A third out is called on a slide at the plate by the home plate umpire. The throw from right field to the plate was up the line a bit. The catcher brought the ball down in his glove, dropped to his knees and leaned over in one motion and tagged the runner out in front of the plate with both hands on his glove. It was a close play, but the runner was correctly called out. It appeared that he did not quite reach the plate.

All of the players leave the field, meanwhile the third base coach walks toward his dugout and begins conferring with his other coaches. They then call the home plate umpire over to their dugout. As they are talking Team A begins getting ready to take the field and team B is preparing to bat in the top of the 6th holding on to a 3-2 lead in a loser out game. Team A informs the umpire that they want to appeal the (judgement) call at home by saying the catcher obstructed the runner.

As team A's players are leaving the dugout and taking the field to assume fielding positions an argument begins in front of Team A's dugout. One of Team A's coaches now begins yelling to the baserunner who wound up at first base on the third out play to go back out first base. The player runs out of the dugout without a helmet toward second. By this time Team B's coach is telling his player to tag the player that was running out toward second base. He does not tag the player. A different player runs out to second with a helmet. Everyone is rather confused, especially the kids. As the argument heats up the field umpire is called in and the discussion continues and the home plate umpire, after briefly discussing the matter, rules 'Catcher Obstruction', the run counts and orders Team B back onto the field and Team A back in their dugout to continue the inning.

Questions:
1. Can a safe/out call at the plate be appealed even though it is a judgement call?
2. If so, what is the procedure?

The umpire definitley lost control of the game/situation and the scene that ensued was an ugly one with kids running in and out of dugouts, coaches, players, parents and fans visibly upset. The play was your garden variety close play at the plate. The Tournament Director was at a lost, as it appeared he did not know the rule.

Epilogue:
Team B came back out and retired the last batter on two pitches, tallied one run in the top of the 6th to go up 4-3 and then retired the side on 7 pitches to close the door.

1. The appeal was not legal. There's no procedure for such an "appeal." Appeals occur on illegal equipment and players, on batting-out-of-order, and on baserunning mistakes.

2. The villain here is the plate umpire, who caved. Who is in a position better suited to rule on the play, field umpire or plate umpire? The answer is obvious.

3. From your description of the play, I don't see how it could be obstruction.

4. Unfortunatgely, the team was a victim of "get it right, regardless." That's all the rage now. Your example proves how wrong-headed it is.

5. Get ready for it: Dropped ball at first, pulled foot, get a second opinion, trust that your partner, wherever he was, had a better view than you, his judgment is better than yours.

Lah, me.

Side Note
 

Frank,

I would still like to know when you are hosting your mechanics clinic? ;)

Please elaborate on appeal procedures for "illegal equipment and players." What rule code(s) include illegal equipment and players as appeal plays or procedures?

The word "appeal" appears several times in the rules, not just in 2.00, 6.07 and 7.10.

You can appeal a check swing.

You can appeal a rules misinterpretation.

So what would you call this:

You go to the umpire and say "F9 has an illegal glove"

You go to the umpire and say "#10 is an illegal player/substitute"

Appeal seems like a good enough word.

From the MLBUM: 8.6 CHECK-SWING APPEALS
The Casebook Comments to Official Baseball Rule 9.02(c) provide that the manager or catcher may request the plate umpire to ask a partner for help on a half-swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball. The rule further states that <b><fonT color=red>appeals on a half-swing</b></FONT> may only be made on a call of ball and when asked to appeal.

Also from the MLBUM: Any pitcher starting or entering the game wearing a colored glove must wear the same colored glove for the entire game. As provided in Official Baseball Rule 1.15, the pitcher's glove shall be uniform in color, including all stitching, lacing, and webbing. <b><FONT COLOR=RED>Upon appeal from the opposing manager</b></FONT>, the Crew Chief shall cause a glove that does not meet this regulation to be removed from the game. A blatant or recurring violation should be dealt with immediately by the umpire.

