I had an in depth discussion with one of the umpires in our association today regarding ejections.

This was his premise -
In amatuer baseball, mental mistakes by the umpire result in more ejections than player/coach snafus. i.e. An umpire makes a bang, bang call - in amatuer ball - he will probably get the call wrong. An umpire's gross miss on a pitch will bring the coach out to argue, resulting in an ejection. Granted things like BR dropping a shoulder into F3 to break up a play will also result in ejections, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

I am curious to hear what the board has to say about this.

FWIW, I subscribe to HHH's theory of "eject early and often because I like quiet, peaceful games" and I believe that coaches and players will usually do something to warrant their early departure.

Your umpire associate is wrong, IMO.

Notches on the belt.
 

That is the problem with many umpires. You are more concerned with getting rid of problems instead of dealing with those problems. If that is the only way you feel you can control a game, then do that. I just think that is the easy way out and does not advance umpiring. I have made mistakes in games and never had to eject a coach or they never complained. It is the way you carry yourself that also has to do with how a coach responds. Because if you have a certain demeanor, they might not even realize you made the mistake in the first place. ;)

Peace

This is about the stupidest, most self-defeatist load of garbage I have ever read.

First of all, even when a umpire kicks a call, the coaches and players are still not justified in making a$$es of themselves by crying and bit&hing about it. If they get obnoxious or just will not STFU after a while, their stupidity is the "cause" of their ejection.

Secondly, what is this "probably get it wrong" BS?
Why in the hell do we buy into the assinine conceit of idiot coaches that they can see what happened in a bang-bang play better from 90 to 150 feet away than we can at 15 feet? In a game coached by a pair of rats, you will catch a ration of crap from one side or the other on every banger. Does this mean you probably got ALL of the calls wrong? Be serious!! :p

Where's Tee's catch phrase when I need it?

This one may actually break the tie.

I think that is exactly right. Many times coaches will try to argue a point that does not apply to the level you work. I work mostly NF and NCAA Rules, it never fails to amaze me how many times a coach will complain about the "slide" rule and not understand it. They might think that all contact despite how it happens is warranted an ejection (of the other team of course). Or they will have no idea that a rule changed or that a POE was made about a specific action, but argue with you about what happen last year.

In our State coaches are not required to go to Rules Meetings. It never seems to fail that one coach will not have any idea of a change that was discussed in detail at those meetings.

Peace

I would lean to the coach not knowing the rules or just wanting to make an a$$ outta himself as being the main reason. Yeah sometimes it is a blown call on a judgement call that gets the coach going. He also has the ability to stop and keep himself from being dumped.

I had a situation where I rushed a catch/no catch on a shoe-string catch (I ruled it a catch initially). It really made no difference on the play as the runner on first was and would have been forced at second requardless if I had kept my proper timing. Well the coach for the offensive team questioned me on it and I admitted my mistake but also told him that even if I kept my timing the runner would have been out at second. Well that was not good enough for him and he kept on. So even tho I made the mistake, he could have stopped and it would have kept him in the ballgame.
I don't feel that there is the need for this really. I call this the terrorist approach to game control. Act like a terrorist long enough and people will be afraid of you. IE dump coaches for any reason and they will be afraid to question anything, thus you get your way. Instead hustle, work hard, learn the rules, look good and be consistant. I have earned respect from coaches, players and my fellow umpires and have had to dump 2 coaches (tho a few other deserved to be) and about 8 or 10 players (all but 1 were little kids for sportmanship issues (ie throwing a bat or glove) and 2 for malicious contact.)

Cbfoulds;

You wrote:

"This is about the stupidest, most self-defeatist load of garbage I have ever read."

I guess you do not read Rut posts. :D

Several years ago, I wrote a piece about the human brain being unable to determine events less than 0.04 seconds apart. Someone in my local area read this and took the trouble to videotape umpires calling wackers at first base in a training environment. He was able to tape about 50 wackers that were determined by less than 0.04 seconds.

Logically, it would seem that the umpires would get about 50% right. If they are guessing, they should be right half the time. By slowing the the tape, he was able to determine that they got only about 30% right. 50% were definitely wrong and 20% were too close to call even with freeze-frame videotape.

For the portion that he was able to get a definitive answer, the rookie umpires were wrong 62% of the time. Go figure. An article on politics, coach influence, and psychology could be written on why this happened.

You also wrote:

In a game coached by a pair of rats, you will catch a ration of crap from one side or the other on every banger. Does this mean you probably got ALL of the calls wrong? Be serious!!"

There is a school of thought among serious umpires that the answer to your question is yes. They are dead serious. You got them all wrong. (Rich Humphrey, a AAA umpire who worked some MLB ball during a 1980's strike, has a 30 minute presentation on this subject.)

Only when you recognize that you are always wrong, can you formulate a strategy to deal with the chaos. Joseph Stalin did not worry about being wrong. He worried about being obeyed and feared. Although it is not well documented in the West, Joseph Stalin dealt with far more serious uprisings and Muslim rebellions than the current chaos in Chechnya. By regularly executing and torturing large numbers of people, he did not have to deal with terrorist escapades like are currently going on in Russia.

All we have to do is eject them.

