9.01(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field.

We have talked about ejections before, but I would like to expand on what is REALLY meant by 9.01(d). It says that an umpire can eject a manager for objecting to decisions.

I know this might sound stupid but what does that actually mean? Does that mean if a coach objects to my out call by thinking his runner is safe by 9.01(d) - I can eject him / her?

The one thing that IMO is the most inconsistent approach to umpiring is WHEN TO EJECT. I guess we all have our breaking points as to what Line an individual can cross before we toss, but in actuality should that be the case.

On this and other Forums we go into many hot debates over the rules and we use the strict wording plus authoritative opinions, but when it comes to ejecting someone, there isn't any clear cut guidance - it's sort of left up to the individual.

If we go by the strict wording of 9.01(d) - a manager has no right to come out and question an umpires decision unless the decision is in conflict with the rules.

Therefore, why is it acceptable for us to allow a manager to come out and question our judgement on an out / safe call; strke / ball - you know the rest? It would seem to me that the STRICT wording of 9.01(d) would instruct us to eject an individual for doing so.

I was just wondering why this was allowed in the first place? Again, we cannot compare to what we see on TV - that's big business but I guess most people think the game should be called that way to begin with and therefore, it's acceptable to argue with the men in blue.

Do you guys think that all umpires should be as consistent with ejections as we are supposed to be in say calling balls / strikes?

Thanks


Pete Booth

I don't think the rule needs to be over analyzed. It doesn't say, SHALL EJECT, it is simply the foundation that permits umpires TO EJECT.

I MAY eject for
objecting to my calls and/or
unsportmanlike conduct

So if I do toss a player or coach...I point at one of these (which I have done about 10 times in 700 games... yes VERY low percentage). I can't eject for wearing an ugly hat or for bad coaching.

Yes, the rules say the CANNOT object to safe/out, etc. But the do. The test for coaches and the test for umpires (or a major factor in umpire advancement), is how much room you give a coach to object. And are you consistent with what you give..

But think about this. At the higher levels, or skilled experienced coaches, on that OUT call you made at 2nd BANGER.. the coach is out talking to you, and he's not so much "objecting" as to asking about what you saw, and wants a clearer interpretation. IN my experience.. 99.4% of these conversations (and there ain't that many), end peaceably.

Each umpire decides when that coach has crossed the line, then ejects. The best umpires have it just right. Not so good umpires are too fast.... or too slow....

re: the three bears

Who should eject?
 

When they cross the line, who should eject when one umpire hears comments directed at another umpire?

I don't feel comfortable ejecting someone if the other umpire elects not to respond to it or it wasn't loud enough for anyone except me as a close base ump to hear.

I have used a quiet "don't go there" or "no more, coach," thinking that if the next inappropriate comment is addressed to me, I would toss for the inappropriate comment directed to me. I have been pleased that the usual reaction is for the manager to stop.

My favorite game, however, was one in which the league president arrived at the plate for the meeting with two known problem managers and announced that I had been asked to do the game solely for the purpose of ejecting anyone whom I heard say anything that was not a postive comment. Easiest game I ever did.

Reference BJ Moose............

What he said !!
Da Moose is da Moose is da Moose........but he's not playing God. Rightly put.

Yes, Pete, this rule DOES mean that you can immediately eject a player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions UNLESS that objection is in accordance with OBR 9.02(b). In fact I will often caution a person coming to me immediately after a close play with "Don't be coming to me to argue a judgement call, Skip!" That will usually give pause to the ones who WERE going to do exactly that. If they continue and start discussing the pros and cons of a call, they're done! OTOH, the manager who simply asks what I saw will get my full and honest reply. If he says he saw something different I'll listen, but if he persists after I've given him my answer then he's now arguing a judgement call and he's also done for the day.

The funny (peculiar) thing is that far too many umpires believe they are required to WARN BEFORE EJECTING in these circumstances. That particular misapprehension comes from the wording of OBR 9.02(a)CMT. I look at that in this way:

1. If the coach leaves his position obviously intending to argue BALLS and STRIKES only, but hasn't yet said anything, then the rules expect us to warn him about his impending illegal act. The rules would rather we PREVENT the offense from occurring, if possible.

2. If, however, the player, manager, coach or substitute argues from wherever he is at the time then any opportunity to warn has passed, <b>the offense has already been committed</b> and so should be immediately punished. NO WARNING IS REQUIRED!

NO WARNING is EVER required when the argument is over SAFE/OUT, FAIR/FOUL or any other judgement decision except BALL/STRIKE. If I can prevent the offense by warning, I will. If the offense has already been committed, it's too late and the offender is done! Remember my social source of reference though. I do Adult leagues with players up to A-AA standard. I don't do LL equivalent very often, and I might be tempted to temper my approach at that level, but NOT for HS JV or Varsity and certainly NOT for College. Those guys ought to know better already!

Cheers.


[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 06:03 PM]

So what you are saying, Moose, is that you can SEE an illegal act which is punishable by ejection and ELECT NOT TO PUNISH that act? Rubbish! It's not your job to decide who does or doesn't need penalising under the rules. You only need to decide if the offense has been committed and apply the appropriate penalty. That's ALL!

Wrong again, Moosie baby! Read OBR 9.01(b) and (c) again. ANY decision you make which is objected to can be the subject of an ejection! Even wearing an ugly hat or bad coaching! In fact, on the ugly hat you can even look to OBR 1.11(3) for the specific justification!

Oops! That's 0 for 3 now Moose! If there is an objection then someone's gotta go! No rope required! The issue lies in being sure you HAVE an objection to a judgement call first, not "how much room you give a coach to object". You eject when the line is crossed; not before and certainly not too long after. That's where the consistency lies.

NOW you've got one right! A coach asks what you saw, you tell him. If he says he saw something different, you listen. If he then starts saying what he saw was right and what you saw was wrong, NOW you've got your objection and he should be tossed! Most experienced coaches won't go that route. A standard answer that stops them going too far is "Skip, if I had your view on that play I might have called it differently. Let's play ball." That's his cue to exit stage left.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 05:18 PM]

Re: Who should eject?
 

ANY umpire can eject if he sees/hears an offense committed. It doesn't matter WHAT the other guy does or doesn't see or hear! One of my colleagues tells of a time when he was doing the plate and the dugout was buzzing with mumbles about his zone. Nothing explicit, just mumbles. THEN, out of the buzz came a voice with a very specific, very explicit objection! He wheeled around intending to send the offender packing. Before he had even finished turning around, his partner was in at the dugout from his position up the line and yelling "You! You're done! YES! YOU! YOU'RE DONE!"

It doesn't matter who hears or sees the offense. If it's an ejection offense then that player has to go, and if you are the ump who heard it or saw it then YOU have to be the one who sends him! I'm not talking about simple bad language muttered under the breath, here. I'm talking about specific objections to decisions, personal comments about umpires, etc. The biggest mistake I have ever made as an official was in NOT ejecting a player because I thought my partner had seen it differently. I was DEAD WRONG. The guy should have gone and I'm the one who should have sent him!

Now THAT'S what I call a League President! Send that guy over here to run our league, will ya? (grin)

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 06:14 PM]

I agree, Warren. That's one ballsy LL Pres, IMHO.

2 examples: I'm bases on Sr LL game MANY years ago. Runner scored on errant relay throw from F6. Runner threw elbow at catcher. I waited for my partner to do sumpin (I was rookie) and he didn't so I let it go. Post game talk revealed that he didn't see the malicious contact. I should have run that player.