The NFHS has many case plays dealing with illegal players. You are right that they don't use the word "appeal." They say that the illegal player is "discovered" and the plate umpire is "informed" of the illegality.

I can see how you were confused. Like many amateur umpires, you were thinking that "appeals" are only those covered by 7.10. I'm glad I had the chance to clear this up for you.

Added as an edit: Oh, I forgot: What is your opinion of the substance of my reply to Frank Drebin? (We know what you think about the semantics.) Do you agree the umpires acted improperly?

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 26th, 2005 at 11:24 AM]

I agree fully with Carl's first post.

Check swing appeals I was aware of, and did not ask about.

Your citation of the illegal equipment "appeal" is something I had never noticed before, and certainly does support your statement that "appeals" are applicable to illegal equipment.

My training is that "appeal play" or the more generic "appeal procedure" are limited to baserunning appeals and batting out of order. I don't consider it particularly advisable to conflate the word "appeal" to include every instance of a coach asking an umpire a rule enforcement question, as that tends to feed the fire of the coaching myth that they are "entitled by rule" to "appeals" on calls that don't go their way.

The substance of your first reply was entirely accurate; certainly I agree the umpires acted improperly, embarrassingly so.

Gentlemen,

Now hold on just a gol' durn minute there!

I know it's kind of towards the back of the book, so perhaps you missed:

Now, the play in question was described as one involving the possibility of an obstruction call. None of us (with the possible exception of Frank Drebin) actually saw the play. As with any such call, without having been there, there is <b>no way</b> to comment definitively on the proper ruling on the play. According to Frank's judgement, there was no obstruction - based on my mental picture from <b>his</b> description, I would be inclined to agree. But my judgement, as well as Frank's, are irrelevant. The only judgement that matters is the umpire's judgement.

There are also a number of details missing from Frank's description of the play that, if supplied, might make me more inclined to think that there <b>was</b> obstruction on the play.

Another key point from Frank's description is <i>which rule code</i> the game was being played under. Different rule codes have different criteria by which the umpire properly judges whether the fielder has or has not illegally impeded the runner. Under LL rules, the catcher is not allowed to set up in the baserunner's basepath without posession of the ball. If he does and hinders the runner prior to gaining posession of the ball, it's obstruction. Perhaps the umpire initially improperly felt the catcher was not liable for obstruction because he was "in the act of fielding" the throw.

But, if I'm reading his post correctly, Frank's question isn't really about whether or not there was obstruction on the play (it would seem he has already reached his own conclusion on that question); rather, it concerns the propriety of the Offensive Manger's questioning of the call, and the procedure that was followed that ultimately led to the reversal of the original call made on the field.

Carl unequivocally states "<i>The appeal was not legal.</i>" and mcrowder jumps on his bandwagon. Well, if the offensive Mgr. had a reasonable belief that the PU had improperly applied the rules in not calling obstruction and calling his runner out, he was <b>perfectly legal</b> in utilizing his 9.02(b) rights in appealing the umpire's possible misapplication of the appropriate rule(s).

Now, we didn't hear the conversation, so we don't know whether the manager was "objecting to the umpire's judgement" of the play or appealing his application of the rules. If the former, I would agree with Carl's assertion; if the latter, I must disagree.

If we assume he <b>was</b> appealing the application of the rule, what about the procedure? Let's see.

First, he waited until action was "relaxed" before initiating his appeal, and it was certainly before the next pitch or play. So far, so good.

It does not appear that he requested "Time" - not a big deal in this situation, but certainly better to do so.

He went to the umpire who made the call in question. Again, per 9.02(b), that is the proper procedure.

The umpire who made the initial ruling requested input from his partner. Per 9.02(c), again, perfectly proper if he decides he wants to.

Finally, the umpire who made the original call came to the decision that his initial ruling was incorrect and reversed it to what he believed to be the correct call.