Peter

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that anyone, even someone who has never umpired in their life, can throw someone out of a game (that's fairly easy). However, it takes an experienced umpire to know how to keep players and coaches in the game, i.e. preventitive officiating, defusing situations, nipping things in the bud, etc.

When you get to a certain level of experience, all umpires have pretty much the same ability as far as balls & strikes and safe & outs. What separates the good ones from the great ones is handling situations. I don't know what HHH theory's is all about, but in my opinion, it sounds a little "inexperienced" to me.

<i> Originally posted by jumpmaster </i>

<b> I had an in depth discussion with one of the umpires in our association today regarding ejections.

This was his premise -
In amatuer baseball, mental mistakes by the umpire result in more ejections than player/coach snafus. i.e. An umpire makes a bang, bang call - in amatuer ball - he will probably get the call wrong. An umpire's gross miss on a pitch will bring the coach out to argue, resulting in an ejection. Granted things like BR dropping a shoulder into F3 to break up a play will also result in ejections, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

I am curious to hear what the board has to say about this. </b>

I disagree with the aforemetnioned statement. The main problem IMO is Umpire InConsistency that causes the ejections, meaning how many times have we heard the phrase "Hey Blue you are the first one to call that" or something along those lines.

From my experience, the coaches that do give umpires a real hard time were not delt with from Game one. By Game 50 it's too late. I realize we all have our own thresholds of tolerence, but in an association there needs to be some consistency and if a coach goes nuts over every close call then they should have been delt with in the beginning of the season not at the end.

Remember for the most part there is going to be a new crew for this coaches next game and if you allow a coach to behave in an unsportsmanlike manner and do nothing about it, you just made it more difficult for the next crew.

The other main point is that some umpires do not want to make the "tough" call which also causes havoc among coaches.
I do not mean the "nit-pickn" call but the tough call like batter's interference when it warrants it.

If you look at most associations, it's probably a good bet that you have a hand full of what the assignor calls his "bread and butter" guys that he/she needs to do his/her "bread and butter" leagues. In other words to have consistency, so that the contract gets renewed.

The rest of the games are filled in.

Therefore, IMO in a nutshell it is Umpire inconsistency that causes most ejections and the fact that behaviors are not tamed right from game 1.

It's like being a parent. If you allow your kids to get away with "murder" and do not discipline them right from the beginning what do you think is going to happen.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cowbyfan1

Quote:

Originally posted by jumpmaster FWIW, I subscribe to HHH's theory of "eject early and often because I like quiet, peaceful games" and I believe that coaches and players will usually do something to warrant their early departure.

Quote:

I don't feel that there is the need for this really. I call this the terrorist approach to game control. Act like a terrorist long enough and people will be afraid of you. IE dump coaches for any reason and they will be afraid to question anything, thus you get your way. Instead hustle, work hard, learn the rules, look good and be consistant. I have earned respect from coaches, players and my fellow umpires and have had to dump 2 coaches (tho a few other deserved to be) and about 8 or 10 players (all but 1 were little kids for sportmanship issues (ie throwing a bat or glove) and 2 for malicious contact.)

Cowboyfan;

You wrote;

"I have earned respect from coaches, players and my fellow umpires."

Ok, I can understand how you might know if you have respect from your fellow umpires, but how in the world can you know if the coaches and players respect you. Have you:

1. Installed hidden cameras in their locker rooms to listen to their conversations.

2. Commissioned an independent survey to interview coaches and players about your umpiring.

3. Regularly get calls from your assignor telling you that he got postive feedback on your game from coaches and players.

If not, then you are engaged in delusional thinking. If you believe anything that they tell you about your performance, then you are even more delusional. Have you ever heard of an umpire saying:

"The coaches and players don't respect me."

Any umpire worth his salt is convinced that the coaches and players respect them. Have you ever heard of a automobile driver saying anything other than:

"I am a better than average driver."

Not likely. We all engage in delusional thinking by saying we are better than average. Most umpires do the same thing. I seriously doubt that coaches and players have any outside respect for you personally or your indvidual performance as an umpire. By custom, the decent ones among them respect the title that you hold. That's it.

If you are not having problems in your games, it is more likely due to the fear that the local leagues or Athletic Directors have put into the coaches and players. You made a very telling comment in your post when you wrote:

"...and have had to dump 2 coaches (tho a few other deserved to be)"

Why didn't you do your job and dump those coaches that you admitted deserved it?

This tells me that you are a typical average umpire who sweeps discipline problems under the rug for a$$holes like me to clean up in the next game. Consider this:

You are a police chief hiring a policeman for a job and the candidate says to you:

"I have made 2 arrests for drunk driving last year but there were a few others who deserved to be but I let go." Would you hire this guy?

I can honestly say that since I had this epiphany eight years ago that I have ejected every coach and player that deserved to be ejected and maybe a few that did not deserve to be ejected.

I want policeman to arrest every drunk driver and even some who are not drunk but might be. A judge can sort out the innocent ones from the guilty later.

Peter

"This is about the stupidest, most self-defeatist load of garbage I have ever read."

I guess you do not read Rut posts. :D

[/B][/QUOTE]Peter, why don't you take your mindless name-calling,taunting and yourself, back over to McGriffs? That's where you and your Observer friends really belong!