Legion game 6-7 years ago. Big city and big (300) assn. Didn't know partner until arr at game site. He spent a lot of time early in the game in B or C while I had the plate. He wasn't the best ump I've ever seen. Couple kids in thecorner of the 1st base dugout started ragging on him, and became insulting and VERY disrespectful. He didn't hear any of this. I walked over to dugout to stop the nonsense. Asked which player had made the most obnoxious remarks, both denied saying anything. As I knew they were lying, I dumped both. If they had owned up to it, no ejection, just warning. Asst coach had to have his share also, and came unglued after I explained what I had done and why. He went.

In both these cases I feel ejection was justified. I have a much quicker finger on the trigger when it's adults behaving badly in LL. In Fed I let more stuff go. My line depends on the level of play and circumstance of moment.

Chronic loud bad language, especially with small kids present does get my goat.

Sorry, I digress...I believe that if we all had the same abilities in game management, we'd probably have proportionally the same number of ejections. And there is the factor of familiarity, i.e., if they know you don't take nuch crap, they learn not to give it.

C'mon Warren, 3 posts in row !!!!

Moose got it right. He didn't say anything about not handling situations that need to be handled. He IS saying don't go looking for situations. Moose is talking "game management". Hearing what is needed to be heard, and not hearing what is not needed to be heard (even though it might be said). --- and TAKING ACTION WHEN NECESSARY.

Commandant, you said you call mens level (as do I). Your attitude of black/white print in the book (regarding behavior) will get you more trouble than not. If indeed you practice what you preach, you must end up as the only one on the field in quite of few games. Either that or the Aussie players have fled to the U.S. Sorry, but dealing with men requires much greater judgement on what to accept and what not to accept vs. black/white print in the book.

Aussie or Auzzie-I never know when to use 's' or 'z'.
Why can't the Brits and Aussies learn to use good American English the way it was meant to be ??? (grin)

What the hell was that??
 

WW... what the hell is going on?

I did not make a single false statement. You post and analysis that says I am 0-3? You are 0-3. Everything I posted was true.

You want to get on here and actually say that EVERY SINGLE time a coach objects (in any way) to your safe-out call he is ejected?? Did your credibility just drop to zero?

You actually want to claim that you can EJECT a coach for the reason of "Bad coaching". AFter a botched hit and run, I can call TIME and say, "You! Your DONE! and write in my report I ejected him because he called a hit and run at a bad time??

Did your credibility just drop to less than zero?

YOu know I don't usually do this... My post was sensible, logical, true, and reflective of real world situations. YOu chose to rip into three areas... but what is most amusing is that you were wrong on all three.

Medication?

I'm all for the "see an offense, make an ejection" philosophy, whereas an offensive action doesn't necessarily need to be directed at you to make the ejection. There's been too many times where my partner had heard quite a few comments from the dugouts (not just mumbling and grumbling, but along the lines of "My batter had to pull his pantlegs up so you could see his knees, blue!") that I just didn't hear, but my partner didn't eject because he thought it should have been "my call."

But I can see where this "malicious contact" rule in most youth leagues could cross the line between making someone else's "judgement call" and seeing a possible ejection. Scenario: You're BU, and there's a collision at home. PU calls safe, judges that the runner's contact was not malicious, that he even attempted to avoid contact. From the field, you saw that the runner did move, but only to get a "cleaner shot" of F2, and did throw an elbow into him, so you toss him. Now by ejecting the runner you've essentially also reversed your partner's judgement call. Now judging intent/no intent is along the same lines as out/safe.

How should this situation be approached, where an "ejectable judgement" call is seen differently between two umpires?

Calm down, Moose. I'm not packin' heat!
 

Moosie, Moosie, Moosie. Talk about not being able to see anyone else's point of view! I didn't realise the moose was a myopic beast? (BIG grin)

1. Your post suggested, by contrasting the words SHALL and MAY where they don't even exist, that an umpire could see an offense and elect NOT to punish that offense. That's 0-1, Moose. It isn't our job to be judges of the seriousness of a specific offense. If we see a CLEAR OFFENSE (not some maybe he did, maybe he didn't) and the rule says it is illegal and offers a specific penalty, then we HAVE to apply the rule. There is no "MAY" about it! That is what is required of the umpire by OBR 9.01, Moose. An example I had was where an ex-umpire turned coach, and a very good friend, was coaching a team of tangle-footed under 14's in a Regional B Division final. It was a very proud moment for this guy, getting these kids all this way on sheer hard work and dedication. During the game he tried to make a 2nd visit to his pitcher with the same batter at bat. He was emotional at the time because the game was on a knife edge, but he still went out despite 3 or 4 vehement warnings from me. When he reached the mound I ejected him. That is what the rule required, pure and simple. He had to leave the area and couldn't even hang around to see his kids get across the finish line. My feelings for him, the emotion of the situation and what would be the consequences of my actions didn't enter into the equation. He didn't speak to me for a week after, but eventually he came around and conceded I had no choice. THAT'S the point, Moose. No choice!

2. Your post said an umpire can't eject for offenses such as "wearing an ugly hat or bad coaching". That's 0-2, Moose. The umpire CAN eject for such things, but they wouldn't necessarily be the final reason given in any ejection report. I even gave you a specific rule reference for the "ugly hat" case [OBR 1.11(3)], which you simply ignored. Now let me tell you that if the "bad coaching" involves instructing a pitcher to throw at a batter, then I'm ejecting that guy in a NY minute! I would probably call it something else like unsportsmanlike conduct, but it would <i>still</i> be "bad coaching" at the root of that ejection! Moose, I was simply pointing out that your blanket statements should NOT be taken at their <b>face value</b>.

3. Finally, your post implied that umpires could and should accept a certain amount of objection to their judgement calls before ejecting. Oops! There's that 0-3 call, Moose. There is NO requirement for the umpire to accept ANY objection on judgement calls. In fact, Rule 9.02 is pretty specific that such objections shall NOT be tolerated! Yet, here you are claiming that umpires have to sit there and take it when the player, coach or manager starts arguing the judgement call? No, Moose. Baaad Moose. (grin)

Moose, the whole tenor of Pete's post was him wondering whether it would be MORE CONSISTENT for players, coaches and managers if we umpires just applied the rules as required, instead of each choosing to put our own little spin on such matters. You've come out as the chief advocate for going the Moose's way. I've come back and pointed out how that conflicts with the rules you're supposed to uphold. You claim you are advocating a REAL LIFE approach. I say that if you do that then you are part of the problem, not the solution. What you are advocating is BAD for consistent application of the rules, AND for maintaining discipline and order on the playing field, which is one of the umpire's chief responsibilities [see OBR 9.01(a)]

Moose, I do NOT have a huge ejection record. I average 1 or at most 2 per year in total, across 2 different leagues and 2 different 6 month seasons. People seem to know that I apply the rules strictly but fairly, and they still manage to have lots of fun. I have even been told by a representative of my UDP that comments have come in to them from players and coaches as to how I'm a good umpire because I'm prepared to listen to their point of view, give a decision and then move on. Does that sound like I'm a hard a$$, Moose? That said, I apply the rules as I have suggested in these posts, and my games are shorter on average and have far less controversy than many of my colleagues. I say my approach keeps MORE players, managers and coaches in the game because they all KNOW where the line is for EVERY GAME. In your games, Moose, my guess is they'd have to wonder whether your antlers are itchy today and whether they can go "this far" or get away with more depending on your mood.