Now, all the sillines with having runners run out on to the field and fielder's trying to tag them during the conduct of the appeal is just that - silliness. Kind of unseemly and pointless, but not that big a deal.

To those who would suggest that obstruction is <b>always</b> a "judgement call" and, therefore, cannot be properly appealed, I say <b>horse hockey</b>!

<b>All rulings</b> made on plays during baseball games involve both an element of judgement and an element of rules application. The judgement part is "what happened". The rules part is "how do the rules apply to what I judged happened." While the "what happened" part is generally <b>not</b> subject to appeal, the "how do the rules apply..." part <b>is</b>. It says so right in the rules!

JM

(Edited to correct part about "which rule code"

[Edited by CoachJM on Jul 26th, 2005 at 01:57 PM]

<i> To those who would suggest that obstruction is always a "judgement call" and, therefore, cannot be properly appealed, I say </i>

Now you are speaking as a COACH.

Let me give you an EXTREME case to proove a point.

Lete's assume r2 and 2 outs.

Ground ball to F6. As F6 is about to field the ball R2 clobbers him and NOTHING is called. Guess what, you can plead to your hearts content but if blue didn't call interference there is no interference.

The CALLING of OBS/INTERFERENCE is a JUDGEMENT call. The ENFORCEMENT is governed by rule. It's only in the second part that a coach can appeal.

Example; assuming FED rules. R2 is obstructed a few steps off of second base. After playing action ends, blue says I am keeping R2 at second. In FED this is a misapplication of the rule and the coach can request an appeal or Protest.


The FIRST PHASE of OBS/INTERFERENCE is to CALL IT which is judgement.

Pete Booth

Appeal is not allowed
 

LL rule 7.10 d All defensive players have left the field[all in foul territory]no appeals are allowed.

Pete Booth,

I must respectfully disagree with your point (if I understand it correctly) that the "calling" is <b>purely judgement</b> (and by implication, cannot be properly appealed) while the enforcement/penalty part of the ruling is the "rule" part that may be properly appealed (if incorrect).

Let me use your extreme case to illustrate my point.

Were I the defensive manager during your play, here is what I would do.

1. I would wait until the action of the play had relaxed and request "Time".

2. When granted, I would approach the BU (assuming two man crew) and I would ask him:

a. If, in his judgement, there was a collision between the R2 and my F6. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask

b. If, in his judgement, F6 was attempting to field a fair batted ball at the time of the collision. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask him

c. Why he did not make a call of interference per 7.09(l)?

Now, in real life, I've gotten a number of interesting answers to this question. For example: "Because the runner was in the baseline"; "In my judgement, the fielder should have been able to field the ball anyway"; "The ball was still on the infield grass".

When I get such replies, which indicate that the umpire does not have a proper understanding of the application of Rule 7.09(l) (or whatever the rule relevant to the situation in question), I suggest that he has misapplied the rule and request that he correct his call. If he fails to do so, I thank him for entertaining my appeal and inform him that I am protesting the game. I then promptly return to the dugout.

Again, <b>all calls</b> involve both judgement <b>and</b> rule application. Judgement is "what happened" - rule application is "what is the proper call based on what happened."

<i> Originally posted by CoachJM </i>


<b> Let me use your extreme case to illustrate my point.

Were I the defensive manager during your play, here is what I would do.

1. I would wait until the action of the play had relaxed and request "Time".

2. When granted, I would approach the BU (assuming two man crew) and I would ask him:

a. If, in his judgement, there was a collision between the R2 and my F6. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask

b. If, in his judgement, F6 was attempting to field a fair batted ball at the time of the collision. Assuming he says yes, I would then ask him

c. Why he did not make a call of interference per 7.09(l)? </b> </i>

What about this response which BTW is a more common response. Sorry Skip didn't see it as I turned to get into position for a call at first base. Skip to the PU - What about you "Skip I was watching R3 touch home".