HHH:

I assume all of these bangers were shot using video cameras. Unless you are using some VERY sophisticated professional equipment, video shoots at 30 frames per second. 30 frames per second means one frame every .033 seconds. I accept your theory that the human eye and brain cannot discern the timing of events that are .04 seconds apart. It sounds reasonable, and I have no evidence to think otherwise. I do think, however, that human reactions being variable, the number varies for each person, and therefore could be .05 for some people (or more) and .03 for others (or less).

But if all of these numbers hold, it also means that the video camera cannot discern the difference with much more accuracy than can the human eye and brain. To use video "evidence" means the call was actually not as close as .04 seconds, or you just got "lucky" catching the "actual" moment on video.

I don't dispute that on a banger, it basically comes down to not much more than a guess, and we aren't even getting into the issues of the difference in the rates of sound and light travelling, meaning the ump that relies on the "sight (light)" of the foot hitting the bag versus the "sound" of the glove hitting the mitt has just given an advantage to the runner as well.

In reality, a banger is just that. Like it or not, even the best umps are making a guess sometimes. Sometimes we guess "right", sometimes we guess "wrong". But I do not think our "guesses" are any more right or wrong than on calls that were decided by more than .033 seconds, which are the only ones that video could conclusively verify as "right" or "wrong", than they are on calls that were more distinct. In other words, every ump misses the not so close ones occassionally. One would hope that missing these decreases with experience, but I know that is not always true.

Sometimes we miss them. But there is an old saying that I was taught in one of my very first clinics MANY years ago:

Whether I'm right or whether I'm wrong, I'm right.

Sal;

I wrote an eleven part series on this. If you are a subscriber, here is the link to part one which will provide links to all eleven parts. If you are not a subscriber, you can still read the synopsis of each.

http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/3320

If I remember correctly, you went to pro school. Years ago, pro school umpires were taught to eject early and often. This is nothing new. In the articles, I modified the strategy for the amatuer and especially, the youth ball umpire.

Peter

I asked the person that taped this, the exact same question that you did. He told me that his equipment shot at 60 frames per second. (He worked in nature film productions.)That is one every .016 seconds. This means to me that his equipment was three times as reliable as the human brain.

It also means that there should have been one third of the calls that were undeterminable and he only found 20% in that department. He admitted that he had made some extrapolations.

In other words, one frame might show the ball 5 inches from the glove and the foot 5 inches from the bag. The next frame shows the ball in the glove and the foot on the bag. Since we know that the ball travels faster than the runner, he extrapolated that the runner was out.

You are right about the numbers being variable for each person. In my piece, the 0.04 seconds came from a military study on 18-25 year old soldiers who had trained and practiced. I would guess that the rest of us are not as good.

Peter

Hep,
 

In two other independant studies, one by the National Transportation & Safety Board and the other by the National Basketball Association, also determined the .04 determining factor.

Actually in a funny moment a couple of years ago a poster argued that the .04 was silly because he could "see" what happened at all speeds.

As Peter has commented it is not the "seeing" but the brain's ability to determine the order of happenings when we hit the .04 area.

KindaSorta reminds me of the MLB "checked and unchecked swing" study.

Tee

Physics
 

I'd like to enter a little mathematics into this conversation about timing - a little reality if you will.

Pitchers throw in the 90 MPH range. Infielders probably not quite so fast but let's just assume 75 MPH. Runners move their bodies at less than 20 MPH. Obviously you can see the ball is moving 4 times as fast as the runner. So what happens to the positions of the ball and of the runner in this magical number of 0.04 seconds?

In the duration of 0.04 seconds:
A 75 MPH ball will move 52.8 inches (over 4 feet!)
A 20 MPH runner will move 14.1 inches.
This is the purported ability of the human eye to differentiate one time from another - our level of discernment.

So as AtlBlue pointed out with the timing of a regular video camera at one still picture/frame every 0.033 seconds, what happens?

In the duration of 0.033 seconds:
A 75 MPH ball will move 44 inches
A 20 MPH runner will move 11.7 inches

So in one frame the ball is some unknown distance away from the mitt and in the next frame the ball is 44 inches closer or possibly caught... When did the catch and the out occur? Is the out when the ball reaches the front of the mitt or when it reaches the back of the mitt (the pocket)?

Oooh let's assume that the distance between the front to the back of a mitt is 4 inches... at 75 MPH that distance is covered in 0.003 seconds, 3 thousandths of a second! And that 0.003 seconds also assumes the mitt is not moving toward the ball. So really, with a mitt moving toward the ball, the actual amount of time required to discern the moment of the catch/out is even less than the 0.003 seconds.

Got the call right or wrong based upon a camera that can't discern the location of a thrown ball with more accuracy than 44 inches!

In my opinion, there is one thing that gets a call right and it's called an umpire. It's not lasers and questek cameras; it's an umpire and his perception. What makes the call seem correct to the observers is how well that umpire perceives and presents that perception to the observers. And after a little umpiring work (experience),it is mostly the presentation - selling the call.

Until this game gets played by robots with electronic sensors in the balls and in the mitts and on bases and shoes, lasers, etc. IT IS ME THAT DETERMINES WHETHER A CALL IS CORRECT OR NOT.