Now, Moose, if you STILL think you haven't made "a single false statement" then I'm at a loss to understand your perspective and we'll just have to A2D. I think my credibility remains intact, if that was ever really on the line here. Unfortunately you have chosen to focus on extreme examples ("<i>EVERY SINGLE time a coach objects (in any way) to your safe-out call</i>" and "<i>botched hit and run, I can call TIME and say, "You! Your DONE!</i>"), rather than dealing with the meat of my objections to your approach. Looks like you need a high-flyin' Rocket in your life to bring you back down to earth, Moosie babe! (grin)

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:56 PM]

I understand that there's a lot of mumbling and grumbling that goes on which should usually be ignored. I'm not saying you go looking for situations to handle. I'm saying you put down a hard line on what constitutes objecting to decisions. Moose simply chose to take it to the extreme without examining the premise I was using. If the rules say an act is illegal and punishable by ejection, AND we see (or hear) a CLEAR breach of the subject rule, then we do NOT have a choice about how to act. Moose said he MAY eject for objecting to decisions OR unsportsmanlike conduct. I say if that is truly what he has then he MUST eject under the rules. Deciding whether that is what you really have is where the judgement lies. Once you clearly HAVE the offense, no judgement is necessary. If a guy says "That's sh!#.." I can't be SURE what he's objecting to, but if he says "That guy was SAFE, and you've made a sh!# call.." NOW I am certain of what he's saying and he's committed an offense.

"Commandant"? Bfair, I suggest you read my response to BJ Moose before making any further judgements concerning the outcome of my games or my "game management" style. Dealing with men requires that they know and understand the limits for their behaviour, just the same as children. What's more, since they are supposed to be adults breaches should properly be regarded with more seriousness than for children. That said, you seem to have gleaned entirely the wrong impression about my approach to the game. As I said, the "judgement" lies in understanding what has or hasn't been said, not in what to do when you are SURE. Bfair please be fair!

Aussie or Ozzie, but NEVER Auzzie. I can't speak for the Brits, but I thought the expression "American English" was an oxymoron? (BIG grin)

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:49 PM]

Bottom line, Dennis, is that you can't allow something like making intentional and malicious contact with another player go unpunished. It sends the message that such behaviour is okay as long as you get away with it, and that's wrong. In these circumstances I would be going to my partner and telling him what I saw. If <i>he</i> didn't see it but <i>you</i> did, then it's got to be up to you to take the action. Eject anyway. Your partner can't have been "overruled" if he didn't see the offense. If, OTOH, your partner DID see the offense but didn't think it warranted the ejection THEN you have defer to his judgement because of OBR 9.04(c), but I'd still make a report about what you both saw to your assignor and let him deal with it from there. If you're wrong the assignor will let you know, and if your partner is wrong then he's also the right guy to handle that too.

Cheers.

Exactly! &nbsp; :D

And for the benefit of Bfair, this one makes FOUR (4) posts in a row! Wow!! I must be on a roll! &nbsp; :p

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:08 PM]

And for the benefit of Bfair, this one makes FOUR (4) posts in a row! Wow!! I must be on a roll! Â* :p

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:08 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Warren, is it not summer down there? YOU need to get away to a ball game;:o)

Yep, it's summer alright. 38 degrees C (thats around 98 degrees F for the Filistines) :p What I "need" and what I'm gonna "get" are two different things right now, Chris.

Warren, this is supposed to be educational and sometimes you make it personal. If you know so damn much why don't you come to the home of baseball the good ole U S of A and run work shops become a big league umpire. I'm not going to say I speak for all but I beleive we all come to the site to learn and not to be insulted by our peers. To all of my fellow sports officals here in the states have a merry christmas and to the aussie go back to throwing boomerangs.

Who's call
 

Warren, no question on intentional or malicious violations, you don't wait for someone else to act: its our job to eject. The game will get out of control if we don't maintain control.

My issue is about comments about the PU when I don't have the dish. Each of us has a different way to control the game and different fuse lengths on comments from managers. Sometimes you might ignore the comment once, and eject if its said twice. I think thrice before tossing someone for a comment that the PU has chosen to ignore.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
Ok, Warren. Someone must have pissed in your cheerios this morning, eh mate? My response was in fun, I, on the Ca. coast , am freezing my butt off. You , down under, should be enjoying summer, calling ball.Maybe a mistake on me?????? Have fun/o0-

Your High Holiness,

Up here in North Texas too. We had, what was it 85 to 90 days with out rain and temps between 95 to 105 F this past summer. Boy do you SWEAT on those days.

Anyway I have some time and I'll try a joke If I can remember it.

Texan dies and he hadn't been all that good in life so he ends up in hell. When he arrives the devil says. Welcome this is hell where it is always hot and you will live here for enternity.

The Texan says well it will be just like home.

So the next day the devil turns up the heat and makes the tempature 110 F in the old boys room. When he goes by to see him the Texan says man hell is great. It just reminds me of home during June.

The devil is upset the Texan is having such a great time. So he turns the heat up to 120 F and adds 100% humidity.

When the devil comes to check on the Texan he is all smiling saying to himself, "that Texan going to be begging for mercy". But when he arrived at the Texan's room he see's the Texan running around without his shirt and he says to the devil.

"You know this is great, I was just thinking of time I spent down in Houston man you are one great host making me feel so at home"

The devil is now pissed beyond all reason, (ump humor here and he can't chunk him), that he brings the tempature down to below freezing with snow, (well really ice and freezing rain around here). He is on his way to the Texan's room saying to himself, "well lets see what the old Texan says now". Uposn his arrival the devil sees the Texan running around in his shorts and now shirt, signing and dancing.

The devil can't understand and says ok what does this remind of now?

The Texan says nothing I'm just celebrating the Rangers just won the World Series!

Happy Holidays Y'all.

Warren, something is not right here. I've called mens leagues too long to know you're not going to have judgement calls go unquestioned (and uncommented upon).

Regardless of how well YOU know your rules and the do's and dont's of umpiring, the men players and coaches do not. I think Moose realises (note the 's' for your benefit) that behavior infractions ARE going to occur in mens recreational ball. The top umps are those who can make the best judgement calls on the level of significance of the behavior infraction and take the appropriate action when necessary. Game management! Going black/white on print here will result in continued ejections and/or so much tension you/ve taken the fun out of the game for all, including yourself. You don't compromise safety or personal ethics, but you've got to realise you are dealing with men (who frequently act like boys).

I can't believe your dumping someone simply because they are questioning a judgement call. Instead, I'll bet you accept it and just explain what you saw and why you called what you did---drawing the line at that point that there is nothing further to discuss. You've got to EXPECT comments on close plays--right or wrong with the call. Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone (or is it strikesone) will cause a warning to the coach that he needs to control himself or his team to avoid a LIKELY ejection for future infractions (note that using likely in the warning doesn't overcommit you).
UJNLESS IT IS FLAGRANT, I suspect few ejections occur without warning.

Sorry, Warren, your other posts throughout are too good for me to believe that you are practicing what you are preaching here. I think you are talking idealism rather than realism.