As mentioned, if the call IS NOT Made then there is nothing to appeal other then one's frustration. You are correct in that sometime Blue can trap himself but it has been my experience that when Blue thinks he "kicked one" the best response is to simply say "sorry Skip didn't see it"

Also, keep in mind that even if you request time Blue does not have to GRANT it.

Pete Booth

Pete,

I am painfully familiar with the "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it..." response. When I get it, I usually am able to realize that further pursuit of my appeal is pointless.

I know there are many managers who will respond to this with a tirade about where the umpire <b>should</b> have been looking, or positioned, or whatever. Personally, I've never seen anything good accomplished by pissing off an umpire during a game - at least not for the one who did the pissing off.

I'll usually just drop it at that point. On occasion, I have followed up with the umpire's assignor after the game.

Usually when the umpire really doesn't know the rule, they tell me what they saw when I ask my questions. They seem to be quite confident that they know the rules better than a mere coach possibly could, so they usually just tell me what they saw. (I'm also usually pretty polite when I'm asking.)

I also understand that <b>I</b> <i>request</i> time and <b>the umpire</b>, at his discretion, <i>calls</i> time. In 11 years of coaching, I've had exactly one umpire refuse my request for time when I wanted to appeal his ruling - sort of.

The play involved a retouch appeal on a caught fly ball where the ball was subsequently thrown out of play and the R1 who had left early was (properly) awarded 3B. When my team executed the appeal, the BU ruled safe. I immediately requested time and began to walk towards the BU, who was in C. After I had taken about two steps out of the dugout, he gave me a "stop sign" - so I stopped. I was about to announce my protest from that spot and return to the dugout, when the PU asked the BU if he could have a word with him. I waited.

They has a private conversation for a minute, and then the BU reversed his call. I have no idea what they talked about, but they did end up getting the call right.

JM

Oh, God. Another one.

"I want to appeal that call."

I called a strike, we're not arguing balls and strikes today, coach.

"But all calls are both judgment and rules application, I want to appeal the rules application part."

Brother. And they wonder why they're called Rats.

Garth,

I see you were unable to find a kitten.

While I can see how a person who has a certain predisposition might misinterpret my comments in such a way as to characterize them as suggesting arguing balls and strikes with a specious "rules" argument, I certainly didn't say that. Nor would I condone it. Not "step balks" either, in case you're wondering.

Since you've decided to contribute your insight, experience, and knowledge to the question being discussed (oops, my bad - your comments didn't even <b>touch on</b> the question being discussed. Anyway,...), I'm curious as to how you would characterize an umpire, who has just blown a call because he misapplied the rules, who facetiously responds to a coach's reasonable and proper appeal with: "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it." ?

Brother. And they wonder why they're called Smittys.

JM

What were you going to protest?

Why do you post here? Go back to eteamz.

Luke,

The play began with one out, R3 and R1 (OBR rules, 14U Travel). Batter hit a line drive to left center. My F8 got a good jump on the ball, and he made a nice running catch. Both R3 and R1 had started on the batted ball. After the catch, they both started back to retouch. My F8, after regaining control, threw the ball towards home. My F1 cutoff the throw, and attempted a throw to 3B to try and double off the R3. While perfectly "on line" it sailed about 5' over my F5's outstretched arm and ended up in the street which runs parallel to the 3B line.

The BU called "time" and awarded R3 home and R1 3B. R3 retouched and then went home. R1, on the other hand, stopped between 1B and 2B when the ball went out of play, and proceeded to touch 2B on his way to 3B before he realized his coaches thought it was important that he retouch 1B.

When he realized this, he did go back and retouch 1B (touching 2B on his way by), then properly proceeded to his "awarded" 3B.

My players then executed a properly constituted appeal on R1's failure to legally retouch on a caught batted ball. I was intending to appeal a misapplication of 7.10(a) Approved Ruling (2) - the runner's retouch of 1B after touching 2B while the ball was dead invalidated his retouch.

