Coaches

[UmpJM]

Rich & GB,

Come on now, I thought the umpires had to follow the rules too.

"Rule 2.0

THE MANAGER is a person appointed by the club to be responsible for the team's actions on the field, and to represent the team in communications with the umpire and the opposing team. A player may be appointed manager.

....

(b) The manager may advise the umpire that he has delegated specific duties prescribed by the rules to a player or coach, and any action of such designated representative shall be official. The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires."

Since "communications with the umpire" is a "specific dut[y] prescribed by the rules" which the manager may "delegate ... to a ... coach", it would seem that you're refusal to talk to such a coach could be deemed "contrary to these rules" - i.e., illegal.

Am I missing something here? ;-)

Certainly not suggesting that the umpires should tolerate a "committee of coaches" in any discussion.

JM

(edited to reflect the actual text of the rules & add the "committee" comment)

[Edited by CoachJM on May 6th, 2005 at 07:45 PM]

[ozzy6900]

Assistnt Coaches

They go good with a little mustard and basted with BBQ Sauce.

************************************

Assistant coaches are there for the players only. They are not to communicate with the umpires about anything other than "Hi & How are you".

[GarthB]

Originally posted by CoachJM
Rich & GB,

Come on now, I thought the umpires had to follow the rules too.

"Rule 2.0

THE MANAGER is a person appointed by the club to be responsible for the team's actions on the field, and to represent the team in communications with the umpire and the opposing team. A player may be appointed manager.

....

(b) The manager may advise the umpire that he has delegated specific duties prescribed by the rules to a player or coach, and any action of such designated representative shall be official. The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires."

Since "communications with the umpire" is a "specific dut[y] prescribed by the rules" which the manager may "delegate ... to a ... coach", it would seem that you're refusal to talk to such a coach could be deemed "contrary to these rules" - i.e., illegal.

Am I missing something here? ;-)

Certainly not suggesting that the umpires should tolerate a "committee of coaches" in any discussion.

JM

(edited to reflect the actual text of the rules & add the "committee" comment)

[Edited by CoachJM on May 6th, 2005 at 07:45 PM]

Missing nothing coach, just guilty of coachlike logic and stringing together items to attempt to justify your position. It really doesn't necessarily follow that "communications with the umpire" is a "specific duty" may "delegate ... to a ... coach", however what does properly always remain in place is "The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires".

Thanks for your input, however.

[tmp44]

For me personally, it takes a lot, whether HC or AC or me to throw them. That being said, I will give the HC a lot more latitude than the AC; further, if I have an AC come onto the field to argue rather than the manager, he might as well keep on running to his car. But as far as chirping and stuff, both HCs and ACs don't exist for me unless it starts to get out of hand.

[Rich]

Originally posted by GarthB

Missing nothing coach, just guilty of coachlike logic and stringing together items to attempt to justify your position. It really doesn't necessarily follow that "communications with the umpire" is a "specific duty" may "delegate ... to a ... coach", however what does properly always remain in place is "The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires".

Thanks for your input, however.

Typical spaghetti logic from a coach that has figured out how to open up a rule book. Thank you, drive thru. Here's your cheese.

[Tim C]

I do not discuss anything with assistants.

Period.

They can say: "Take two and hit to right" and,

"round the bag, round the bag!"

See my article soon to appear on the paid portion of this site.

[thumpferee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CoachJM
[B]Rich & GB,

Come on now, I thought the umpires had to follow the rules too.

"Rule 2.0

THE MANAGER is a person appointed by the club to be responsible for the team's actions on the field, and to represent the team in communications with the umpire and the opposing team. A player may be appointed manager.

....

(b) The manager may advise the umpire that he has delegated specific duties prescribed by the rules to a player or coach, and any action of such designated representative shall be official. The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires."

Since "communications with the umpire" is a "specific dut[y] prescribed by the rules" which the manager may "delegate ... to a ... coach", it would seem that you're refusal to talk to such a coach could be deemed "contrary to these rules" - i.e., illegal.

Am I missing something here? ;-)

JM

QUOTE]

Yes you are missing something here coach!

Once the manager advises the umpire that he has delegated specific duties prescribed by the rules to a player or coach, any action of such designated representative shall be official.

Which means that person is now the manager.

THE MANAGER is a person appointed by the club to be responsible for the team's actions on the field, and to represent the team in communications with the umpire and the opposing team. A player may be appointed manager.

The manager shall always be responsible for his team's conduct, observance of the official rules, and deference to the umpires.

[LMan]

I tell the HCs in the pregame something to the effect that "your team has one voice on any 'discussions' with me, and that voice is you, none other."