I realize that a quicker camera could be used and perhaps these statements of right or wrong call could be determined with a more sophisticated video system... but as of yet, in the act of officiating a game, it is still me that makes the call... and I'm being a little bold here, but by damn, when I make the call it's RIGHT because I present it and sell it to be right. :D

Okay maybe not fully 100% but a damn sight better than 35 or 60 or whatever he said. I would guess that I make more than 100 judgements/calls before I get one questioned, therefore my percentage correct is greater than 99%.

In summary, I think "correct" means good salesmanship.

Ooh and Werner Heisenberg is on my side too.:p

I see a couple of other post have entered the fray since I posted my long winded tome!

I still stand by salesmanship as determining correctness.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Quote:

Cowboyfan; You wrote; "I have earned respect from coaches, players and my fellow umpires." Ok, I can understand how you might know if you have respect from your fellow umpires, but how in the world can you know if the coaches and players respect you. Do you (snip) 3. Regularly get calls from your assignor telling you that he got postive feedback on your game from coaches and players? Peter

Peter: Umpires in Texas actually know whether coaches respect them. In the playoffs leading to the high school state championship, the two coaches select their umpires -- and must agree. Example: Joe Jara, a 10-year veteran in my assocation, has been picked for multiple play-off assignments each of the last eight years. That <i>might</i> not be evidence of respect, but it's evidence the coaches think Joe can call ball. To me, that passes for respect; and I don't think Texas is the only state where coaches choose their umpires.

Of course, there's that nonsense that "the losing coach came up to me after the game and said I did a great job" so I know I did well. As I once wrote: "Don't fall for that unless you're retiring and will never call another game for him." Otherwise, there's always another game this season or next year or the year after.

On the other hand, I don't think that just because the coach is soaping your saddle he is, <i>a priori</i>, a rat. Maybe just a teensy leetle mouse.

Game management from the first pitch will prevent most problems. I do mainly JUCO, High School Varsity down to park district. Regardless of the level always look the part.
Shoes polished clean uniform etc. The lower the level the more firmer I am. If I get chirping from coaches speak to them privately don't be a hard a$$ and show them up. Do this as soon as it occurs don't wait until the last inning. Hustle and work hard on every play and be strong with your calls. The sharper your mechanics the more believable you will be. I do over 100 games a season while I don't keep track of the number of ejections I would guess a couple of players for smart mouths 5 or 6 for rules infractions that waarant ejections and 5 or 6 coaches. My attitude is that I never eject. The actions of the individuals cause them to eject themselves.

Atl Blue;

I learned something valuable from you today. Thank you. After I wrote my first response to you, I went back and reviewed my four part series written two years ago about the 0.04 second time frame of uncertainty. You can read it if you are a subscriber at:

http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/2662

Anyway, in my series I discuss that I had someone tape me making wacker calls in real games. I write that I was unable to determine if I was right or wrong in most of the plays. Now I know why. I had a regular VCR with 30 frames per second.

Peter

I think I'll try this!
 

BRings up some interesting comments. I have a digital editing machine that we use and this spring I'm going to video our training.

Now my machine is set for 20 frames per second, but I can advance it frame by frame.

That should be interesting to see how our umpires are doing just as a %.

Nothing serious, but just for fun.

I still think the veteran umpires know an out and a safe and don't get too much grief for it.

The same call made by a young or rookie umpires (less than 3 years in Garth's state) will catch lots of grief.

Thanks
David

Re: I think I'll try this!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

I still think the veteran umpires know an out and a safe and don't get too much grief for it. The same call made by a young or rookie umpires (less than 3 years in Garth's state) will catch lots of grief. Thanks David

David: I'm surprised that someone hasn't already posted the answer to all this "is he safe or is it memorex?"

It's memorex. Certainly some will attack what I'm going to say. (But Peter's probably right; they will be attacking me, not the idea. Envy is horrible, isn't it? grin)

Here's what I do, and here's what I teach: The instant the play is over, if I'm not sure what I saw, I yell and signal "Out." It's not the same thing as "when in doubt, call an out." It's my attempt in ensure consistency based on the closeness of plays at first.

The ball runs a lot faster than any player. I figure the odds are in my favor. Sometimes at the pre-game when I'm on the bases, and both coaches know me -- I probaobly called them in Mustang -- I'll hear: "Oh, you're on the bases? Nobody's safe at first today."

I don't mind that remark.

Carl;

As an assignor, I almost included something along the lines of your answer in my initial response.

Yes, Joe Jara knows from coaches that he is a good umpire. Likewise, we have a dozen or so umpires out of 300 in our association that know that they are good umpires because they make coaches' lists. I show up on some lists as well.

However, this does no good for the 288 umpires out of 300 that never show up on any lists. They have no reliable feedback from coaches. The dozen or so big dogs that make the lists like to delude themselves that they are the only good umpires.

As an assignor, I know they they are only half right. They are good umpires who know how to kiss a$$. There are plenty of other great umpires among the 288 that don't make the lists.

Finally, every now and then we have an umpire show up on the list who is questionable at best. Maybe he gives great blow jobs, I don't know.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 11:36 AM]

Lets see that about 12 people for 100+ games. Wow that would have taken me about 5 years to get those numbers. ??????????????????

Maybe you should re-examine what your doing out there and try to improve it.

Jicecone;

Actually, this is an indication that Gordon is doing his job. I have an average of one ejection every 8-10 games going back many years. Like Tee, I keep a log of my games. Especially if one does a lot of rec ball, the ejection count is going to be high unless one puts up with a lot of crap or works in a league where the President rules with an iron fist and severely punishes ne'er do wells.