By the way, I probably lead the league in ejections because I will not tolerate the F___ word yelled where the women in children in stands can hear it (and I will guess 90%+ of my ejections in mens ball is a result of that). Eliminate that one element, and I would be at the low ratio of ejections compared to other umpires. I consider that action as flagrant with warnings provided players since age 9. The league, promoting family involvement, supports that stance.

For Duckump and Chris S
 

Hmmmm.... whaddidisay, whaddidisay?!? I <i><b>thought</i></b> I WAS sharing a joke with you, Chris. What did I write that made it otherwise? When I wrote "what I 'need' and what I'm gonna 'get'..." I was simply lamenting that I'm currently sidelined from umpiring, for personal reasons, and as much as I "need" to be out there having fun, I'm not going to "get" there. How was that insulting to anyone?

Please, guys, DON'T read things into the message. If in doubt, use the email facility and ASK. I'm only too happy to answer any such questions via email, if that's what it takes to get over the apparent miscommunications. If either of you were offended by what I have written in this thread, mea culpa. I apologise unreservedly. (Now I'm gonna go get myself a new bowl of cheerios...grin).

Cheers.

Warren

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 09:38 PM]

Ok, I THINK I understand where the confusion comes from..
 

I used THIS emoticon :p because I thought it was the closest thing to the "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon on another board. Maybe a couple of guys have interpreted that as a rude "raspberry". That is NOT what I thought I was doing.

Now, apart from that, HOW on earth have I made any of my responses "personal"? Sure I was playing around a bit with Moose, but he and I go way back so I figured he'd understand. When he obviously didn't by using his "angry" emoticon, I replied that I wasn't trying to shoot him down, but that I did disagree with his position. THAT'S ALLOWED ISN'T IT?

So, Duckump, how precisely have I "insulted" you? And why did you find it so necessary to effectively tell me to go back where I came from? I'm not angry, just curious.

Cheers

Re: Who's call
 

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?

Cheers.

Ok. To quote Jackie Gleeson from Cannonball Run, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!"

You talk about "questioning a judgement call" and "comments on close plays". You suggest that "Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone" should bring a warning, etc. It may shock you but I AGREE! I have NOT been talking about minor "chirping". I have NOT been talking about questioning comments such as "Is <i>that</i> the top of your zone, Blue?" or "Does it get any wider than that, Blue?" etc. I'm NOT even talking about minor beefing over a close call. Instead, I AM keying on the words ARGUING and OBJECTING to judgement calls. THAT is what I meant when I said that the only judgement to be exercised by the umpire is to decide whether or not he had a breach. In other words, to decide whether he had a harmless "chirp", or a flagrant OBJECTION! It is the latter that I suggest should be acted upon with despatch; no warning required.

I can certainly testify that a whole mess of minor "chirping" about calls, or mumbles and grumbles as I have called them, goes on all the time and is quite properly ignored. I might only act to warn the coach/manager if that got out of of hand for being too loud or lasting too long. OTOH, if I have an out-and-out OBJECTION to a judgement call, that guy is gone FIRST TIME. Period.

Bfair, if we can get the NOTION right between us such that what I <i>think</i> I am saying and what you (and perhaps others) are actually <i>hearing</i> (reading?) agrees, then what I am talking about isn't Idealism but is Pragmatism. I don't talk about "game management" so much as I refer to the words of OBR 9.01(a) and call it "maintaining discipline and order" on the playing field. You can't do that if you allow people to ARGUE with or OBJECT to your judgement calls. That is NOT to say you can't deal with a certain amount of mumbles and grumbles. OTOH, if the infringement threatens to disrupt the discipline and order on the playing field, it MUST be dealt with summarily. That's our job, according to OBR 9.01(a), NOT deciding if we are sufficiently offended to react.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 11:04 PM]

Re: Re: Who's call
 

[/B][/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely. It's one of the reasons that I was asked by the LL president to do that game. That, and the fact that I explain to managers at the beginning of the game that I get paid $300 an hour to argue, but I'll waive the fee if they convince me I'm wrong.

Curse this medium and thank you Dave...
 

Okay, Dave, I'm going to both agree AND disagree with this assessment. In my view, OBR 9.01(d) is a cover-all clause. It spells out the extent of the power, but not any requirements or timing for its use. In that sense it certainly <i>does</i> leave some room for "discretion and judgement", principally because it is NOT setting out a specific penalty for a single, specific offense. OTOH, OBR 9.02(a)CMT is <b><i>very specific</b></i> that ejection is the penalty for arguing balls and strikes. There is no room for judgement or election there. If you are certain that the subject has argued balls and strikes, then "they <b>will</b> be ejected from the game." Not "may" but "will". OBR 4.06 is equally specific as regards unsporting conduct. Offenders "<b>shall</b> be removed from the game.." not "may" be removed.

Dave, raising the issue of "warning" an offender was more of an answer to an unasked question. It has been my experience that most officials would be well aware of OBR 9.02(a)CMT requiring a warning in specific circumstances. Most therefore believe that requirement exists in ALL circumstances. In reading my position on ejection they might have thought I had overlooked some perceived requirement to warn first at all times. That's all I was covering with that point.

OTOH, my position was based on the premise that there had been a CLEAR and undoubted breach of the provision on arguing judgement calls. Not that there was some minor "chirping" or mumbles and grumbles. Certainly when the umpire is unsure that he has a CLEAR OBJECTION, a warning is more appropriate. It is when there is NO DOUBT that I maintain there is also NO DISCRETION. I don't believe that umpires should be trying to impute motives, or understand the feelings of players and coaches. That's NOT our job. If they break the rule, and the penalty is ejection THEN they've got to go no matter WHAT motives we impute or pressures we accept them to be under, etc. It is simply not our job, when faced with a CLEAR and undeniable breach of a rule, to "decide" whether or not it should be penalised. To do so is taking the power to penalise away from the rule makers and usurping it for ourselves.


I can accept that. That's why I say "Curse this medium.." In all the years I've been using the Internet, and its various umpire discussion forums, I have yet to find a way (verbosity notwithstanding) to make oneself PERFECTLY CLEAR on ANY point under discussion. I thank you for your perception and your attempt to "translate" from Aussie ump to American ump.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 11:36 PM]

Well you can see as how I would easily get Strother Martin and Jackie Gleeson confused, can't you? :D I certainly do remember the original, but since I'm a Jackie Gleeson fan from way back in the Honeymooners days, I chose his later rendition. Next time I'll try to remember to acknowledge BOTH sources... (BIG grin)

Cheers.

Re: Who's call
 

I've been used as a sort of "troubleshooter" in my District League, too. At 6'5" and 320lbs I don't get too many takers for arguments. When I do I'm a little more direct than you. I tell 'em that if they're gonna come out and tell me I'm wrong they'd better be <i>damn sure</i> I'm gonna agree with 'em!" :D

Cheers.

Re: Re: Who's call
 

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?

