Suggested reading, although nothing terribly new. Marc Hansen is a longtime columnist for the Des Moines Register. He is the author of this story.

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs....505240414/1036

Assuming OBR, the umpires were right under 4.06(a)(3):

No manager, player, substitute, coach, trainer or batboy shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coach's box or on the playing field, or elsewhere ... Call "Time," or employ any other word or phrase or commit any act while the ball is alive and in play for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit a balk.

That coach was completely in the wrong and was allowed to stay WAY to long.

I can't site the exact rule because I don't have my book with me but FED basically says the same thing. Umpires were correct!

I agree.....
 

This coach was allowed to stay wayyyyy to long. Here's the only technical problem I have with the whole thing. Assuming OBR and no modifications, the coach cannot be "restricted to the dugout" like he can in FED, correct? It's either put up w/ the s&!t or send 'em to the parking lot.

Re: I agree.....
 

Well....
The older the kids are, the less I recomend this: but under OBR 9.01b you CAN issue a bench arrest, under the aegis of directing the coach to "...do or refrain from doing anything ..." which has an effect on the administration of the rules.

With the younger groups, especially, you may only have ONE league-sanctioned adult in the dugout: EJ him/her, and the game is over for the kids. Bench arrest can have the useful effect(s) of penalising the coaches misbehavior, removing a burr from under your harness, and keeping the kids playing. Plus, almost none of the coaches at the lower levels will even THINK that there might not be a rule "allowing" this; and if they are too stoopid to accept benching as a milder alternative to ejection, and argue that you only have a choice between EJ and nothing: well, accomodate them, and make it an ejection.

"Put up with the s#!t" should never be an option: if the noise has reached the point where you are allowed to do something about it, then it has reached the point where you NEED TO do something about it.

Edit>>>
Oh, yeah: even giving this coach the benefit of a considerable doubt on the original "TIME" yell ["What was it you called Time for, coach? Since it seems to me that you are only interested now in getting the alleged balk that your shout induced?"]; the only thing(s) these umps did "wrong" was let him out on parole after the first bench arrest, and not run him at the first "NO, NO!", thereafter. 'Course, I think I would have been unable to restrain myself from launching him upon hearing "No, I'm trying to get you umps under control".

[Edited by cbfoulds on May 25th, 2005 at 02:11 PM]

TMP44
 

I know Todd.....(tough but fair) and no way he would have let this coach go on and on.......This coach is walking to the parking lot early in this situation.......

This does bring up a situation that we umpires bring on each other and that is letting some coaches get away with way too much, leaving future umpires a mess to contend with.......

See you at the meeting tonight Todd.

Stan

<i>But the coach can't let go. He makes a huge scene, spending the next several minutes telling the umpires how dumb they are.</i>

buh bye coach.

Heard one recently from a fellow umpire, the 3P's, Profane, Personal, or Persistent will get you ejected. Don't allow them to be TOO persistent.

I remember a similar irate coach whose son eventually said to him, "let it go Dad".

It was clearly embarassing the kid let alone the rest of the team.

Of course, this is the exeption. Usually the kid is just like Dad and you can see where they get it from.

Exactly
 

Idiot coach incites the players and the fans to also do idiotic things. The umpire that tolerates the initial behavior from the coach creates a heck-of-a-mess for himself and for other umpires that these now trained idiots will visit at future games.

Whatever you are willing to tolerate... is exactly what you will have.

Obviously the coach was wrong in the initial situation... and I might have ejected him right then; his purpose was obvious. The ejection can, and should, be just as obvious. To let things linger or build to higher levels now confuses the observer's understanding of specific penalty for specific actions.

Did he get ejected for arguing, for calling the umps stupid, for telling them he wanted to control them, for any myriad of other things ... or was it for his unsportsman-like action of yelling time to create a balk. I don't think a warning is necessary when the purpose is that obvious.

I had a situation like this last week on a close play at the plate....the catcher was the coach's son and told his father to stop it was "no big deal" when the father and I started "discussing" the play. After the play as I went to clean the plate, the catcher told me I had gotten the play right (as I knew already), but the coach had been a pain in the behind all night, and I could tell the kid was bothered because the kid seemed nice and didn't complain about anything all night.