Arguing balls and strikes

[Justme]

Originally Posted by SAump

Was a throw to 1B prevented? Was this obstruction or interference?

No, the throw was so far off that F4 was lucky to even catch the ball, he had no chance to make a play at 1B. If anything, and this would be pretty 'nitpicky', F4 obstructed R1...except that R1 made it safely to 2B.

[Dave Hensley]

Nothing looks worse, to me, than everybody, including PU, standing around twiddling their thumbs for an extended period while a coach and his battery (and maybe others) stand there and figure out what to get Millie for her wedding present and where they can find a live rooster to take the curse off Jose's glove.

I have been taught, and follow religiously, an established protocol for how long I allow a visit to last. As the coach is going towards the mound, I observe and make note of the visit on my lineup card. When he gets to the mound, I immediately go brush the plate. Upon completing the plate brush, I turn and begin walking out to the mound. 90% of the time, the visit has concluded or concludes before I get there, in which case I turn and walk (I used to trot, but I saw Jim Joyce walking with authority, and I thought it looked cool) back to the plate. If I make it to the mound, I stand there next to the coach for 5-10 seconds, and then ask if he's going to make a change. Sometimes I suggest that candlesticks always make a nice gift. If he has been waiting for the opportunity of a face to face to whine about balls and strikes, I warn and eject, and I think that has actually happened to me maybe once in my career.

This is something of a hot button issue for me because I tend to have partners who manage these time-outs so badly it's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Coach sets up a temporary residence out on the mound, and partner just stands there, then after a minute or so, hollers out "let's go!"

It looks (and sounds) horrible. If the coach is out there looking for an opportunity to argue balls and strikes, then refraining from going out there just looks like you're afraid to. The issue should be confronted, not avoided.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

I guess that I have heard it all. Our job on the "stick" is to keep the game flowing. The coach can get his point across to his pitcher within 15-20 seconds once he hits the dirt of the mound. What are you going to do Tim, let the skipper pull up a lawn chair and pow-pow with the guys for an hour?
I have never heard of coaches "red-lining" guys for " breaking up their little meetin'. Give me a break. Some of the stuff I hear on this board is a bunch of crap sometimes. Guys...listen..and trust me......WE BREAK UP TRIPS TO THE MOUND IF THE COACH IS OUT THERE TOO LONG!! And being out there too long is 15-20 Mississippi's......... Chris

I amazed by the notion that people have that because Tee says he hasn't broken up a conference in ten years it immediately must follow that coaches hold picnics on the mound.

Anyone even consider that the possibility that the conferences remain reasonable in duration? Why on earth must you jump to the conclusion that because A equals B, B must equal C.

Amazing.

I've seen Tee work. I've seen conferences in his games. I have not seen lawn chairs or even minute long conversations.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I amazed by the notion that people have that because Tee says he hasn't broken up a conference in ten years it immediately must follow that coaches hold picnics on the mound.

Anyone even consider that the possibility that the conferences remain reasonable in duration? Why on earth must you jump to the conclusion that because A equals B, B must equal C.

Amazing.

I've seen Tee work. I've seen conferences in his games. I have not seen lawn chairs or even minute long conversations.

Well I never seen Tee work, but I do know that he often brags about his game management skills. I know he keeps a record of every game and that he is often done in less than 2 hours. So why would he need to speed things up a bit? OOO, I think not.

[mbyron]

I expect that Tee works in an area where there is a mutual understanding among coaches and umpires: coaches don't take too long, and umpire don't break up conferences.

Elsewhere, that understanding does not exist. Coaches stall, try to talk to umpires, or otherwise prolong conferences. Then it's our duty to move the game along.

For the record, my routine is a lot like Dave Hensley's. I might take a few seconds longer putting my plate brush away...

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Justme

Actually FED rules do prohibit arguing balls/strikes but you don't seem to understand that...that's okay.

