I was at a baseball gathering last night and was told that the body that governs Michigan High School athletics has informed all of their coaches that they will be required to take the NFHS Part 1 exam in their sport. He claims to have read it in a sports publication somewhere. Has anyone seen this or knows firsthand? It seems like a logical extension of the commitment to sportsmanship they espouse.

It's in RefMag. As I recall the article, it's only required if the coach doesn't attend a rules meeting.

If the coach doesn't attend the rules meeting and doesn't take the test, then he can't coach the team in the post-season.

We can only pray that Anthony is reading this.

North Dakota requires all coaches in all varsity sports to take part I of the rules test for their sport. If they don't take the test the school gets fined.

Forgot that they also have to attend the first rules meeting of the year. They have to do both, they can't pick either or.

[Edited by gsf23 on Oct 26th, 2004 at 11:33 AM]

YU.P.

http://www.mhsaa.com/administration/0405rules.html

Anthony can read this all he likes. He has little say in this matter. This is an issue for the IHSA Advisory Committee and the other committees to agree to. He can bring it up or make it an issue, but the issue has to go to a vote with the ADs and Principals.

Peace

...cue the harpist for dream music.

SCENE: Any HS Baseball Field in America

...ACTION

Coach: W-H-A-T??? You’ve got to be kidding me. There is no way that you are going to eject him.

Umpire: You can’t run the same kid for the pitcher and catcher, coach. I told you that last game. Now, who’s going in to run?

Coach: No one else calls that! I don’t think it’s even a rule.

Umpire: I knew you’d say that afer last week’s game, so I checked online and saw that your Part 1 score was a 62. I got a 99...again. I didn’t see you at the rule interp, either, so I figure I’m on pretty solid ground here. Who are you putting in, coach?

Coach: Wait a minute...every year I get one kid from the track team and suit him up. You mean, I can’t do that anymore? Where does it say that?

Umpire: I’ll show you after the game. Now...who are you going to put in to run for the pitcher?

Coach: Can I have the guy who made the last out?

Umpire: Yes...but we are going to make your batter call his field from now on. And we will play pitcher’s hand out, okay?

Coach: Are you mocking me?

FADE TO BLACK

I met with Anthony last night. We discussed this very thing. He said that he will look into this, but is worried that some coaches will balk at being told what to do. (The IHSA still believes that they work for the schools and not the student/athletes. Policy has long been dictated by the establishment and when the IHSA rocks the boat, it often makes the nightly news.) He is very interested in the potential. Since he works 15 feet away from Dave Gannaway, it's a pretty good bet that the Officials Advisory Committee will be aprised.

Anthony gave the keynote address at the UMPS annual banquet and made a point of praising the crew working the ALCS. He said that the goal of every Illinois High School umpire should be to do whatever is necessary to get the call right. I almost fell out of my chair! The guys at my table started chuckling because they have been reading the happenings here. He said that he was going to ask his clinicians to promote this way of thought and encourage everyone to start thinking the same.

Anthony is well aware of what it takes to make baseball thrive in our state. If the baseball advisor runs contrary to what Anthony wants, the rest of his term will probably be a little bit bumpy. Officials usually stick together and there is no real reason why they would not support this cause. The ADs are the bigger problem. They fight daily budget battles and will probably get an earful from teh union about whether of not the coach will be reimbursed for travel to the Rule Interp or clinic. The Part 1 can be taken online, so they can't argue that.

I just can't believe that every official doesn't think that this is a good idea. It can only make the game better.

Be aware of the coach who falls into the category that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.

What is UMPS and who is Anthony?

Anthony is Anothy Holman Assistant Executive director for the Illoinis High School association. His duties include overseeing the administartion of high School baseball in IL

Why would that shock you? What else is he going to say, do not do that? That would be almost like saying, "we want consistency." Of course you do, but how you achieve that is another story.

My statement was not about whether the officials want something like that implemented. Officials suggest a lot of things and it never gets passed because the ADs and Principal committees do not pass things. Or they table the issue for years.

Peace

Part I test for all coaches
 

I am a baseball/softball umpire in Michigan and our association makes all take part 1 at our AGM- even the old fogies like me who have been doing it 20 some odd years. I think it would be great for Michigan to make the coaches take the part 1 exam each year.

I also referee soccer in Michigan and Indiana (one of the perks of living on the border)and in order to referee in the Indiana post season tournament I have to take part II and pass with 90% or better to be in the referee pool. Don't know about baseball/softball as I do not umpire in Indiana (can't get out of work in time for the DHs).

