Arguing balls and strikes

[mbyron]

For HS varsity (or JV), I would not let the coach make comments while he's changing pitchers. For one thing, arguing balls and strikes is prohibited by rule throughout the contest. For another, it sets a bad example in front of the two players most likely to whinge about it, namely F1 and F2.

If the coach starts to make any kind of comment about the calls I'm making, I interrupt and ask: "coach, are you arguing balls and strikes?" I think that sends the message without being too confrontational. I will add, however, that in the HS games I worked in 2006, I did not have to use this strategy at all.

[blueskysblue]

I find it amazing that the vast majority of "interactions" that I have had over the years with managers / coaches involve judgement calls, not rule interpretations, or combinations of judgement & rule interpretations, i.e., balk calls. Many of the rules "discussions" come about because of change(s) in the rule(s), or the manager / coach's firm belief in one of the "myths". In fact, many of the managers / coaches I see haven't read the current rule book and / or don't even have the current edition. There are exceptions, of course, and some of the very best have learned how to use the rules to their advantage. I have found the above to be true from Little League all the way through Junior College levels, baseball and softball! Although I only do those two sports, I believe it to be accurate across most it not all sports.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by blueskysblue

I find it amazing that the vast majority of "interactions" that I have had over the years with managers / coaches involve judgement calls, not rule interpretations, or combinations of judgement & rule interpretations, i.e., balk calls. Many of the rules "discussions" come about because of change(s) in the rule(s), or the manager / coach's firm belief in one of the "myths". In fact, many of the managers / coaches I see haven't read the current rule book and / or don't even have the current edition. There are exceptions, of course, and some of the very best have learned how to use the rules to their advantage. I have found the above to be true from Little League all the way through Junior College levels, baseball and softball! Although I only do those two sports, I believe it to be accurate across most it not all sports.

And your point is?

[3appleshigh]

I have in fact often seen that the coach may want to make comments, and not gone to break up the meeting, it doesn't last all that much longer maybe 10-20 sec. And you can see how frustrated he is when he walks away. Nope just kidding, actually that happened early in my ump life, when I didn't really know I was to break up the meeting, and the coach was so mad, then found it so funny that he came to me after the game saying he was standing there waiting and the players finally asked him if we could get back to the game. When I told him I didn't even think to break up the meeting he nearly fell over, I never had a stich of trouble from him as a coach ever, and He has gone out of his way to help me improve tremendously. Funny how things happen.

If I get caught in this senario now, it would go similar to above posts, a little more tolerance, but not much before a warning.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

For HS varsity (or JV), I would not let the coach make comments while he's changing pitchers. For one thing, arguing balls and strikes is prohibited by rule throughout the contest.

Actually Federation rules do not prohibit it. Is there anyone who actually allows arguing in Federation games that they would not allow in games played under other rule codes?

[Justme]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Actually Federation rules do not prohibit it.

LDUB;

Are you saying that you can argue judgment calls under FED rules?

[TussAgee11]

I go up to break up the confrence.

Coach starts in on me, but its not obvious to anyone.

I'll ignore and break up the conference, and start to walk back to the plate. If he chases me there, and its about balls and strikes, seeya.

[Tim C]

I have not gone to the mound to break up a conference in 10 years or more.

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I have not gone to the mound to break up a conference in 10 years or more.

And this signifies......? No manager has intentionally stalled on the mound in the last ten years, or that you just don't care how long the manager delays the game?

[Tim C]

Fair question:

I am the member of a listserve of umpires. When I posted this same thing they were amazed.

In my area it has been made clear that the "mound conference" is part of the teaching of the game. We allow that to happen.

SDS, I would ask, how long should you wait? 20 seconds, 30 . . . you get my drift I am sure.

So to make you happy with your question . . . I don't care . . .

Now let me explain, if you'll allow that, why it is this way in my area:

Under the last two Oregon State University Head Coaches D-1 college umpires were told: "if you come out here and break up my conference you'll NEVER work here again."

Pretty simple.

Those umpires brought back to our group the philosophy that we should work with coaches and the conference. It is pretty simple.

Steve, I don't expect you to agree . . . but I see no reason to go out and break up the conversation . . . 90% of the time the guy really is "teaching" and the other 10% I am not going to fall for.

You always try to force us to accept the "San Diego Way" and some of us have our own ways.

BTW, I would not allow any coach to use the mound conference for a vehicle to argue balls and strikes . . . I would "Bill Miller" him immediately.

In the last 10 years I have not gone to the mound during a conference and it has worked fine for me.

Regards,

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Justme

Are you saying that you can argue judgment calls under FED rules?

Yes, the book says the coach is allowed to come to the plate to discuss pitches.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Yes, the book says the coach is allowed to come to the plate to discuss pitches.

You must have a different book than I have. Where does it say that the coach can come out and argue the PU's strike zone?

[Tim C]

Again, for the final time, I have not gone to the mound to break up a conference in 10 years.

Chris said:

"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."

Chris, it appears you are calling me a liar -- is that correct?

There is no place, that I know of, where the NFHS Rule Book says a coach can argue balls/strikes. Luke, please direct me to the passage so I can work making my local group more sensitive to rats needs.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Justme

You must have a different book than I have. Where does it say that the coach can come out and argue the PU's strike zone?

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.

[mbyron]

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.

How about 10-1-4: "Any umpire's decision which involves judgment, such as whether a hit is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final" (my emphasis).

True, the rule does not explicitly say that arguing balls and strikes leads to an ejection. FED generally prefers a less confrontational approach and discourages ejections. But if my decision is final, then I'll warn a coach who argues balls and strikes and, if necessary, eject him for failing to observe the warning.

What else would "final" mean in this context, Luke?