I have umpires tell me all the time that their ejection count is low because they do preventative officiating. That works to a certain extent. However, when I review their games or work with them, the truth is that they ignore a lot of stuff that they should be dealing with. Eventually, another umpire (me) or an assignor gets to deal with it.

Peter

Five years to get 100 games? No wonder your ejection numbers are low.

This seems off to me...are we to work "above and beyond the call" to *keep* players and coaches from ejection? I thought they all earned it themselves..... heh

How does this foster 'respect', and avoid being called a 'pushover'? *puzzled*

[QUOTE]Originally posted by His High Holiness

Quote:

Yes, Joe Jara knows from coaches that he is a good umpire. Likewise, we have a dozen or so umpires out of 300 in our association that know that they are good umpires because they make coaches' lists. I show up on some lists as well. However, this does no good for the 288 umpires out of 300 that never show up on any lists. They have no reliable feedback from coaches. The dozen or so big dogs that make the lists like to delude themselves that they are the only good umpires. Peter [Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 2nd, 2004 at 11:36 AM]

Uh, we do have lists all right. The high school association (about 100) uses a computer program (designed by yours truly) that assigns via preference lists turned in by the coaches. We assign for about 50 schools.

Each coach hands in a list of 75 (about 3/4ths) of the association umpires RANKED from "most-like-to-see" to "least-like-to-see." On the day of assignment (the assignor does two weeks at time), he selects the date and ranks the games in order of importance (his opinion alone). The computer, on command, assigns the umpires. We average about 22 games a date.

It works this way: School A plays School B. The computer looks at the preferences and assigns the highest ranked available umpire on the School A list as the plate umpire -- IF he is on School B's list. It then moves to School B's list and picks the highest ranked available umpire for the bases -- IF he is on School A's list.

An example: I was number two on the McAllen Bulldog's list. They picked me for their bi-district 3-game playoff. I was number 38 (he only listed 38 umpires!) on the Weslaco East list: I once ejected the head coach when he played in Pony. When I retired in the mid 90s, I was ranked first on the lists of 14 schools and I was in the top 10 in all but three. I was picked for the play-offs for 18 consecutive seasons. (This may not mean I'm a good umpire though. All things are relative.)

In Texas generally and in the Rio Grande Valley specifically we know what the coaches think of us.

In order. (grin)

Hey Peter, If YOUR shoe fits YOUR foot, then by all means were it. I know where you stand on this and can care less what your feelings are about those that disagree. I keep people in the game, don't take any crap and I'm dam good at what I do. That doesn't even take in consideration how good of an umpire I am either.

So Peter please, don't preach your umpiring whatever you may call it to me because, I'm only about 150,000% positive I would out umpire your type, any day of the week. Sound Cocky,, YOU BET

OMG!!!
 

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_16_2.gif' alt='Future Club' border=0></a>

That was great. :D

Peace

My, my, aren't we sensitive today. Defensive too, I might add.

You felt perfectly entitled to put down Gordon with a smug post for your perceived biases of his umpiring. However, when someone turns the tables and does it to you, you become all huffy.

I have trained hundreds of umpires and supervised or assigned probably 600-800 over the years. The go along and get along umpires like you have a valuable place in our organization. They form the majority of the staff and are the bread and butter of the operation. It's great for customer service.

There are just not suitable for the big time, that's all.

Jon Bible et al, can umpire with few ejections. They use their reputations to control the mob. Umpires who strictly work in season high school and conference college baseball, use the high school ADs and threat of NCAA sanctions to accomplish the same thing.

Summer ball/rec ball umpires have very little behind them other than their own skills as a diplomat or an a$$hole, depending on the situation. When I see those umpires with a low ejection count, I know that they are passing their responsibilities on to others or...

...their name is Jon Bible, Dave Yeast, Bob Gustin, or any of about 100 other umpires with a known reputation. Are you claiming that you are in that category of umpire?

Peter

I am taking that I have their respect because this year to determine who called regional state playoffs we used rating from COACHES. I as a 3rd year varisty official was picked and ended up calling one of the 6A (our higest level) championship games. So obviously if they didn't think I could call they would not have rated me high.


By calling a good game I don't have the problems. While I have admitted I am not perfect I don't have the problems others do because it is looked at as being not the norm as far as missing things. I also treat the coaches with respect and not as rats until they prove they don't deserve it.

As far as the couple that I probably should have dumped but didn't, last time I checked I am there for the kids and I will do what I can to keep a game going. 2 of the coaches that deserved to be dump would have ended the game to a forfeit with the ejection. Maybe I am wrong for worrying about such things but in both cases the coach looked like an a$$ as opposed to me looking like I did not have control over the game. Sure it probably brought the game down a bit, but so would have a forfeit of an otherwise great game. The other I was a rookie and did not handle it properly (learning experience).

As far as your analogy about the cop and the drunk driver, I could twist it around to the father that slaps around his kid every chance he gets. Maybe the kids deserved it, maybe he did not. Who is going to sort that out? But last time I checked, this is a game and not a life and death situation that drunks or abusive parents are.

Hahahaha,
 

"I am taking that I have their respect because this year to determine who called regional state playoffs we used rating from COACHES."

