Giving a Coach Options

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Roland Wiederaenders

The misconception is that the schools are only for the umpire interested in a pro education. At JEAPU, however, two one week clinics are held just for amateurs. Repeatedly
the phrase is uttered...........when you get back to your local association, find out what is the local policy. JEAPU does not teach with an 'X marks the spot' philosophy. He teaches the basics!

Roland, there's no misconception here. No one said that you shouldn't attend Jim's Academy, or Harry and Hunter's school. In fact, you should.

What I said was that, if you are an amateur umpire, your schooling should not end there. That's true for any clinic or camp taught by Pro instructors. Pro instructors are not in touch with the amateur game. That's not their fault - it's to their credit. They're Pro umpires - of course they can't teach you how to properly handle a Little League coach, or teach you the philosophies of mandatory play or maximum participation, which are issues for Little League umpires. They won't be talking about the 60' diamond.

But that's beside the point because I was talking about the Academy, and not about a one-week camp. The Academy is there to prepare umpires for Pro assignments. So is Harry and Hunter's school. That's their job. Ask them, they'll tell you. They told me.

The misconception is that we are often treated as though we are not profesional. I would suggest that a professional is anyone who get $ for his services, who constantly seeks to improve himself, and who deal with game situations in a competent [professional, nicht vahr?] manner. While I am not a JEAPU clone, I am a professional. Papa C is also a professional, and I study his teaching/publications, but neither do I wish to be his clone.

Roland, c'mon now buddy. Pro umpires work Pro baseball. Amateur umpires work amateur baseball. It's been this way for generations.

Let's not play games with words. Unless you're working professional games you are an amateur umpire. It's that simple. Don't be put off by who you are. No one says you won't act professionally if you're an amateur umpire.

The misconception is that special "insider" information is taught at the schools. And that information is good for application in ALL situations nation wide.

Ummm, Roland, Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated is the most exhaustive reference for the rules of baseball. No other manual or book goes into the details of history, customs and usage, pro interpretations, or traditions as in-depth as JEA. That's a fact. So, until this book is available to the general public, I'm afraid it is a book that can only be obtained by attending Jim's Academy. Do you know of another way to obtain this book? If you don't then it is only for Jim's students.

There is nothing secret about the Customs and Usage for applying 6.08c:

The umpire should signal interference by pointing to the infraction and verbally recognizing "Interference." The ball remains alive and in play until all play ceases. At that time, the proper award is made.

Should all runners, including the batter-runner, advance at least one base, the interference is ignored.

In the event that the ball is batted and a play follows in which all offensive players do not advance at least one base, the umpire shall invoke the penalty implicit in 6.08c. It is then the offensive manager's responsibility to inform the umpire that he opts to take the results of the play rather than the interference penalty.
End quote.

I agree. There's nothing secret about the Pro interpretation of the customs and usage of this rule. It's been brought up many times in this thread. If you're a professional umpire working in a professional game, by all means interpret this rules as the Pros do. A Pro coach is paid to know these sorts of things.

But in the amateur world there is no convincing argument why we shouldn't bring the coaches together and explain to them what's going on. Carl Childress agrees and Jon Bible agrees. It is just plain wrong for an amateur umpire to act like a pro umpire and treat everyone on the field as if they're pros too. That, to me, is just plain silly, and a bit arrogant on the umpire's part. You're not a pro! It's not a pro game. The coach ain't a pro coach. The fans aren't pro fans. It is a different animal.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Also, I find it real interesting that Baseball Umpires do not like to give options as they do in football. I just do not get it. We are not "tipping" the balance of power all we are doing is asking a coach what he wants to do.

I believe this thread is about "style" and not about misconception. Some do not have a problem with giving a coach an option while others have difficulty with this.
No-one is right or wrong here it's what works for you and how you are rated in a paticular area in which you work.

Pete,

I agree with most of what you said here about "style" except that I would say that it is really "style" as applied to the level of play that dictates the difference.