Cheers. [/B][/QUOTE]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
Well I agree. A little story, MSBL this past season.Partner is older guy, his hearing got screwed up in the Army so he wears 2 hearing aids.First game, visitors are getting wupped up on, 26-1 and skipper is getting real shitty. Luckily, we hit time limit and take break. Second game, skipper gets rung up by partner and starts to throw a tizzy. As skipper gets to dugout, he turns towards pard and calls him a motherfu*****, I am in "B" and run this guy immediately. I know pard did not hear, he shuts his hearing aids off when working the dish.
Here's another sit I would like an opinion on. I was working with a weak partner in a game he really should not have been assigned, I got bases. Pard is having zone problems, low end inconsistent, especially the breaking stuff.After a couple innings he's getting rode on pretty good, lotsa dugout comments but nothing personal,yet. Finally happens, batter argues after called third and as he walks away, turns to pard and sez "you f****** suck!" Pard thens starts to warn this dude! I yelled out, "no warnings, he's done, NOW!", then I got both skippers and asked if they understood the "warning" I just gave. The comments subsided and the batters just had to hack away at those low ones! This is what I consider "protecting your partner", especially when the bantering is screwing up "nervous newbie" even more.

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.

Concure "Cool hand luke" but I thought he was the Warden. The captain was the dude with the sun glasses.

rex

Ranger:

If your statement is true, then you are the better umpire for it. Notice what you are complaining about: WW calls the game by the <b>rules of the game</b>. That's wrong? Do you prefer umpires who make up rules as they go? We have a poster on this Board who sometimes says we should call the game by the rules the <b>coaches</b> make up. Surely you don't support that.

Your comment is certainly true of the average untrained, amateur umpire. What that arbiter wants to do is substitute <b>his</b> idea of morality for that contained in the book. Beyond tipping the scales slightly in favor of the offense, the OBR is rather balanced in its approach to "crimes." The only really heinous offenses are: throwing at a batter's head and interfering with a double play possible. Beyond that, I suggest that the OBR language proves that <b>all offenses are equal</b>: crime followed by punishment.
WW certainly wouldn't disagree with that. Nor would any veteran umpire.
Truthfully, the above paragraph is the reason I picked your message to barge into the discussion. If someone isn't telling you how good you are, you assume they are telling you how bad you are!

Amazing!

Ranger: Never, <b>never</b> trust a coach or player, unless you have announced your retirement as soon as the game is over. There's always tomorrow. Gosh, coaches and players have more important things to think about that salving my ego, building my confidence, keeping me from being "offended."

From the tone of that paragraph, it appears you've given up on the college level. I can understand that. The D1 guys don't give a damn about your (or my) sensibilities. Waiting around for the Miami coach to tell you how wonderful you are will certainly put wrinkles on your behind.

History <b>is</b> what man writes. Unfortunately, the Huns are no more, so we don't have anybody to stick up for Atilla. On balance, though, I'd say he probably had more influence on history than Solomon, who was, after all, merely a minor king of a minor kingdom.

Oh Yeah???!!! Yeah!!!!
 

...you play like a girl!

I feel much better now. WW is my bestest pal, and if I had enough beer, and could look him in the eye, I would, of course, convince him of the validity of my arguement.

..which by now, I don't really remember what it was, something about the Hands and the Bat?

Actually I felt that the original posters on this topic Peter Booth and BJ Moose made some interesting points about how an umpire manages a game and the role of ejections. Warren Willson seemed to want them to eject whenever a coach or player objected.

My position is that even at the MLB level, objections and arguments are not always punished with ejections. Therefore, in baseball, just like life, all offenses don't carry the same punishment.

I never said that anyone should make up rules as they go. It is not the practice of MLB umpires to punish as though all offenses are equal. If a coach is chirping at me or any other umpire it usually is negative. I never said or suggested I wanted to hear any words, kind or otherwise, from coaches. Some may even choose to embrace the memory of Atilla closer that Solomon.

It seems that Solomon wasn't the interpreter for a big enough league to have value. Perhaps he should write another book. (Big Grin)

Here is an idea: If you don't use common sense when enforcing the rules, you'll do a poor job. To call baseball, or any sport, exactly by the book is to call a "perfect game," which causes trouble every time.

In 1981 I gave my first speech to the annual Texas State Umpires Association. The title was: "How to Call a Perfect Game." As I stood outside the door, waiting for the crowd to enter, I saw Durwood Merrill, featured speaker for the banquet the next day, headed inside with his good friend, Odie Adams. "Psst, Odie," I hissed. "What's Durwood doing here?" "Hell, Carl, he read the title of your speech and said, 'By God, I want to meet the sumbitch who can do that.'"

Durwood hadn't heard the subtitle to my talk, which was: "How to Call a Perfect Game, or Why I Got Scratched in San Benito."

I made my national reputation as an advocate for common sense umpiring. Warren's suggestions are the epitome of common sense, at least at the higher levels he calls. What works when AAA-1 Bail Bonds plays Wilkenson Chiropractic (Mustang league in my town) won't always get it done when the Melbourne Koalas play the Sydney 'Roos.

Ranger wrote:

<b>"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."</b>

It's unfortunate you choose to view it as such. However,I do understand the relationship between one's perception and one's reality.

I think Warren has done an admirable job of attempting to explain his position while remaining civil. (It wasn't he who had his message deleted for unfairly and rudely attacking a poster).

He also mixed in some "inside" material that he and Moose both understand due to their relationship. It would be a mistake for those of us outside that relationship to pass judgement on it.

We need to remember two things about Warren: First, the level of ball he often calls in Australia is equivelent to our AAA minors or better.

Secondly, Australia is, at times, even more faithful to the OBR and the NAPBL than the US.

Neither of these factors, by themselves, make Warren a superior umpire, or even correct. They do, however, suggest we should consider his opinions openly and with an understanding of "where he is coming from" before dismissing them.


BTW Ranger, RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!
...when were you at Fort Benning? Perhaps our paths have crossed or we have similar acquaintances. I have found parts of the creed to be applicable in umpiring:
"Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight onto the Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor."


GarthB



[Edited by GarthB on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 09:56 PM]

Motives? What "motives"???
 

Ranger, please. I have already pleaded that people should NOT read motives into posts that don't exist, whether they be my posts or anyone elses. I am NOT trying to "browbeat BJ into submission"! Heck, I've "known" Mike long enough through boards such as this to know that approach simply wouldn't succeed. If I state and then restate my case in different terms it is ONLY because I have no other way of trying to make my position understood across the vast gap that exists between our two entirely different social sources of reference. We don't even speak the same LANGUAGE, most of the time, although I do try to put things into the American idiom when I am sure what that would be in the circumstances. You are reading something into my posts that I can assure you simply isn't there. How about cutting me some slack on this, eh?

See, now there you go again! You have apparently settled in your mind that I am a rule book thumping harda$$ who umpires with a style you characterise as "dangerous and a career threat". Ranger, aside from what you READ in my posts you have NO IDEA what my umpiring style is. You have put <i>your</i> sense of comprehension up against <i>my</i> words and come up with a lemon! That's simply not a fair way to assess umpires or their styles! You haven't even queried a single statement in order to gain a better understanding. I think you are probably quite content that you KNOW who and what I am, even if in reality you don't. I can tell you now, Ranger, you haven't really known ANY WW's - least of all THIS ONE.

As Carl correctly guessed, I quite agree with you on this in principle. When did I suggest otherwise?

Ranger, here is where you are using YOUR social source of reference to impute a meaning for words spoken from MY social source of reference. If you had read ALL of my posts in this thread you would have understood what I mean by OBJECTING in the context of an ejection offense. I said this did NOT include minor "chirping", questioning of calls such as "Is that as wide as it gets, Blue?" or even minor beefs over close judgement calls. Instead I said that by OBJECTING I mean a CLEAR and obvious breach of the rules against objecting to a judgement call. I even gave an example of such a "clear and obvious" breach; "That guy was SAFE. You made a sh!# of a call, Blue!" This is both illegal and personal, and earns an early shower from me every time. If you disagree, Ranger, no problem. Just don't draw any uneducated and ill-informed conclusions about my abilities and proclivities as an umpire from a few simple posts on an umpire <u>discussion</u> board!