If I was the type that wanted to start a Friday "$h1thouse" I could suggest that the rats selected you because they knew you could be easily manipulated and therefore had little "respect" but were part of their plan.

Of course I am way above starting an issue like that in any thread.

Tee

Re: Hahahaha,
 

I know you're not trying to start a sh!thouse, and neither am I.

But your logic doesn't make sense if BOTH coaches have to agree on the selection.

Let's say I'm Coach Rat1 of the McAllen Bulldogs, and for the Regional Playoffs I want Tee Chris as the umpire because I can easily manipulate him. Certainly, Coach Rat2 of the Edinburg Bobcats will know what Rat1 is planning: After all, they are both familiar with the umpire -- and each other.

There's just no getting round it: If <i>both coaches must agree in advance</i> on who will umpire the game, the umpires chosen are not picked because they are easily manipulated. They are picked because they are <i>not</i> easy to push around.

Lots of umpires, like you, are not familiar with a system where coaches select their umpires.

For five years in a row I was picked by Tony Barbosa, the coach of Brownsville Pace, three times reaching the area championship round. Coach Barbosa did not particularly like me (I umpired him when he pitched in D1), but he always figured I could keep control of the game. I learned that after he and I had both retired, so he had nothing to gain by being candid.

Re: Hahahaha,
 

Tee;

Friday s$$$houses are best started around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. This is a super Friday to start a s$$$house because Monday is a holiday.

You jumped the gun, little dog of s$$$houses. You have much to learn. :D

There is a certain class of coach who will never respect an umpire even if that umpire is from MLB or the CWS. Although in the minority, this kind of coach is always looking for a way to manipulate the umpire. For this type of coach, fear is the only weapon that works for the umpire. And you are correct, these types of coaches select umpires that they can best manipulate. Part of their game plan is to convince the umpire that they respect him. As usual, I have a series of articles on this subject on the paid part of the site.

Peter

Being a good umpire has nothing to do with summer baseball ejections. I worked 2 small college conferences (I'm in WI and that's as good as it gets around here) and as many HS games I wanted this year with zero ejections. This summer I was in double digits.

I am not there for the kids, to keep the game moving, blah, blah, blah. I'm there to umpire. If someone behaves in such a way that they need to leave, I'm going to stop and take care of business.

Someone who is there for the kids should realize that letting the coach behave badly is seen by those kids. If there's any message I'll get through to those kids it's that behaving in a bad way won't be tolerated.

If the coach pulls his team, that's his choice. I had a coach threaten that this summer after I ran him. I told him it was, as always, up to him. A parent stepped in and told the coach to get lost.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Sep 3rd, 2004 at 09:43 AM]

Papa C:
 

"But your logic doesn't make sense if BOTH coaches have to agree on the selection."

Not true old wise one, both rats, INDEPENDANT of each other, could think that they could manipulate the umpire. EACH rat could think that "he" has the personal relationship with the umpire.

"Lots of umpires, like you, are not familiar with a system where coaches select their umpires."

Carl please research before typing:

I am very aware of this system (while I do not umpire in Texas were the only real baseball is played) as it was in place for many decades in my little corner of the US.

In fact, I was selected by both teams in the American Legion final one year. Did I think it was because I was such a great umpire? AT THE TIME I DID -- but in reality it was simply because each rat knew exactly what he would get from me . . . each, I am sure, had their own subtle way of extracting an advantage from me.

Now comes my lament:

I have posted for YEARS that I averaged about an ejection once every ten games during my first 3,100 games. The number was pretty consistent.

Over the last FIVE season I have had ONE ejection.

I don't even have rats come out to argue any more . . . I miss that.

Am I a better umpire? I don't think so. Part of the change is that during my high school season there are strong financial penalties to schools for ejections. As documentation our local group worked more games this past school season and had the fewest number of ejections in the last 10 years.

As with Rich during the summer thngs change. I am lucky that I draw games during the summer that involve pretty much the contenders (also these are teams that even during the summer are coached by the high school coach).

I have seen terrible rat behavior in games I do not work and therefore more ejections durig summer ball.

Carl, I really made my post in jest and hope that our readers recognize that.

Tee

Re: Re: Hahahaha,
 

Having called in TX for 10 years I know exactly what Carl is talking about and it IS a pretty good sign when two coaches can agree on an umpire because they all know each other very well.

Actually, my favorite story was the year that the veteran coach from Arlington High was a known problem and I had to eject him early in the season because he crossed the line.

I had another of his games and he wouldn't even speak to me later in the season.

Come state playoffs and guess who picks me to call his game. Of course the other coach had to agree.

During the contest I have a tough call on a steal at second. Coach comes out and everyone is expecting a big bruhah as he usually does.

His comment, "that's why I picked you for this game, I knew you'd make the tough call no matter what."
He walks back to his dugout and we continue.

Respect goes both ways.

Thanks
David

I am new to this forum but having coaches pick umpires sounds a little scary to me. In my association, we have four evaluations submitted for every conference weekend from:

1. Crew Chief
2. Home School
3. Away School
4. Independent Evaluator

Ofcourse the experience/knowlwdge level of each evaluator (as well as the view point) can vary. However, the Supervisor of Officials considers the source when reading the written reports and between the four of them, can decifer how well the officating was for that particular weekend.