In general I think that if you have an objective standard like the part I or part II tests, and have coaches and officials take them, the sport improves.

To my Michigan Baseball Brethren,

Thank you for verifying what was only a rumor a few days ago. I applaud any action that makes the coaches accountable. We make teachers prove their mastery of the subject before they can profess; coaches are instructors, too.

I take issue with Mr. Mills' statement that the average umpire would suffer if the coaches were made to attend rule interps and take the Part 1 test. Sports is about skill and tactics. A knowledgeable coach always has the advantage. Are you concerbed that an inept official may meet up with a studied coach? That is shameful - put the onus on the one getting paid to administrate the game, not lower the bar to make things equal. In a world full of lawyers, I want the police officer to be as learned of the law. Afterall, he is the one enforcing the rules!

High School athletics is predicated on participation, sportsmanship and safety. The coach is the teacher and the official is the administrator. We simply insure that what he is teaching is legitimate and fair. After all, how many times have we heard, "What? That's not a balk. We've taught him that for three years."

In my opinion, an informed coach is not dangerous, but, an uninformed umpire is.

[Edited by WindyCityBlue on Oct 26th, 2004 at 11:33 AM]

This is for any of the coaches , or parents, out there who read this board.

It still boggles my mind how many coaches don't pick up a rule book. I started out as a softball/baseball umpire. I have since moved on to coaching those sports as well as football and basketball.

One of the first things I do every year is get the rulebook from the High School Association and read it cover to cover. I attend rules meetings and have even been to a few officials meetings just to get a better understanding of the rules and the interpretations the officials in my area are using.

I cannot begin to count the number of games in the last 12 years that we have won or had a chance to win because my coaching staff and myself knew what the rules were. A coach who is well-versed in the rules of the game has a tremendous advantage over a coach who isn't.

Peter,
You wrote...

I cannot begin count the number of sub NCAA games where I have seen coaches bully or manipulate umpires into calls. Coaches whine and complain because it works on occasion. A good course in psychology wins more games than knowing the rules - at least at the lower levels.



I agree that knowing when, what and how to say things to coaches will help you in the long run. However, how can you argue with making the coach take the Part 1 test each season. As you know, a good test score does not equate to a good official. The same can be said for the coach. Most of us have experienced the coach that likes to test us. Either he is trying to see how we match up or he is trying to trip us up and put us on the defensive. Bullying is a whole different issue. We can end that very quickly.

I contend that a coach that actually knows the rules may not argue as much. There are always exceptions, but my favorite coaches are the guys that know the rules and understand my mechanics. They don't come busting out when I balk a kid, throw a bat out of the game or impose a ground rule call. They actually make my job easier.

I recognize that some coaches may wield their knowledge over a green official, but they will eventually meet their match. Wouldn't you rather have a coach that knew the rules rather than having to explain your calls all of the time?

If an umpire is going to let that happen, then they shouldn't be out there in the first place.

And as far as weilding knowledge over a green umpire, if he/she makes a mistake on a rule interpretation, then yes, I am going to go out and get it corrected, no matter how green they are.

I also agree that coaches that do take to time to know the rules argue a lot less. I've only argued one judgement call in 12 years, and only argued a few rules interps. But that could also come from the fact that I did my share of umpiring before getting into coaching and still officiate in the off season.

I ask you, which is more dangerous to the game...

a high school coach that doesn't know the rules and interps or the umpire who doesn't?

I recognize that there are many members that just LOVE doing freshman and sophomore baseball. Thank you for doing a job that would just kill me. Please understand where this comment comes from though:

Most underlevel coaches deserve the umpires they get.

I'm flattered, but I didn't make this up. It came from a speaker at a baseball clinic I attended many years ago. I'll never forget it.

Rather than view this as a put down, I embraced it as a challenge to get better and know more about the game than the guy making the line up card. It has served me well.

Who is more dangerous?
 

Windy, by far a coach that doesn't know the rules is more dangerous. The real question is to whom is he more dangerous?

An official who doesn't know the rules will only have an affect on a few games, a coach is teaching the kids the wrong way to play the game day after day at every pratice. I feel that this is certainly more dangerous (to the kids) that it is if I didn't know about the balk/shoulder turn revision for next year.