The weird thing about this situation was that, due to <b>my</b> screwup, we had arrived at the field two hours before the scheduled game time instead of our customary one hour. We used about a half hour of the "extra" time discussing and reviewing appeals. We actually talked about this situation during the discussion.

When the play happened during the game, and the R1 <b>finally</b> retouched 1B, my F1 looked over and said, "Do it anyway?". I just nodded. I was quite pleased with my players.

JM

(Edited to clarify which post I was responding to.)

[Edited by CoachJM on Jul 27th, 2005 at 02:21 AM]

What makes you think the BU didn't see R1 retouch first legally?

Luke,

Thanks for asking.

I read and post on this forum in order to improve my understanding of the rules. Also, to gain insight into how umpires think. I also enjoy arguing with umpires - especially when they can't eject me. In addition, I find may of the threads on this board darn entertaining. (For example, who would even <b>believe</b> that a post about sunflower seeds would generate <b>77</b> replies? And I'm not even going to <b>mention</b> the drummer boy or the blue dude.)

Since you brought it up, why do <b>you</b> post here?

You <b>rarely</b> contribute anything meaningful to a rules discussion (although when you do, you do seem to know what you're talking about - at least in regard to FED rules).

The vast majority of your posts are simply whines about other peoples' posts. It's a free country, so if that's what floats your boat, <b>I</b> certainly don't have a problem with it. But why bother? Just curious.

Also, why don't <b>you</b> go back to eTeamz?

JM

Luke,

Well mainly because he <b>didn't</b>. <b>Everybody</b> at the game saw him stop on his way back to 1B (he was about halfway between 2B and 1B) and go back and touch 2B. His own coaches were yelling at him to go back and retouch 1B. Which he eventually did, but not until <b>after</b> he'd touched 2B while the ball was dead.

Had the BU granted my request for time, I would have asked him what he'd seen. He didn't, so I didn't get to ask him. But I'm pretty sure he saw the same thing everybody else did.

JM

I think I'LL go back to eteamz.

You guys have become more eteamz than eteamz.

So you admit that you had nothing to protest. Maybe with the play at third, the BU had no idea if R1 tagged up, so he ruled safe. The PU probally saw that R1 never even got close to retouching first, so he told the BU this after the appeal happned.

When was the last time there was a rules discussion? A few months ago on a balk thread which went for many pages.

You could say that about anyone, except Bob Jenkins.

JM, even though a rodent ;), your posts almost always have contributory value...but this ridiculous 'extreme' argument on a straight-up judgment call is right outta the RulesGeek Files...give it up, man (as DIB says ;) ) .... and let us know when you take off your coach's cap and decide to be an umpire again.

....and don't forget there's always a kitten around if you need one ;)

LDUB wrote: "So you admit that you had nothing to protest."

JM did no such thing. The apparent failure of the umpire to see the play does NOT mean there is nothing to protest here.

He did NOT want to protest a failure to actually retouch.

He DID want to protest that the retouch was NOT LEGAL per 7.10(b) Approved ruling (2) "When the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left after he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base."

HE wanted to do this because the runner went and touched 2B AFTER the ball went dead and BEFORE he returned to touch 1B.

Like that matters if R1 retouched first before the ball went dead.

That's not the point. They are saying (quite rightly) that the PBUC and MLBUM interpretations are that <I>after the ball goes dead</i> if a runner advances to a succeeding base (beyond the base where the baserunning error occurred), he is subject to an appeal; and the umpire, if he saw it, will call him out.

The actual ruling in the OBR says that it doesn't matter when the runner advances:

R1 leaves first early and is between second and third when the ball is caught. The throw goes dead before he can retouch second. In the Old Testament, he would be out. Under the new guidelines, he would only be out if he advanced to third <i>after</i> the throw went dead.

You wrote: "Like that matters if R1 retouched first before the ball went dead."

Like it does.

What if the umpire thought R1 didn't leave early?