There's no doubt that coaches may have their own motives in mind when selecting umpires (some crew chiefs may also have their own motives in mind when writting evaluations) but the bottom line is the Supervisor of Officials is the one who should ultimately decide what umpires are assisgned to what games.

Part of the problem with coaches/schools deciding umpires is "Black Balling" or "Red Lining". In the past, if a coach had a problem with an umpire, he would not allow that official to work for that school. Thanks to our Supervisor, that practice has been eliminated and schools no longer have that power.

Bottom line, find a honest, fair individual with great people skills to represent your organization and have that person assign umpires, not coaches. Just my opinion

Sensitive? Defensive? Smug? Biases? Hmmmmmm?? I was actually trying to introduce the gentlemen to a more humane approach to officiating.

Peter, I have no intention or time for a debate here, because I really have trouble believing that someone with your experience, just doesn't know better. And if that is true, then agreeing that we disagree may be the extent of our discussion.

I don't work in customer service, I don't put up with crap in my games, and I don't need to throw people out. If that puts me into your top 100 group, thank you. Lets see here,
Bible, Yeast, Gustin, Annaccone, Yea! I guess it does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?

Have a good day.

JMHO
 

I just read the original post. Just moved into nice new home.....finally got internet up and running.....SO, all I have to say is.....Do Not Fu&& up!! If a skippy wants to *****, hear him out(reasonably) then scoot him away.

I have screwed calls in my "younger years", been honest enough(sometimes) to tell skippy, "hey, I fu%%ed up"

Carl is correct in his ol saying, that ejections are usually caused by umps screw ups.........avoid it.

Re: JMHO
 

I had 10 ejections this summer and in my heart I got every one of the calls that led to those ejections correct.

Rats see the games with team colors. I can't control that, but I can control them.

I think most umpires I know have greater patience with a complaining coach if they are uncertain of their call. If they have greater certainty of their call, they'll listen to the coach's complaint, then explain what they saw, why they called what they did, accept a reasonable disagreement, and then tell the coach the game is ready to proceed. Any further "argument" or unreasonable comment may be cause for warning or ejection.

I disagree with Peter in using quick ejections, but wouldn't disagree with quick warnings. I like to think I wouldn't eject without warning unless the participant's action was flagrant, and therefore, an obviously justifiable ejection. I also think that there are too many marshmallows out there that endure too much continued sniping regarding past decisions without putting a stop to it.

Like Rich, I incur significant ej's in summer ball where all the players want to be the coaches. I've called HS ball since 1980 and have had only one EJ, and can recall only one instance where I likely should have dumped but didn't (he asked me if I could spell "scratch" to which I replied "not in this game, I can't"---end of that converstation).

Regarding the coachs' selection of playoff officials.......
I believe much has to do with who the association shows to the teams during the season, who the association best promotes (which they do), and who the association partners you with----<U><B>all of which</u></b> is certainly impacted by the buddy system within the organization. I totally agree with Peter that there are many fine officials not selected for playoffs, and add that many of those not selected may indeed be better than those that have been promoted by the association through their regular season assignments. I've also seen many not so fine officials---including homers---as accepted by the coaches involved in the contest.

To Sal I'd say......I'd enjoy calling with ya.......
And to David B. I'd say......I enjoyed calling with you at Arlington High although I doubt if you recall it....


Freix

Re: Notches on the belt.
 

Exactly!

Some umpires <i>have</i> to eject because they do not have the "tools" (i.e social skills or game managment skills) to manipulate the game toward a peaceful continuation/conclusion.

Manipulation sounds like a harsh word, but there is such a thing as <i>constructive</i> manipulation. A good umpire is a psychiatrist, of sorts. He understands what motivates people and what they *really* want. A crafty umpire can often steer a potentially volatile situation into calm waters without necessarily having to resort to any ejections.

That is not to say that an ejection is not always appropriate. It may be. But some umpires are too quick with the trigger. Ejections are not always in the best interest of the game and they are not necessarily a means to get a game under control.

If an umpire lacks these people skills, he probably *should* eject - because there are few good options left.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Sal: The system works very well, I assure you. BOTH coaches have to agree, so that makes for give-and-take. I'll take Carl and you can have Mario as long as we agree Mario doesn't get the plate and Carl doesn't get the bases."

Besides, it's set up by the University Interscholastic League (orginally fromed to supervise debate competition in the early 1900s.

It's run by the most powerful men in the school system, the district superintendents.

Come to Texas. You'll like it.

The good ole days ...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Quote:

Originally posted by jumpmaster And to David B. I'd say......I enjoyed calling with you at Arlington High although I doubt if you recall it.... Freix

Ah the good ole days. As much as I enjoy calling baseball now I still remember the times in Ft. Worth.

That was the most fun that I've ever had umpiring and where I earned my stripes (the hard way I should say).

Thanks to my pal Earl Bates who believed in me (God rest his soul now) and moved me to the top of the umpiring ranks even though I was just a young lad.

Thanks
David

Re: Re: Notches on the belt.
 

Some of us would rather not take the effort, Dave. Some of us expect that people will behave appropriately and they can go home if they don't. ESPECIALLY in summer baseball where it isn't the coach's JOB on the line -- those HS/College guys I will give a lot of rope to, but those guys are also the ones who will leave the field when you remind them that you're pretty close to ejecting them.

