Why Don't They Learn?

[dddunn3d]

Double header, non-conference freshman games, I agree to work them alone this past Saturday morning.

First game, 3rd inning, R1, grounder hit sharply to F3. He jabs at the bag with his foot, turns and throws (badly) to F6 covering 2B. F6 catches the ball, R1 slides in safely.

I have come out to about 10' from the mound, call BR out at 1B, and then pivot to see the play at 2B.

Well, Mr Assistant Coach goes ballistic, yelling that F3 missed the bag. He's still yelling as I go back to the plate. When I get there I give him the "stop sign," and he quiets.

End of the inning, and aforementioned coach trots by and says something to the effect that I have to see that play, that's why they pay me to be there. I tell him that he is now restricted to the dug-out for the remainder of the game.

He takes two steps towards the dug-out, and I figure that's that. But coach has to have the last word, I guess, so he yells You're Terrible!

Heave-ho!

[RPatrino]

I reserve "restricted to the dugout" for the Head Coach. Assistants get an immediate "restricted to the team bus in the parking lot" .

Bob P.

[C'monBlue]

If someone (head or assisitant coach) is irritating to the point of requiring discipline, he's gone. I can't imagine anything good resulting from his restriction to the bench.

A question for those of you who restrict: Do you find that penalty to be an effective method of disciple or do you end up eventually tossing them anyway?

[DG]

It doesn't matter what I think about restrictions. In my state we are required to restrict players and coaches, including assistants, except for 6 things that result in ejection (fighting, taunting, profanity at an official or opponent, obscene jestures, biting, and disrespectfully addressing or making contact with an official). We fill out forms on ejections and there are penalties for those that get ejected. For restrictions, no forms, no penalties beyond the one game.

I would consider "you're terrible" as disrespectfully addressing, toss him and happily fill out the form and send it in.

[JIGGY]

Originally Posted by DG

It doesn't matter what I think about restrictions. In my state we are required to restrict players and coaches, including assistants, except for 6 things that result in ejection (fighting, taunting, profanity at an official or opponent, obscene jestures, biting, and disrespectfully addressing or making contact with an official). We fill out forms on ejections and there are penalties for those that get ejected. For restrictions, no forms, no penalties beyond the one game.

I would consider "you're terrible" as disrespectfully addressing, toss him and happily fill out the form and send it in.

What state is it that you work in where you have common instances of biting?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I reserve "restricted to the dugout" for the Head Coach. Assistants get an immediate "restricted to the team bus in the parking lot" .

Bob P.

And in a freshman game? Working solo? Jeez.

[DG]

Originally Posted by JIGGY

What state is it that you work in where you have common instances of biting?

There used to be only 5 things to get ejected for. I think biting was added this year, or maybe last, so there was no doubt some biting going on somewhere to cause this change. I don't think it is common. Probably about as common as having a small amount of white in the logo of the pitcher's glove having some impact on a game... but you know where that lead.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Anytime I'm working solo, I put up with zero BS from coaches on calls where another umpire would have had a better look. I tell them in the pre-game that there is only one of me, and whatever call I come up with is going to be the call we go with, and I am not going to entertain a bunch of arguing.

Assistant coaches are only there to tell the BR to turn left, and to holler "back" and "go" to his runners.

Even though we have had the FED dugout restriction option available for years, I have never used it. IMO, if it is a serious enough offense to restrict someone to the dugout, it's serious enough to eject them.

[nickrego]

Our association gives us the option of using the Restriction rule.

Personally, I have never used it, but I will give it a try if a team does not have an assitant coach to take over. I figure in that case, it's reasonable to give the 'kids' a second chance to finish the game. They're not the ones acting unsportsmanlike.

But when that day comes, I'm sure I'll regret it, and end up dumping the coach anyway.

[phillips.alex]

the only reason we ever work solo in my area is because a school is too cheap to pay for a second man. Because of this, if it is a call we can't make because there is only one of us, it goes against the home team, who is to blame for the single ump. I sometimes miss close slide plays at second (especially on a steal), and if the coach gives me crap, i tell him to buy a second opinion, and he won't have the problem again.

[dddunn3d]

The point is I gave the coach enough time to vent, and when I signalled him to stop he did.

The real problem came when he decided to take up the case again after the inning.

As to being a single, our association is stretched very thin. So much so that several other freshman/sophomore games that weekend were also singles.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Anytime I'm working solo, I put up with zero BS from coaches on calls where another umpire would have had a better look. I tell them in the pre-game that there is only one of me, and whatever call I come up with is going to be the call we go with, and I am not going to entertain a bunch of arguing.

Assistant coaches are only there to tell the BR to turn left, and to holler "back" and "go" to his runners.

Even though we have had the FED dugout restriction option available for years, I have never used it. IMO, if it is a serious enough offense to restrict someone to the dugout, it's serious enough to eject them.

I don't bother with telling them that when I work solo. It puts it in their minds that I'm going to miss one before the game even starts. I just go with the mentality that I will have worse partners in other games.

[David B]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Anytime I'm working solo, I put up with zero BS from coaches on calls where another umpire would have had a better look. I tell them in the pre-game that there is only one of me, and whatever call I come up with is going to be the call we go with, and I am not going to entertain a bunch of arguing.

Assistant coaches are only there to tell the BR to turn left, and to holler "back" and "go" to his runners.

Even though we have had the FED dugout restriction option available for years, I have never used it. IMO, if it is a serious enough offense to restrict someone to the dugout, it's serious enough to eject them.

I take the approach no matter how many there are of us umpiring.

If its a rule interpretation we'll be glad to discuss it.

If its a judgement call, holler at your players, not at me cause its
not going to change anything.

Thanks
David

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by DG

Mr Assistant Coach goes ballistic, yelling

Originally Posted by DG

In my state we are required to restrict players and coaches, including assistants, except for ... disrespectfully addressing ...an official)

I would consider going ballistic and yelling as disrespectfully addressing an official, wouldn't everyone else?

HC gets a little leeway here... but an assistant coach going ballistic will be immediately ejected in any ballpark, any level, by 99% of the umpires around, self included.

(PS - one note on the actual sitch... did you actually see F3 touch the bag? And if he did, in fact, miss the base, would R1 have been out, since now his out is a force? How nice would it have been to have ASSistant coach go ballistic, you change the call, decide BR is safe, and ring up R1 instead... )

[TwoBits]

Coach: How could you not see that?

Solo Ump: Well, Coach, that's the $50 question.

Coach: What's that supposed to mean?

Solo Ump: For another $50 you could have hired a second umpire that could have seen that!