I showed a question from a NFHS test question which said that "questioning a ball or strike" is not a reason for ejection. The rule book has several pages about field behavior. There is a section about warn then eject situations, warn or eject situations, and eject situations. Nowhere in any of those sections is arguing balls and strikes listed. While I have the rule book and a exam question on my side, you have not come up with any support for saying that NF rules do not allow arguing balls and strikes.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by LDUB

There is no equivalent of the comment of 9.02a from the OBR in the Federation rule book. There is no rule which says participants who argue balls and strikes shall be ejected.

I though it was in the case book, but it is a question from an old exam. "A player or coach who questions a ball or strike shall be ejected." The correct answer is false.

Yes, you're right. I use that same test to make that point in the BRD.

[Chris_Hickman]

This will be my last post on this subject. My point has always been that I only break up a trip if I feel the coach is taking too long. I have gone through several games where I have never walked to the mound because the coaches make it quick. I do not believe a trip is a teaching tool. Teaching is at practices. A trip, IMO, is to talk stragity. And it should not take longer than 15-20 mississippi's + or - a little. If you are on the dish and the coach is chirpin about pitches...then decides to walks to the mound to talk to his pitcher, he probually wants to talk to you too. What are you going to do if he is out there for 1-2 minutes waitin' on you? Are you going to ignore him? Don't let him dictate how long he will stay out there? Just break up the trip if he takes too long....Chris

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman

This will be my last post on this subject. My point has always been that I only break up a trip if I feel the coach is taking too long. I have gone through several games where I have never walked to the mound because the coaches make it quick. I do not believe a trip is a teaching tool. Teaching is at practices. A trip, IMO, is to talk stragity. And it should not take longer than 15-20 mississippi's + or - a little. If you are on the dish and the coach is chirpin about pitches...then decides to walks to the mound to talk to his pitcher, he probually wants to talk to you too. What are you going to do if he is out there for 1-2 minutes waitin' on you? Are you going to ignore him? Don't let him dictate how long he will stay out there? Just break up the trip if he takes too long....Chris

Blaine Gallant did an article for Officiating.com that teaches us several ways to handle the "conference on the mound." It's titled "Bawls and Strikes," and we published it on 3 October, 2006. Try it. You'll find it appealing, entertaining, and instructive.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I showed a question from a NFHS test question which said that "questioning a ball or strike" is not a reason for ejection. The rule book has several pages about field behavior. There is a section about warn then eject situations, warn or eject situations, and eject situations. Nowhere in any of those sections is arguing balls and strikes listed. While I have the rule book and a exam question on my side, you have not come up with any support for saying that NF rules do not allow arguing balls and strikes.

Okay LDUB, you win......... but I'll keep doing it the wrong way by not allowing coaches to argue my strike zone.

I'd still love to see one of your games where you allow the coaches to come out to the plate to "question a ball or strike" call any time that they want (wouldn't want to work it with you though). I hope that your games have time limits. Where do you umpire?

Another question, when the the coaches come out to "question a ball or strike" do you change your call? That would really be fun to see

I have an idea for you......at the pre-game meeting with the coaches just ask them what they'd like the strike zone to be, that way no arguing

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Justme

Okay LDUB, you win......... but I'll keep doing it the wrong way by not allowing coaches to argue my strike zone.

I'd still love to see one of your games where you allow the coaches to come out to the plate to "question a ball or strike" call any time that they want (wouldn't want to work it with you though). I hope that your games have time limits. Where do you umpire?

Another question, when the the coaches come out to "question a ball or strike" do you change your call? That would really be fun to see

I have an idea for you......at the pre-game meeting with the coaches just ask them what they'd like the strike zone to be, that way no arguing

Wait up, please. No one is saying that the umpire should permit coaches to argue balls and strikes. The only issue — a tiny one, at that — is whether such arguing rates an automatic ejection.

In the OBR a coach is ejected immediately if he "leaves his position" to argue balls and strikes.