You say you "just don't get it" when it comes to umpires not wanting to offer options. Perhaps in all of the verbage of this thread you missed the basic point about "tipping the balance". The rule concerned says that "the manager may elect to take the play". It does NOT say "the umpire shall offer the manager an option to take the play". Do you see the subtle difference here, Pete? For professional leagues at least, the wording of the rule makes it the manager's responsibility to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" unsolicited, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.

There is absolutely no doubt that when it comes to OBR there are a number of rules that expect, even require, vigilance on the part of the aggrieved party in order to draw any benefit; Batting out of Turn [OBR 6.07], Ball Tampering [OBR 8.02(a)Penalty] AND Catcher's Interference [OBR 6.08(c)] are the three most familiar rules in this category, but there are a number of others including some you would use every game!

Now in general amateur play, where it is clear that NEITHER manager knows that such options exist, let alone what they are, I agree that advising BOTH managers when the need arises still maintains the game balance. What a number of us have said is that in higher level play, where the manager or coach could reasonably be expected to already KNOW these options, offering the option to a particular manager or coach unsolicited could conceivably "tip the balance" in a tight game.

Maybe this manager or coach had forgotten he had an option on the play. Maybe he wasn't paying attention to the game action. Either way, the umpire who gives this manager or coach his options unsolicited has just alerted him to the situation AND effectively prevented the defense from profiting from his poor memory or inattention to the game. At these upper levels, that can be the difference between winning and losing a close game. That was the point. I hope I haven't belaboured it too much.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[PeteBooth]

You say you "just don't get it" when it comes to umpires not wanting to offer options. Perhaps in all of the verbage of this thread you missed the basic point about "tipping the balance". The rule concerned says that "the manager may elect to take the play". It does NOT say "the umpire shall offer the manager an option to take the play". Do you see the subtle difference here, Pete? For professional leagues at least, the wording of the rule makes it the manager's responsibility to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" unsolicited, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.

Warren thanks for your comments, but unlike football, one doesn't see catcher's interference very often. In watching Pro Baseball personally, I have never seen this called.

Since this penalty isn't your everyday "run of the mill" play, that's why I think an umpire should give a coach his options.

IMO, the reason OBR has not changed it's wording is that this point has not become an issue yet so why bother. You can bet that if a team lost the World Series because an umpire did not explain an option to a coach, the rule WOULD BE changed immediately, especially if the players union had any say in the matter.

Most of us at least in my circumstance do not umpire at the professional level, therefore, giving a coach an option is accepted (again in my area that I umpire in).

In reality, this is really a non-issue anyway, becasue as soon as a run is scored, a manager will inevitably say Hey Blue does it count? At that point aren't we obliged to explain the situation?

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Warren Willson
The rule concerned says that "the manager may elect to take the play". It does NOT say "the umpire shall offer the manager an option to take the play". Do you see the subtle difference here, Pete? For professional leagues at least, the wording of the rule makes it the manager's responsibility to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" unsolicited, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.
[/b]

Warren:

Oop! I think you guys are focusing on the wrong word in the rule. The operative word is "elect." An "election" implies at least TWO possibilities. In this case it's "play" or "penalty." I don't believe the manager is required to vote until he has been informed who the candidates are.

I am researching the issue, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts this mechanics "suggestion" by Evans is a recent change, made simply to get the major league umpires away from the manager and the dugout.

You can argue all you want about the manager's responsibility. But where the rules makers want him or his representative to take full responsibility, they say so:

Check out --
3.06: The manager shall....
3.10: The manager shall....
6.07 CMT 1: The umpire shall not....
8.02(c): The manager of the offense may advise....

In 8.02(c), if you are right, why didn't the language read: "The manager of the offense may elect the..."?

Sorry: There's just not enough "language" in the book to decide what the proper course is. Further, it's not a RULE; it's a mechanics suggestion. Look it: If any major league umpire called catcher's interference, you and I both know he would immediately be surrounded by both managers, and the blue would explain what could happen.

Q.E.D.