Scott,

You are obviously too qualified to participate in the normal banter here. I dare say you are of Mensa caliber. The reason I opsed that question was to affirm my contention that it is important to get the coaches to the rules interpretation meetings and take the Part 1 test each year.

Why a coach wouldn't want to be aprised of the new rules, points of emphasis or updated mechanics is beyond comprehension. More importantly, since teachers are usually held to a set of standards, why wouldn't the coach be just as accountable?

As an official that has encountered both extremes of coaching knowledge, I would love to see a mandatory testing for all coaches. It is not important that the scores be posted or that we are even aware of a minimum for these men and women. The fact is, that if your Varsity Coach scores a 58 and his Assistants and Lower Level Coaches pull in 80's and 90's, there will be some teasing around the ol' rub down table! By their very competitive nature, we should see an improvement the next season.

To those officials that are afraid that the coach may know more about the rules and call them on it - shame on you! You should be happy to work on a field with competent coaches. Strategy and skill determine the game. Knowing all of the rules is just good strategy!

It can't hurt if coaches know the rules. What would really be nice is if coaches had an understanding of umpire mechanics. If they had a clue as to what our responsibilities are on a given play it might help them understand why a particular call was made. On a banger while they might not agree with the call at least if the official is in the proper position it might make it easier to accept the outcome.

I have been involved with sports most of my life. When I was a lifeguard I had to recert with a written and skills test every year. When I moved into soccer coaching I had to take periodic assessments and tests to keep my coaching license. As a USSF soccer referee I have to be assessed and pass a written and physical test each year to keep my grade. Further I have to pass Part II of the soccer test to referee post-season in Indiana. As a baseball/softball official my association madated that I take Part I each year at our AGM. The only time I did not have to take a test or show skill was when I was an assistant baseball coach. I think that not only in baseball, but in all sports the coaches should at least have to take the Part I test.

gordon and lawfive...

You can move up to the front of the class.
You have shown outstanding judgement.
Gold stars for both of you!

Things that make you say, "Huh ??!!!?"
 

I agree. More knowledge by everyone (fans, teams, officials) will better any game.


In the last year, the Upper Michigan Athletic Committee requested, to the Michigan High School Athletic Association, that <font color = green><B>the <U><font size = +2>Officials</U></font> in the Upper Peninsula be excused from the requirement of participating in the yearly rules meetings as a requirement for those officials to be assigned to the state tournaments.</B></font>

[<I>I had to read that four times to make sure my understanding was correct.</I>]
The MHSAA turned down the request.
mick

You can come up front, too.
You obviously understand the importance of testing and evaluating. You get two gold stars!

Re: Who is more dangerous?
 

Have to disagree a little on that one. An official who doesn't know the rules will have an effect on not only the games they do, but on all the games that those teams have afterward. I am sure we have all heard a coach or player say, "They let us do that last game!" or "They didn't make that call last time!" All those comments can be attributed to officials who either didn't know or didn't do their jobs.

Now, if I am teaching an illegal pickoff move because I don't know about the balk/shoulder turn revision, and in our first game, you as an umpire, never call a balk because you don't know the rule either, will I keep teaching the move?? Of course I will because you have told me that it is legal by not balking my pitcher.

If a coach is continually teaching kids things that are against the rules, (such as pick offs or the such, not dirty things) that kinda says something about the officials in that area. If the kids were getting called on it, they would probably quit teaching it that way.

[Edited by gsf23 on Oct 27th, 2004 at 05:17 PM]

Yeah, that is reasonable to not want to make a 200 mile trip for that. That's why MHSAA has meeting sites U.P. here 50-60 miles from everywhere. ;-)
mick

Late comment
 

Been away a bit...

I think as most of you have hinted or surmised, this raises the knowledge requirement for the official.

As officials, we should have been pushing the envelope to begin with. But now the coach is going to feel his knowledge is greater, that he is more ready to argue with his paucity of rules knowledge. Perhaps the officials that were sliding along on only a very basic rules knowledge are now going to have to increase their knowledge and be more prepared to defend/discuss.

Before, an official could simply act confident and the ignorant coach would acquiesce because he was 'unarmed.' Now that the coaches will be armed, the slacking official is either going to need to increase his rules knowledge or likely get ran over.

Overall, this is a good thing. Many are the officials that have been sliding along without diligent study... time to sharpen the saw.

Social skills will likely play a greater role in these more educated discussions too! :D

Front Row Joe.