There's no similar language in the NFHS, and the 1993 national test question emphasized that point.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Wait up, please. No one is saying that the umpire should permit coaches to argue balls and strikes. The only issue — a tiny one, at that — is whether such arguing rates an automatic ejection.

In the OBR a coach is ejected immediately if he "leaves his position" to argue balls and strikes.

There's no similar language in the NFHS, and the 1993 national test question emphasized that point.

I don't remember seeing that question on the 2005/2006 test.

I didn't say it was an automatic ejection. I said that I'd warn them then and if they continued I would eject them.

So Carl, what do you do to prevent it from happening if you don't eject them?

How many trips to the plate to argue balls/strikes do you allow? How about team captains, do you allow them to argue balls/strikes? And the other players? Do the FED rules specifically state that they can’t argue balls/strike?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Justme

but I'll keep doing it the wrong way by not allowing coaches to argue my strike zone.

No one who has posted in this thread except you has said that that was the wrong way.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Justme

I don't remember seeing that question on the 2005/2006 test.

I didn't say it was an automatic ejection. I said that I'd warn them then and if they continued I would eject them.

So Carl, what do you do to prevent it from happening if you don't eject them?

How many trips to the plate to argue balls/strikes do you allow? How about team captains, do you allow them to argue balls/strikes? And the other players? Do the FED rules specifically state that they can’t argue balls/strike?

I'm obviously not making myself plain.

How do I keep them from arguing balls and strikes? Well, to start with, I don't miss many pitches. The most a coach might say is, on his way to the third base box: "How far is he missing?" I'm not kidding.

But I teach other umpires what to do.

Stay with me, now: If you're an average umpire (and most umpires are average 'cause that's what "average" means) and the coach comes (leaves his position) to bark about balls and strikes: Throw the bum out!

I don't recall anyone saying the umpire should allow that nonsense.

But in an NFHS game, if he wants to give the coach a chance to shut up and behave, he may do so in the sure and certain knowledge that he is NOT ignoring a rule.

I hope I've clarified this.

In OBR, you MUST eject.
In NFHS, you don't have to unless you want to.

Obviously, you've a "want to" guy.

My feeling: If I have to stay out there in that heat, hs's gonna stay, too.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

I'm obviously not making myself plain.

How do I keep them from arguing balls and strikes? Well, to start with, I don't miss many pitches. The most a coach might say is, on his way to the third base box: "How far is he missing?" I'm not kidding.

But I teach other umpires what to do.

Stay with me, now: If you're an average umpire (and most umpires are average 'cause that's what "average" means) and the coach comes (leaves his position) to bark about balls and strikes: Throw the bum out!

I don't recall anyone saying the umpire should allow that nonsense.

But in an NFHS game, if he wants to give the coach a chance to shut up and behave, he may do so in the sure and certain knowledge that he is NOT ignoring a rule.

I hope I've clarified this.

In OBR, you MUST eject.
In NFHS, you don't have to unless you want to.

Obviously, you've a "want to" guy.

My feeling: If I have to stay out there in that heat, hs's gonna stay, too.

Now I see.....we are in agreement.

I was under the impression that you, along with LDUB, said that the coach was allowed to question balls and strikes.

Like yourself, I do not miss many pitches, but that doesn't stop some coaches from thinking that you have. From their angle they might think that they saw something other than what the pitch acutally was, but you know that. If they ask me, in passing, where their F1 is missing or how far is he missing I'll tell them (but F2 has probably provided him with that info already).

But what LDUB eluded to in his post (#22, 33 & 38) was that the coach is allowed to leave their position/dugout and come out to the plate to "question balls and strikes." If they do I'll warn them once and then if they ignore my warning you're right I become a "want to" guy. 'Obviously' the coach that ignores my warning has become a "want to" be ejected guy.

Maybe I'm a "don't want to" guy......I don't want to put up with their BS