Arguing balls and strikes

[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,

[Justme]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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."

And if they don't like your strike zone, or a close call that goes against them or ?????

Maybe the umpires should refuse to work OSU games..... If I were working D-1 ball in your area they could ki$$ my..........backside

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by 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.

And Tuss, you are just a waste of jizz and I see no reason to waste bandwidth on you.

Regards,

Hmmmmm.....

I was trying to force you to accept the San Diego way????

WTF is the "San Diego Way?"

No, no, no.....I wouldn't force my way of doing things on anybody.

I was thinking along the lines of, ummmm, let's see......the professional way. In nearly every MLB game I've ever witnessed, the PU has to come out to break up the mound visit, especially when the manager is just stalling so his reliever can get loose.

See, I give them plenty (in my estimation) of time to chat, then I purposefully dust the plate thoroughly, then if they are still gabbing on and on after all this time has elapsed, I stride (purposefully, again) to the mound area and then, usually one of the conversants will tip off the coach to my approach and the conversation usually comes to a halt. If not, I say "let's go to work," and they go to work.

I'm really sorry that you must kiss Oregon State's booty in order to work their games. I say F**k That. Guess that's why I never made it to D-1. My nose is white, not brown.

[spots101]

Originally Posted by Tim C

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

This is just nothing more than a bait and hook. Give just part of the facts and wait for people to respond and THEN tell the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

You challenge me in PM and say I'm on the clock for getting back to you, call me a name because you don't know what to do when challenged but degrade,

FYI. did this to me on another forum. He said he would never work with this new umpire because that umpire made a rookie mistake. All's he was doing was asking for advice and then Big Timmy C comes along and berates him. I called him on it saying that he should give the kid some slack and that we all make mistakes even as veterans.....well, except one. He had the cojones to pm me and say that I'm on his "list", (whatever the hell that's suppose to mean). He also told me to get a few years under my belt before I shoot my mouth off. It's real easy to act tough behind a computer.

So Tim, should I expect another one of your threatening pm's........

[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?

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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).

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

As we all know, final does not mean that the manager is not allowed on the field to argue the call. That exact sentence is in the OBR, but everyone who has ever seen a game on TV knows that by practice/tradition it is not enforced that way. Unlike other sports, in baseball the manager is allowed to stop the game to argue a judgement call with an official, that is just the way it goes.