So you call the pitch a strike, and the offensive manager comes out to you and says he wants to protest. He says that you called a strike on a ball that didn't pass through the strike zone.

JM's protest is the same thing. He saw something, and he assumed the umpire saw the same thing.

I disagree. The OBR Approved Ruling, together with example Play 1 makes it clear that the runner cannot advance to a succeeding base <b>after</b> the ball goes dead.

<hr>
7.10(b) With the ball in play, while advancing or returning to a base, he fails to touch each base in order before he, or a missed base, is tagged.
APPROVED RULING: (2) <b>When</b> the ball is dead, no runner may return to touch a missed base or one he has left <b>after</b> he has advanced to and touched a base beyond the missed base. PLAY. (a) Batter hits ball out of
park or ground rule double and misses first base (ball is dead)_he may return to first base to correct his mistake <b>before</b> he touches second but if he touches second he may not return to first and if defensive team appeals he is declared out at first.
<hr>

In JM's situation from page one he states the base umpire first denied the appeal. JM came out to question and was stopped. The PU then called over the base umpire, they taked and the BU reversed the call. So the BU obviously didn't see something or he would have had no reason to reverse the call.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CoachJM
[B]Garth,

I see you were unable to find a kitten.</B>

No...I found one.

<B>While I can see how a person who has a certain predisposition might misinterpret my comments in such a way as to characterize them as suggesting arguing balls and strikes with a specious "rules" argument, I certainly didn't say that. Nor would I condone it. Not "step balks" either, in case you're wondering.</B>

Excuse me for extrapolating on your comment: "<b>All</b> rulings made on plays during baseball games involve both an element of judgement and an element of rules application."

<b>Since you've decided to contribute your insight, experience, and knowledge to the question being discussed (oops, my bad - your comments didn't even <b>touch on</b> the question being discussed. Anyway,...)</b>

ACtually I did address that part of your post that I found interesting. I do believe I have the right to do that. The rest, to me, was so much blah, blah, blah that I've heard so many times. Enough others were willing to discuss it, I didn't feed the need.


<b>I'm curious as to how you would characterize an umpire, who has just blown a call because he misapplied the rules, who facetiously responds to a coach's reasonable and proper appeal with: "Sorry Skip, I didn't see it." ?</b>

I'm not sure, coach. I am not familiar with umpires who act facetiously when they make mistakes. I suppose, if I were ever to find myself in a sucn a situation as a coach, God forbid, I would hope that I would act as I do know when a coach exaggerates his case to me or outright lies to me, ("Garth, he couldn't have balked he wasn't even in the stretch, he was in wind-up", the coach yelled from the dugout while his pitcher, who froze after the balk call, remained, for all to see, in the set position.)

I do my best to keep the game going, keep my professionalism, recognize that no one is perfect and not whine endlessly about it.

He was going to protest as soon as the BU denied the appeal. He assumed that a rule was misapplied, but it very well could not have.

Obviously the PU told the BU something which made him change the call. On a fly ball to F8 with R1 and R3, who is watching R1 tag up? The BU probally didn't see anything, and therfore called him safe. The PU saw that R1 never got close to first.

So R1 and R3. Fly ball to F9 in foul ground. PU does not get a good angle to see the catch and R3 retouch. R3 leaves early and scores. Defense appeals and PU denies it.

JM then comes out of the dugout and yells "I protest." What is there to protest?

It certainly appears you are right, and I quote that rule citation in Section 419 of the BRD. (So I must have thought that was correct before.)

The problem I have is that both PBUC and MLBUM have issued official interpretations <i>that say the same thing</i>.

What may have happened, and I'll research it, is that there was an official interpretation that overturned 7.10b AR 2, and the "new" interpretation reverted to the original language.

At any rate, you're now a footnote in the 2006 BRD.

Thanks, Dallas Dave.