Ranger, no-one is going to take kindly to being compared with Atilla the Hun, however obliquely! While not claiming to BE a "role model", I have tried to encourage the readers to realise that as umpires they do NOT decide the penalties for offenses under the rules <i>when the rules already include a penalty provision</i>. In that regard, umpires are much closer to policemen than judges. That does NOT mean they can't exercise some degree of judgement about whether an offense has actually been committed or not. I have already acknowledged that several times in this thread. Your advice to treat players and coaches with the same respect you yourself would require is very GOOD advice. Why didn't you take it yourself when reading my posts and imputing their motives?

Cheers.

It depends what YOU mean by "objected", Ranger. If you mean minor "chirps", mumbles and grumbles, little beefs about close calls, etc., then the answer is NO, I DO NOT want them to eject whenever a coach or player "objected".

Using YOUR definition of "arguments" and "objections" I agree completely. OTOH, if we were using MY definition, I can guarantee that in the professional leagues, excluding the "show" because it is such a significantly different culture, such offenses ARE met with ejections IF that is the prescribed punishment. All offenses may NOT "carry the same punishment", but the SAME offense should always be punished in <i><b>exactly</i> the same way</b>! To do otherwise would be patently unjust.

Whatever the "practice of MLB umpires" may be, I don't believe it is particularly relevent to this discussion. MLB umpires are participants in a "show", and may well have different constraints on their actions from amateur and minor league officials. Using them as examples is frought with pitfalls. Nevertheless, the rules we operate under are THEIR rules, and we should be cogniscent of THEIR interpretations of those rules. The fact remains that if we choose to play the game according to their rules, then we should apply the penalties as they are written in those rules. Umpires who try to divine the intent of players and coaches who clearly breach those rules, in an attempt to justify NOT applying the specified penalties, have overstepped the bounds of their role by a HUGE margin. When God declared "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Vengeance is mine" he was letting everyone know that HE made the rules and it was up to HIM to decide the penalties. I say the same applies to the rules of baseball. No umpire should usurp that right. Even Solomon would agree with that! (even BIGGER grin)

Absolutely. Now, can you please show me where I have ever advocated a different approach?

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 04:14 PM]

Re: Oh Yeah???!!! Yeah!!!!
 

"... you play like a girl!" Ah, the Sandlot Kids. I <i>loved</i> that movie! It had more pure baseball, frame for frame, than "The Natural" and "Bull Durham" put together (and I liked those movies, too - grin).

Moose, if I <i>could</i> look YOU in the eye, and the beer was on YOU, I would tell you that anything you say is just fine with me, mate! (BIG grin)

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 05:08 PM]

<b><b>


Warren, this is from the first of your 16 posts regarding this subject (grin). I am very pleased to see your attitude IS NOT as this first post APPEARED to be. I suspect upon review it sounded pretty hard-nosed.

Obviously you've stated hence that what you were trying to emphasize was that there is no requirement to issue an warning. I think most umps are aware of that point.

It also seems apparent to me that you are a higher level official. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE was that I have seen many higher level officials who say one thing----in accordance with THE RULES!!----- and then practice another on the field.

Your original attitude SEEMED to be one that could be supported by the rules, but in reality would not allow you to survive long on the field---not with the many comments made by men. Your follow up posts seem to indicate you're just a wonderful marshmallow at heart and probably get invited to all the pajama parties held by the players. (grinz)

In this imperfect medium it is EASILY possible to impute an "attitude" to a poster where either none existed or the actual "attitude" was quite different. I have been posting on the Internet for a long time. I was posting in the early days of r.s.o and McGriff's and learned very early on that, despite the emoticons and other devices, people's words frequently fail to convey their true meaning.

I am no "marshmallow", but I am also no "harda$$" either. I have been called a "true gentleman" by players from my District League, and I have been called some other less than complimentary names, too. I have survived long enough on the field to call for many years at District League level (A-AA minors equivalent) and State League level (AA minors equivalent, on average), attend 11 Regional championships (including 10 finals appearances and 4 final plates), and 2 Australian Championships (including the championship final plate in the 1998 Commonwealth Cup - the Australian Senior Provincial Championship). I'm not bragging, understand. There are <i>many</i> umpires I know and respect who have done much, MUCH more. I'm simply suggesting that you can't do all the things I've done if you are a black/white, by-the-book, harda$$ official.

The other thing I have NEVER done is to believe that I KNOW all there is to know about the rules or their intent. That is partly what keeps me applying the penalties for rule breaches strictly as written, instead of making my own judgments about player or coach intent, motives, etc. I can legitimately use these cues to decide whether or not a breach has been committed. Once that is decided, however, enforcing the penalty is NOT optional, IMHO. I have ALWAYS practiced what I preach, both on and off the diamond. It's just that sometimes I have trouble helping people from other countries understand exactly what it is that I'm preaching! (grin)

In my recent series of articles for <font color="red">e</font><font color="navy">Umpire.com</font> on "Umpire Ethics", I am at great pains to point out that umpires have two (2) major responsibilities on the diamond:

1. Conduct of the game (in accordance with the rules)
2. Maintaining discipline and order on the playing field

In trying to explain how to maintain an ethical balance between those two often competing responsibilities, I have made it clear that there are times when strictly enforcing the rules is clearly the WRONG thing to do. I think that position betrays that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a harda$$ about going by the book. Certainly where the book has a specific penalty for a clear and undeniable breach of a rule, I believe that penalty ought to be applied as required. That is NOT to say that there aren't times when the maintenance of discipline and order might be better served by doing otherwise. The point is that umpires are powerful enough under the rules, without needing to play God in deciding if a penalty should or should not be applied depending on how they feel about the offense, or the offender, at the time.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 05:39 PM]

The long and meticulous written defenses of slights perceived from my posts only detract from my original idea that caused me to want to post in the first place. After all, I was not the one that said, "It is not our job to be judges of the seriousness of a spcefic offense." I thought that BJ Moose had some ideas that were harshly received. I wanted to weigh in with those 7 points that I have taught in the past in some of my clinics. Not one of those 7 points had anything whatever to do with offending anyone.

I will not play the point by point rebuttal game. It has gotten so far off the subject of game management. I am interested in game management. If anybody wants to educate me any further about how different things are in foreign countries they can email me.

Interesting how the reference to Atilla the Hun was focused on. This was only one of 7 points I made asking umpires to try to be wise like Solomon. I don't see why any offense should be taken by this advice or any of the other 6 points I made. I assure you this was not about Atilla but about Solomon! This most certainly was not an oblique comparison, whatever that means.

Now, how about ejections and game management?

[Edited by Ranger on Dec 23rd, 2000 at 10:18 PM]

Let's stay off subject for a moment. Your "nickname" is military, harkening to that most elite of all US Army units. But in your very first posts, you echoed <b>Marine Corps</b> attitudes and terms. The Rangers I know would, shall we say, <i>eschew</i> references to the "wimps" at Semper Fi.

Also, your credibility would be greatly improved if we knew something about you: Your history of officiating, of posting in other forums (even if under different names); where you currently ply your trade, whether you still call NCAA-level games. Etc.