I've never had a HS or college coach tell me I "suck." I had two summer coaches say that this season (along with one tell me that I was an "idiot"). Why should I even TRY to deal with people like this? Goodbye, wait for your team at the bus or by the cars.

--Rich

Re: Re: Re: Notches on the belt.
 

Oh - I agree! If a coach gets personal with the umpire by calling him names or insulting him - HE'S GONE! No questions asked. This is especially true at the youth league level.

My only coach ejection of my umpiring career (I've ejected several players) was for the outburst, "You're clueless!"

Those are easy ejections, however. I don't think anybody would disagree that a coach who verbally insults an umpire on a personal level should be ejected.

To me, what gets a coach ejected has much more to do with the level of disruption he is interjecting into the game. I'll have great tolerance for whatever hair is up his butt as long as the game moves along smoothly.

I haven't had many ball & strike issues come up in my games. But the few times it has, I have always given a warning. It has always stopped.

The tone and demeanor an umpire uses has a way of either escalating or quelling some disputes. This is often an intrinsic part of the umpire's personality. Some people naturally exude an aura of arrogance and confrontation. I've seen many umpires like this over the years. They have more than their share of problems.

To be fair, there are coaches who have similar traits. They, too, have more than their share of confrontations.

The real fireworks begin when two arrogant and stubborn individuals meet on the same field, one being an umpire, the other being a coach - neither of whom have the tools or skills to avert Armageddon.

It's not always about making some kind of extreme effort to manipulate the game once the fireworks begin. More often than not, it is the ability to avoid the fireworks in the first place.

Knowing when to ignore comments.
Being thick skinned.
Body language.
Choosing your words carefully.
Knowing when to listen and when to take control.

These are all small elements of manipulating a game.

To those not inclined along these lines, this is all very repugnant. To them, this is just a bunch of mamsy-pamsy psycho-babble bullcrap that they don't engage in. To their way of thinking, it is simply more expedient to eject. There's no doubt ejections are more expedient - whether they are in the best interest of the current game is another issue. Some umpires don't make such discernments - nor care. Which is fine - as long as their method works for them. But such umpires should not be too critical of umpires who get similarly favorable results with different methods.

There are hard-nosed coaches who get good results from their team just as some easy-going coaches oftentimes get just as good results. Is one right and the other wrong? Only the results matter.

It's not so different with umpires.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Sep 5th, 2004 at 12:58 PM]

Re: Re: I think I'll try this!
 

Carl:

FWIW, I teach the same thing, so it must be right.

Re: JMHO
 

Chris:

Carl is NOT right for 90% of amateur ball. For college, HS and top level men's ball where you have smart coaches, this is true. For LL, other youth ball and summer leagues, ejections usually have nothing to due with booted calls.

Re: Re: Re: I think I'll try this!
 

Jay Miner always said the biggest mistake amateur umpires made was failure to call outs at first.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I think I'll try this!
 

[/B][/QUOTE]Jay Miner always said the biggest mistake amateur umpires made was failure to call outs at first. [/B][/QUOTE]

That is certainly not a problem I have

Re: Re: JMHO
 

Blaine: This is what you've never understood: I agree with what you just wrote. Whenever I say that an ejection generally follows a screw up by an umpire, I <i>always</i> except non-professional coaches. Summer ball? Everyone's read my motto: Eject early and often, and you'll solve a lot of your problems. Rich Fronheiser called plenty of summer ball this year -- and had 10 ejections, just 10 more than in the entire regular season.

Untrained coaches don't know when or what to argue. So out they come -- and out they go!

But a professional (someone who's paid to umpire: high school, college, even MSBL in my area) <i>usually</I> goes bananas only when he is certain the umpire was wrong.

The point: Learn the rules, get into position, take a little heat when you blow one -- and everybody goes home happy.

Re: Re: Re: JMHO
 

One of your writers, wobster, appears to have overlooked that rather significant caveat in a recent article, when he said:

"I heard it said (and I believe it) that nine out of ten times, when a coach gets ejected, it is the umpire's fault."

... and failed to include the "summer ball" exception. I think he later allowed that he "heard it said" by you, at one of your clinics. Unfortunately, his misunderstanding of the complete lesson caused him some grief on the boards, and cost him some credibility with some of his readers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: JMHO
 

Once again, I take responsibility. The clinic was for umpires of USSSA 18u to 9u. All coaches in those leagues are volunteer, as they are where Chad umpires.

The entire context of the discussion of game control was: How does the umpire keep volunteer coaches off his back.

So when I read Chad saying that 90% of ejections result from umpire error, I simply extrapolated what I'd said onto it. I should have corrected it, which would have required but one word:

"I heard it said (and I believe it) that nine out of ten times, when a <i>[professional]</i> coach gets ejected, it is the umpire's fault."

Thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JMHO
 

word:

"I heard it said (and I believe it) that nine out of ten times, when a <i>[professional]</i> coach gets ejected, it is the umpire's fault."

Thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]


Does that include Bobby Cox ?????!!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JMHO
 

Does that include Bobby Cox ?????!!!! [/B][/QUOTE]Well, if you count Lou Piniella, then perhaps it's 8 out of 10. (grin)