I feel confident, if JM actually acts anything like he posts, that he usually goes out onto the field with two goals:

1. Convince the umpire to change the call.
2. Bait the umpire into a winnable protest.

His SOP, it appears, is to discuss first what the umpire judged to have (or have not) seen, then to ask the umpire to indicate which rules he was enforcing. JM seeks to find a discrepancy between the judgment and the rules. If he finds one, and he can't convince the umpire to reverse the call, he now has ammunition for a convincing protest.

Pete Booth certainly gets this, though I find I'm interested (along with JM) to know if Pete was advocating that umpires lie to avoid the trap that JM sets.

In JM's sitch, the umpire did not grant him the request to discuss. (It actually appears that the ball was already dead.) While an umpire can refuse to discuss a call with a manager, I think that a manager always has the right to protest the game.

I am curious, though, how JM would have worded the protest without first having trapped the umpire.

-LL

Seems correct to me. Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats)

One of the good Texas umpires I know has, for years, advocated responses of five words or less to all questions from coaches. I adopted that a couple of years ago and it works extremely well.

..this is why people who say, "I'm a coach and also an umpire" are at heart...really coaches. *ducks* :D

An umpire's goal is to apply the rules to the game. A coach's goal is to win - nothing more, nothing less.

All right, but how is a coach supposed to know if the rule was misapplied unless he goes out to ask the umpire what happend? If the umpire says no coach, I saw him retouch first before the ball went dead, then fine protest over, rule wasn't misapplied. If umpire says no coach he can go back to retouch during the dead ball, now we might have something, but how is the coach to know which it is unless he asks?

In this situation, we will never know why the appeal was denied because the BU never gave coach a chance to ask.




[Edited by gsf23 on Jul 27th, 2005 at 03:41 PM]

<i> Originally posted by LilLeaguer </i>


<b> Pete Booth certainly gets this, though I find I'm interested (along with JM) to know if Pete was advocating that umpires lie to avoid the trap that JM sets. </b>

My disagreement with Coach JM is that the INITIAL call of OBS/INTERFERENCE is a Judgement call first and foremost. Once, called then the rules governing those rules take effect.

IMO, it's NO different then if F1 threw a pitch right down Broadway and the PU called it a ball. Rule 9.02a also supports my position.

As far as "lying" goes it's simply a way to get the coach off our backs PERIOD. I agree with Garth in that the less said to a coach the better.


JM was allowed to do what he did because the UMPIRES allowed him to, but if he had veteran officials, the call would not be changed or REVERSED.

As rule 9.02a states, judgement calls which the calling of OBS/Interference are, are NOT protestable and for a very good reason, otherwise the game would result in chaos.


Pete Booth

We're discussing two situations. The OBS call didn't involve JM, so he wasn't allowed to do anything; he just says what he'd try to do. In the leaving early appeal sitch, JM stepped out of the dugout during a dead ball, stood there, and then returned. I'm not a veteran Real Umpire(tm), but I think I would have allowed that.

On an OBS/INT call, I'll answer these questions truthfully, in five words or less:
* What did my fielder/runner do?
* Why wasn't it INT/OBS?
* Why did you make that award?

Are any of them improper questions for an umpire to answer? And yes, I'm aware that the Rat might be trying to bait me into admitting evidence that I screwed up a ruling. My attitude on that is:
* I'm pretty confident that, in most cases, I get the ruling correct.
* If I didn't, I'd prefer to correct it on the field rather than have a protest committee try to find excuses for me later.

Currently, I try to avoid being overturned in a protest, and I don't lie on the field, even to Rats. I'm not sure that either goal is consistent with becoming a Real Umpire(tm), but that isn't a goal of mine right now.