People like Warren and me run great risks when we post to the 'Net: We <b>are</b> who we are. For example, anyone interested can find my phone or FAX numbers. Anyone interested in "ranger" can....

Lah me, the anonymity of the non-registered "registered" Forum member. Ain't it grand?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
As I am what was known as an "ARMY brat", you are right on the "wimp" thing. 3 family members of mine have worn the beret. But maybe "Ranger" just likes Ford pick-ups????? Merry Christmas, Carl.

Well, Ranger, I saw something different in Pete Booth's original post. You say it was about "ejections and game management", and certainly that may come into the equation. I saw it as a question as to why some umpires don't enforce the penalties for rule breaches consistently. That may be entirely unrelated to game management per se. It may be more about umpire ethics, or even the desire by umpires to be "liked" by players, coaches and managers.

I understood from Mike's post that he was advocating ignoring breaches of rules and the associated penalties depending on one's personal perception of the severity or the circumstances of the offense. That may be de rigour in LL, certainly, but I don't believe it is advice that ought to be followed at the high school or college level.

My position was that, where there was a <i><b>clear and undeniable</i></b> breach of the rule and a specific penalty required, it is certainly not the umpire's job to decide whether or not to enforce a penalty based on his or her personal perception of the seriousness (or even the circumstances) of the offense. In several posts I pointed out, however, that I did not consider minor "chirps", normal mumbles and grumbles about the zone or even minor beefs over close calls on the bases to be a "clear and undeniable breach" of the rule. I even gave a specific example for the latter case, in illustration.

From the perspective of so-called "game management", I have written a series of articles on "Umpire Ethics" for <font color="red">e</font><font color="navy">Umpire.com</font> which go into the issues surrounding the making of an ethical choice between enforcing a rule and maintaining discipline and order on the playing field. That was NOT the focus of my posts in this thread.

My posts in this thread were purely and simply focused on ensuring that umpires do NOT believe they have the right, and sometimes even a requirement, to carelessly usurp the authority of the rule makers in defining the penalty for a given offence. If there is a rule with a specific penalty attached, and that rule has clearly and obviously been breached, it is NOT the umpire's job to decide that the penalty should NOT apply, or should be mitigated, simply because of some personally-perceived scale of seriousness for the offense UNLESS the enforcement of the penalty clearly conflicts with the obligation to maintain discipline and order on the playing field. OBR 9.01(a) says that umpires are required to enforce the rules, and I maintain that includes the associated penalties. We are NOT gods, or even judges most of the time. There ARE certain limitations on the extent of the umpire's power on the diamond, and this is one of those limitations.

Now, Ranger, although I am in a foreign country and things may certainly be different here, we STILL play baseball as defined by the <i>Official Baseball Rules</i>, the <i>NAPBL Umpire Manual</i> and the UDP <i>Manual for the Two Umpire System</i>. I believe I have made my position clear, but if you feel you haven't understood anything I've said you may feel free to email me to seek a clarification. I note that so far you have singularly failed to follow this course of action. OTOH, I do NOT see it as my role to "educate (you) any further about how different things are in foreign countries". True education requires interested participation from both sides, and I perceive that the interest may certainly be lacking on at least one side of this discussion.

Cheers, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.

Isn't the written word wonderful?
 

Hey, Guys:
Although I'm sure we would all get along great if we were to physically meet in person and discuss any and all of our posted questions, it appears that this does not necessarily happen when written communications are used.
We have all types of interested parties involved in these threads, and not all are able to communicate the exact same thoughts in the same exact words. We have former College Professors, High School Teachers, English Majors, and Foreign Language Specialists all telling their stories in certain terms, and on the other hand, everyday volunteer Umpires, new greenhorns trying to learn, relatively new lower level trainees, and sometimes, just interested people seeing if they can pick a brain or two.
Let's try not to take offense until we can be certain offense is really intended. If it is, just ignore the offender, and move on to help the really interested parties.
As another poster says, JMO.

Dave, it must seem like I am ALWAYS disagreeing in this thread. I hate that. Nevertheless, I feel bound to do it again. You and I will have to A2D on whether OBR 9.01(d) is deliberately broad for the purpose of giving the umpire the latitude NOT to eject. I've already said that I think that the apparent broadness is only because this rule is a cover-all, not a specific penalty provision. I'll say no more on that subject.

However, concerning the alleged offense covered in OBR 9.02(a)CMT I say you are just dead wrong, Dave! The offense for which an ejection is specified is arguing judgement calls, namely balls and strikes, and NOT <i>leaving ones position</i> to argue. The mention of a player, coach or manager "leaving their position" to argue is put in to specify exactly when a warning is appropriate i.e. BEFORE the offense has been committed - to wit when the umpire sees the person leaving their position for the purpose of committing the offense. If, after warning, the person continues AND ARGUES BALLS AND STRIKES (i.e. commits the offense anyway) then it is appropriate to eject. OTOH, if the person continues and ends up talking about the weather, an ejection is probably NOT appropriate. The ejectable offense is the arguing. Leaving ones position to do so is not an offense in and of itself but it IS an occasion for a warning that the possible commission of an offense is imminent.

Ok, I'm getting pretty tired of this imputing to me of a certain black/white, by-the-book "style" of umpiring based solely on the contents of this thread. That is grossly unfair, and it is not just you reading this in here either Dave. I average 1 or 2 ejections each year across 2 different leagues and 2 distinct seasons. How does that show me to be any quicker with an ejection than anyone else? Simply because I believe that the rule book penalties ought to be enforced doesn't make me a hair trigger gunslinger on the diamond! Using that logic, I might equally conclude that most of the posters here who disagree with me are WIMPS who wouldn't even eject if the player or coach bit 'em in the a$$ ... and I am freely prepared to admit that isn't so either!

This is a COMMUNICATION PROBLEM! Pete Booth asked whether we would be more consistent as umpires if we all applied the penalties in the rules as required. I agreed we would and hoped we all did that already. I also said later in the thread that we could exercise judgment in the area of deciding whether an offense had been committed, BUT after that the application of the specified penalty was REQUIRED. That may well be the same as Moose saying we should regard the severity of the offense! I've been trying to come to terms with that in this thread, by specifying in detail what I consider an ejectable offense is, and all I've gotten back in return is repeated crap about my "style" being that of a black and white rule book umpire with a quick eject finger! For crying out loud, guys, please THINK about the specific words of my posts instead of going off half-cocked on what your own preconcievd ideas tell you has been said! I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to being characterised as a harda$$, <i>especially</i> on the basis of only 1 thread on 1 baseball discussion board!

It seems very clear to me that, despite my best efforts to communicate both clearly and succinctly, you (collectively) and I are indeed still speaking two entirely different languages. That's a great pity because I believe that if some of the posters in this thread had given at least as much attention to trying to understand what I'm saying as to getting their own position across, we would be well and truly on common ground by now. Your previous post, Dave, led me to believe that you at least were making that effort. This post leaves me with entirely the opposite sense. I give up. I will NOT bore the readers any further with my views on this subject.

Cheers.

One excellent point Warren pointed out in his discussions (I'm not sure if it was in Vol.1 or Vol.2) is that when you do ultimately decide action is needed, the penalty needs to be in accordance with the rules.

