Castaway

DG · #1 (**permalink**) Sun May 15, 2005, 09:34pm

In addition to college and high school games, I have worked at a 13-15 league that is close to my home and has good baseball. Today I was informed the league wants to scratch me. This was due to my unwillingess, on two occasions, to allow a 16 year old to warmup a pitcher behind the plate. Their argument was that he was a "coach". My argument was that he was a non-adult, and in fact, the Babe Ruth rules they play under require anyone warming up a pitcher at the plate to wear a mask. The two occassions this came up were with the same team, none of the other teams had a non-adult coach. I understand he was also a son of one of the other coaches, I don't know which. The league has decided they will abide by the Babe Ruth rules in the 13-15 division and the Cal Ripken division, on this issue. So, they have decided to comply, but have decided to scratch me, apparently for bringing it up. I will miss working there, but to me it was a liability issue I could not ignore.

Anyone have any similar experiences?

Tim C · #2 (**permalink**) Sun May 15, 2005, 09:38pm

I think their decision is based on fact and therefore fine.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #3 (**permalink**) Sun May 15, 2005, 09:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by DG
In addition to college and high school games, I have worked at a 13-15 league that is close to my home and has good baseball. Today I was informed the league wants to scratch me. This was due to my unwillingess, on two occasions, to allow a 16 year old to warmup a pitcher behind the plate. Their argument was that he was a "coach". My argument was that he was a non-adult, and in fact, the Babe Ruth rules they play under require anyone warming up a pitcher at the plate to wear a mask. The two occassions this came up were with the same team, none of the other teams had a non-adult coach. I understand he was also a son of one of the other coaches, I don't know which. The league has decided they will abide by the Babe Ruth rules in the 13-15 division and the Cal Ripken division, on this issue. So, they have decided to comply, but have decided to scratch me, apparently for bringing it up. I will miss working there, but to me it was a liability issue I could not ignore.

Anyone have any similar experiences?

It seems to me that the inmates are running the asylm, I am sorry I meant the 13-15 yr old league.

MTD, Sr.

DG · #4 (**permalink**) Sun May 15, 2005, 10:38pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
I think their decision is based on fact and therefore fine.

What fact are you referring to?

UmpJM · #5 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 12:36am

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
I think their decision is based on fact and therefore fine.

Tim C.,

If I'm reading DG's post correctly (it's possible that I am not), he is saying:

1. The rules that this league plays under require anyone who is "warming up" the catcher to wear a catcher's mask.

2. He has, on two occassions, insisted that the rule be complied with under his authority as umpire at the game - when the rule was being violated by a minor.

3. As a result of his proper enforcement of the rule, despite the league's "decision" that this is a rule and should be enforced, he has been "blackballed" from umpiring for this league.

Your comment seems to suggest that the league was somehow "proper" in blackballing DG.

I say Bull$hit!!!

My comment is that it is the league's, rather than DG's, loss.

JM

(Having read a number of his posts, DG seems to know what he's doing as an umpire. JMO)

akalsey · #6 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 01:46am

I would contend that any youth league is run by morons if they would fire a competent and knowlegdable umpire for anything short of direct harm toward children.

I took over the assigning for our local Little League this year after the previous guy quit at the beginning of the season. It is nearly impossible to find qualified umpires to work for us, mainly because of the behaviour of our past (and some current) board members. Unfortunately the scenario DG describes sounds all too familiar to me.

In the past we've had an umpire call a game for inclement weather only to have a board member overturn the decision and insist the teams keep playing. I let them know that if those anics take place this year, that would be the last game for which the league would have umpires.

It's simply unacceptable for a local league to ignore a safety rule or to overturn an umpire's judgement call, especially when that call applies to the safety of the participants.

DG, if you want to come out my way, I can get you all the 13-15yo games you'd want. And we'd be glad to have you.

[Edited by akalsey on May 16th, 2005 at 02:50 AM]

jicecone · #7 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 07:00am

If the rules say "anyone," then unless you insist on the adults also wearing a mask, you have a problem Houston.

Unless the rulebook also states that adults are exempt.

I am not condoning unsafe conditions and I don't think blackballing an official is the right thing to do either. However, sometimes we are our own worst enemy when it comes to enforcing rules that may or may not exist.

Now for those of you that are going to tell me about liability, well anybody can sue for anything, anytime and just about any place.

Tim C · #8 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 07:45am

. . . condeming DG. I am saying that a league decided the outcome.

They have selected to make a decision that appears to be against their own rules.

HOWEVER, they are the client and if they decide to not use the umpire that brought the decision to the front that is their choice.

I do not agree with the decison of the league to allow the "maskless" warm-up but I do support their right to use whomever they select to umpire their games.

That is all I meant by my reference.

bob jenkins · #9 (**permalink**) Mon May 16, 2005, 07:50am

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
. . . condeming DG. I am saying that a league decided the outcome.

They have selected to make a decision that appears to be against their own rules.

HOWEVER, they are the client and if they decide to not use the umpire that brought the decision to the front that is their choice.

I do not agree with the decison of the league to allow the "maskless" warm-up but I do support their right to use whomever they select to umpire their games.

That is all I meant by my reference.

Agreed. And DG has (possibly) a choice -- he can not work the league or he can work it and allow the 16-year old to warm up the pitcher without a mask.

If the league has enough umpires willing to allow the action, then DG won't be missed. If enough umpires follow DG's lead, then the rule will be changed.