-LL

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB
[
Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats)


Garth, I enjoy reading your posts, as well as many others on this board. I am not an umpire. I am a coach. I coach because my son loves the game as much as I do. As a coach, I feel that one of my biggest priorities is to teach and instill in my players (12 year olds) a love and respect for the game. If I do that, then teaching them fundamentals, rules, etc will be an easier task. It will also raise the odds that each one of my players will want to play next year. Your statement that "all coaches are lobbyists" may apply to the large population of coaches, but not "all". I understand your dislike for coaches(rats), and have seen 1,001 things that coaches do to give umpires reasons to hate them. But remember, there are still some coaches who do it for the pure love of the game. I don't gauge the success of my team's season by wins and losses. I gauge it by how much did my team learn. That is one reason why I faithfully read this board. To learn more about the rules so that I can dutifully teach the players. Again, I truly do enjoy reading what is posted here, and typically try to keep quiet and learn. But please don't group all coaches as liars, rats, lance, etc. :) Remember, be gentle.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hunter

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB [ Coaches, all coaches, are lobbyists. They do not say "boo" to an umpire without having a desired result in mind. Experienced umpires understand this and limit their conversations accordingly. Unfortunately, some newer umpires are not aware of this and, on occasion, in an effort to help a coach, say something in a manner that really didn't reflect their actions or understanding only to have it used against them. (again, there is a reason they are called Rats) Garth, I enjoy reading your posts, as well as many others on this board. I am not an umpire. I am a coach. I coach because my son loves the game as much as I do. As a coach, I feel that one of my biggest priorities is to teach and instill in my players (12 year olds) a love and respect for the game. If I do that, then teaching them fundamentals, rules, etc will be an easier task. It will also raise the odds that each one of my players will want to play next year. Your statement that "all coaches are lobbyists" may apply to the large population of coaches, but not "all". I understand your dislike for coaches(rats), and have seen 1,001 things that coaches do to give umpires reasons to hate them. But remember, there are still some coaches who do it for the pure love of the game. I don't gauge the success of my team's season by wins and losses. I gauge it by how much did my team learn. That is one reason why I faithfully read this board. To learn more about the rules so that I can dutifully teach the players. Again, I truly do enjoy reading what is posted here, and typically try to keep quiet and learn. But please don't group all coaches as liars, rats, lance, etc. :) Remember, be gentle.

Hunter, when I say that all coaches are lobbyists, I do not do so dispargingly. I am recognizing reality. It is a coaches job to do everything he can to give his team the best possible opportunity to win. He would be derelict if he didn't.

I also recognize that since both coaches are trying to get every advantage then can, and since it is the umpires job to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by rule, we are at times placed in adversrial positions. None of this makes a coach a "rat", rather it is how he decides to go about this job that determines his rodent status.

I wish you well in your endeavors. I value nothing more than I do the ability to teach.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 27th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB Hunter, when I say that all coaches are lobbyists, I do not do so dispargingly. I am recognizing reality. It is a coaches job to do everything he can to give his team the best possible opportunity to win. He would be derelict if he didn't. I also recognize that since both coaches are trying to get every advantage then can, and since it is the umpires job to see that neither team gets an advantage not intended by rule, we are at times placed in adversrial positions. None of this makes a coach a "rat", rather it is how he decides to go about this job that determines his rodent status. I wish you well in your endeavors. I value nothing more than I do the ability to teach. [Edited by GarthB on Jul 27th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

Point well taken. I will continue to visit here regularly to read your posts as well as those of Pete, T, etc. I agree with you on the value of teaching, and for me to become a better teacher, I will continue to learn more regarding the rules and their application. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Surely, the direction has shifted.
 

Jane: I've heard police work is dangerous.
Frank Drebin: It is. That's why I carry a big gun.
Jane: Aren't you afraid it might go off accidentally?
Frank Drebin: I used to have that problem.
Jane: What did you do about it?
Frank Drebin: I just think about baseball.

Look for my Seminar: "Umpiring Mechanics Is My Middle Name" coming soon. Surely, you won't want to miss it.

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant, Police Squad.

Re: Surely, the direction has shifted.
 

I don't want to miss it and please, don't call me Shirley. :)

A little <i>Airplane</i> reference.