In our leagure this past summer a protest was upheld when the official had an infraction requiring action but elected to declare the offender out in lieu of ejection. He felt that was a less harsh penalty. His intent may have been good, but unfortunately, it was not within the rules which specifically indicated ejection was the penalty for the offense. The "out" squelched a nice rally. The offending team had an available sub to take the place of the offender had the correct penalty been invoked.
As stated, the protest was upheld, and certainly as officials that is something we need to strive to avoid.

Where's the disagreement?
 

Well, I'll delurk for a moment to make one very simple comment.

I think the people on both sides are talking about two different things.

The notion that an unsportsmanlike "offense" is an "offense" is ridiculous, for the most part. I do not know think Warren is proposing that idea, because that is not how umpires anywhere I've lived (or umpires I've watched) ACTUALLY call things. Why else would umpires get reputations as "quick-triggers" and "lambs?"

9.01(d) gives authority for an umpire to eject for unsportsmanlike conduct. It doesn't REQUIRE anything.

The only requirements for ejection of a manager or coach spelled out I can find are in 9.02(a), 8.02(d), and 8.06 COMMENT. And in each case listed here, where ejection is MANDATED, the umpire is REQUIRED to warn prior to the ejection (unless accompanied by unsportsmanlike conduct, which is covered under 9.01(d)). [Note: 4.06 also covers the ejection of a participant for inciting a balk, but that is also an unsportsmanlike act]. If the manager persists in going to the mound a second time, or leaving his position to argue balls and strikes, or a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, then we are DUTY-BOUND to eject.

This is what I think Warren is talking about, although I can admit I didn't read all of the posts on the subject.

But let's step back even further. Except for the case where the manager insists upon visiting his pitcher a second time after being warned, there is still a boatload of umpire discretion that is applied. Who says the coach has left his postion to argue balls and strikes? Who says the pitcher threw intentionally at the batter. In FED ball, who decides whether contact is malicious?

The individual umpire makes those decisions, based upon his own sensibilities, judgement, training, the customs of the game, etc. Now, if the umpire decides the beanball WAS intentional, if the contact WAS malicious, if the manager HAS left his position to argue balls and strikes.....THEN the umpire is rule-bound and ethically bound to eject.

In other words, the umpire shall not do the following:

--Well, that was malicious, but the team is losing bad and the game is almost over, and I don't want to fill out paperwork, and I don't want the coach to scratch me so I won't toss him....

--Well, that pitch was intentional, but the previous batter DID trot awfully slow after hitting the home run so I won't toss him....

--Well, the manager did visit the mound twice with the same batter up, but this is a friendly game and the team is losing 19-1....

--Well, I might have missed that pitch or check-swing, so I'll let the manager come down to the plate and bitch....

Am I geting close to your meaning Warren?

Rich
----------------
Rich Fronheiser
Natick, MA
eContact, RightSports.com

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Dec 26th, 2000 at 04:36 PM]

The few, the proud,...
 

Semper Fi requires that I make a point. Marines are not "wimps", anymore than are Rangers or SF. USMC, 1967-71.

IMHO, like me, WW takes a very intellectual approach to the rules. THis does not mean that we don't see the practical application issues. I think the initial post here was addressing differences in game management and how to deal with the great disparity among umpires in applying individual judgment about "sportsmanship" issues. One of my greatest complaints as an umpire is hearing,"No one else calls it!", or "enforces that rule", ad infinatum, ad nauseum. If we all were truer to the rules as written, there would be fewer problems created for our colleagues that have the same teams later.

As a side note, I wonder why it seems that the umps with lower ejection rates and fewer rhubarbs get better assignments. Are they better at game management, lucky, or being "nice" to avoid conflict? Or what???

they call good...
 

Jim, by that phrase, do you mean:good with rules, solid mechanix and hustle, and (the usually learned rather than natural) ability to hear what they need to hear? I agree. About 80-85% of assets needed to move up are these things, but the ability to network and political issues make up the difference, it seems. Just MHO!

Re: they call good...
 

I would like to thank all for posting. As I believe most of you might agree by now there is NO CLEAR CUT guidence on when to Eject - but it is a matter of Style and Preference.

The reason I posted this is the first place is that if one GOES BY THE BOOK, a manager / coach / player has NO RIGHT to question a judgement call, yet it is allowed.

IMO, the toughest part of umpiring is GAME CONTROL. We can go to Clincis and learn the Rules and proper Positioning by repitition, but when it comes to GAME CONTROL - We in a way our on our own.

Each of us has our own LINE and IMO like I said in the first place should that really be the case? If F3 impedes the progress of B1 going from first to second we have obstruction - no question about it but when it comes to Ejections - Hey wait a minute not as clear cut.

In reading all of these posts, to me it's like a catch 22. If you eject - it's hey Blue you have a short fuse and if you do not eject - it's hey that umpire lets us get away with murder.

Let's face it none of us are Krescan (at least I didn't see his name posted here yet) and one never knows when the Game will blow-up in one's face, especially in todays environment.

When the third base coach sends home r2 on a base hit by B1 and F9 (who the coach knows has a gun) throws out r2 by a mile - do we question the coaches decision? (in our minds we might) - the answer - NO.

Many people watch TV and IMO the reason amateur coaches get on the men in Blue is because it has become the accepted norm over the years because of TV exposure.

I am not a GURU of the rules as some who post here but to date I have not found anything that says an umpire must take grief from a coach and be ridiculed.

With all our varied opinions on when to eject - one can see the confusion this brings rather than going by the book or at least coming up with specific guidelines as to when to eject.

To me if the coach acts in a professional manner, they earn their due up to a point, but if someone comes out of the dugout and starts screaming (even if they have a point) - to me "THEY GOTTA GO". If you let the coach scream - then pretty soon the players / fans will join in.

Also, I guess the area where one comes from also dictates how to approach the game. I'm from NY and I've seen the littliest of things turn into a brawl. Therefore, I do not let things get out of control and I might eject quicker than most, but that's because of my personal experiences.

Someone mentioned the key to moving up is less ejections - if thats the case than the H@@@@ll with moving-up. If you have to kiss a@@@@@s to move-up - who wants it. I think thats the main reason there aren't more ejections.

Individuals want that prestigious playoff game and the less coaches they p@@@@s off the better, however one day we read that there was a real brawl in so and so's game and wonder why.

I'm not preaching Eject just to Eject, but there needs to be more uniformity, especially in the same association when it comes to this.

Good discussion for the winter months. And BTW Warren I am jealous that you are in beautiful summer weather when Temps here the east are below 0 counting the wind-chill.

OK gang lets keep it going - Someone else "pick up the ball" and start a new 4 - 5 page thread.

Pete Booth

It's that time of the year
 

Peter,

It's that time of the year again, we have meeting in two weeks and I think in your last post you made a great point.

It's essential that the local association talks about coach decorum and what is allowed and what is not.

That's the key. If a coach does this in my game and I tell him "knock it off" and then he does it in your game and you "eject him" then the coach doesn't know what's going on.

In our area personal preferences are allowed by each umpire (like I don't let a coach cuss me but that's my own personal belief and it's in the FED book); however, other umpires can make that decision on their own.

There are several no no's (you can tell I have small children):

1) A coach insinuates any way that you are a "homer"

2) A coach charges the umpire

3) A coach won't leave the field (in other words I'm through with the discourse and I turn to go to my position and he follows)

That's the guidelines we give our local group.

As far as players: we don't allow them anything.

They are there to play - not commentate.

Thanks
David