple hand gesture or evil look. Many times it starts with a small critical review of the pitch such as "That was a little high." And they will even try to cover up their comments by later claiming that they were actually only talking to their pitcher and not the umpire. I notice most of those things. I am offended by those things.

Most all of my umpire friends think I am the toughest umpire they ever worked with. That is because I will notice the small things in the first inning of a game and confront the offenders in the first inning. In this way I set the behavior standard early without the escalation of hostility infecting the game in the late innings. I didn't eject, I instructed them on their behavior. I may even take the time to explain written rule book behavior standards. Now obviously if he 'F' Bombs me in the first inning he will be ejected without hesitation.

So getting back to the initial threads on this subject.

I know coaches and players very well. They are people too! Treat them with the same amount of respect that you expect from them.

No matter what your "objecting" standard is, recognize the different degrees or levels of offenses.

Develop a full range of **responses** (notice I did not say punishments)appropriate for each level of offense.

Accept that most comments are actually arguments if not objections. Both are prohibited by rule.

Never hide behind the written rule that allows ejections for small offenses. Always set the punishment to fit the crime. A court judge that gives the same punishment for 5 MPH over the limit speeding and first degree murder will get no respect and will rule chaos.

I have been fortunate enough to be a college umpire and observe many pros first hand. Do not think for one moment that they eject for every objection. They like their jobs too much.

Use Solomon and not Atilla the Hun as an example of a role model umpire. History has been kinder to Solomon.