Arguing
 

Tees latest thread about dealing with coaches got me thinking (probably a big mistake)

We all know the following:

OBR 9.02
(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.

It's the last part of OBR 9.02(a) that I would like to discuss.

There's a reason the rule exists otherwise the game would resemble a farce, but my question

When did umpires start allowing managers to question judgement calls to begin with? After the rule makers put in the rule, then why did umpires allow coaches to argue over safes / outs?

It seems on surface anyway that there should be no discussion on balls/ strikes; safes and outs therefore why have an argument with a coach to begin with when the rule is SPECIFIC?

If umpire associations stuck together and STRICTLY enforced the rule, all the various confrontations that have been noted would go away. By allowing coaches to come out and question judgement calls leads to altercations which frankly according to the rules should not happen.

I fully understand that the PRO game is unique and in a separate category all it's own. They have the Players Union etc to deal with plus there is BIG Bucks in the PRO game.

However, amateur baseball IMO should be different. First and foremost, for most amateur umpires, umpiring is not their chosen profession. It's one thing when you make 6 figures as do many PRO Umpires that umpire MLB, it's quite another when you work for a $50.00 game FEE (depending upon one's area)

Amateur league coaches emulate the PROS, so in just about every amateur game, you will have a coach request TIME to discuss a Safe / Out call. If umpire associations stuck together and did as the rule implied, IMO this would put an end to this confrontation business.

The rules do allow the coach to request TIME and ask about a Rule application but that's it.

It would probably take 1/2 eason, but if we started tossing coaches every time they requested TIME to discuss balls / strikes safes/ outs they would get the message.

In Summary, after reading Tee's post about dealing with coaches, why have a rule as referenced above if we as umpires are not going to enforce it and allow coaches to request TIME and discuss and out / safe call.

The bottom line is that we all make mistakes and kick some calls, but players make errors, F1's give up gopher balls, etc.

Pete Booth

Pete:

First, continue reading. The casebook/comments provide the more definitive interpretation:

"Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: Players leaving their position in the field or on base, or managers or coaches leaving the bench or coaches box, to argue on BALLS AND STRIKES will not be permitted. They should be warned if they start for the plate to protest the call. if they continue, they will be ejected from the game."

Second, since baseball is unique in not having an intermediate disciplinary step (basketball has the technical, football has the unsportmanlike, etc.) a little leniency has developed over the years and "discussions" have been allowed to avoid the major penalty of ejection. Even at the amateur level, I believe this is a good thing.

Well, when compared to football or basketball, there is one other major difference. The distance factor. In those sports, there is an official within easy earshot/access. In football one of them is even stationed on the sideline so the coach can get right next to him.

I don't wanna sound like a hard @$$ or anything, but personally, I don't argue my judgement calls with the coach/manager. That isn't to say that they don't sometimes try, but I don't allow that argument to take place.

When a coach comes out on me on a banger I simply wait to see what he's gonna say.

If it starts out, "Come on! He was safe/out!" I cut him off and reply one of two ways.
1. "If we stop the game to discuss every close call I make, we'll never finish!" Then I turn and walk away, if he follows, he's warned (usually) then given the gate.
2. "We're not going to discuss judgement. What rule do you think I screwed up?" I'll let the coach/manager respond and explain that I will not argue judgement. Walk away and see sitch 1.

I use the first response with coaches that know me and I know them. The second is used with coaches I don't know very well.

Usually the longest of these discussions take about long enough for the next batter to get to the plate.

Gentlemen:

I did not advocate allowing coaches to engage in long conversations regarding judgment calls. Anyone who knows me, knows better.

I did advocate against what appeared to me to be Pete's suggestion of such a zero tolerance that a coach would be tossed immediately upon approach.

I rarely eject without warning. In those very cases where I have, the coach or player was guilty of an offense that required an automatic early exit.

But the first comment or question about a safe call or strike does not, in my opinion, qualify for zero tolerance.

There is a major difference between higher caliber ball and youth levels. Most (not all) HS varsity and above coach's know how to handle umpires, they know the boundries and most bright ones know what each individual umpires levels of tolerance are in any given situation.

By the same token, because we do the same schools over the years, we know the coach's pretty well, and we know how they will react most of the time. Hot heads are hot heads, they very rarely change. We know who they are and we react accordingly.

In dealings with the veteran coaches, to use a blanket, "i'm not discussing judgement calls with you", is wrong. Bottomline, I treat a varsity HS coach or JC coach a lot differently then I do a lower level youth coach.

A little OT
 

This thread reminded me of an ejection I had four years ago.

During the first game of a Legion DH, I was BU in two man. I made a fair/foul call in the 7th that resulted in the visitors getting the winning run on third.

At the plate conference for the second game, I'm now PU. I ask: "Any questions" and the home coach says: "Yeah. Could you guys watch those foul lines a little better this time, cuz we got f@#$ing hosed in the last game!"

Boom! Gone...before a pitch was thrown.

I can see your point. But (you had to know that was coming), how do you handle the coaches that you don't really know?

For instance, in CT during State Playoffs, there comes a time when umpires are not permitted to work the games that include schools from their regular season area. Therefore, many umpires are walking into a very intense game and they have either never met, or barely know the coaches.

How does an umpire let these coaches know that (s)he is not willing to discuss judgement calls?

I'd expect an umpire qualified to do states to have game management expertise.

CTblue, here is where we differ.

I don't say that I'm not willing to discuss judgement calls. What I am unwilling to do is to take abuse, delay the game or be made a fool of, not for any reason or type of call. So, if a coach is willing to calmly ask a few questions, and/or get his point across, and then let it go, I don't have a problem with it.

Now, how does an umpire let the coaches know that he is unwilling to be walked on? I think the way he carries himself, a quiet confidence, looking and acting the part, goes a long way. You don't announce at pregame..." Hey, I'm not going to discuss judgement calls", at least I don't.

As previously stated, if you are working a state championship level game, there is an assumption that you have the skills to manage the game and the participants in the game.

Pete's approach is, as I see it, an example of what the FED has done with many rules, that most of us object to - dumbing down the rule so that the lowest common denominator can still enforce it. It's the ill-considered application of the KISS philosophy.

Garth explained why the "discussions" that have evolved in the game have evolved, and why the professional interpretation of the rule Pete cited have more flexibility than the letter of the rule suggests. To be sure, learning how to appropriately and consistently apply the interpretation of the rule is one of the more challenging areas of umpiring, and requires both experience and aptitude.

But difficult though it is, dumbing down this aspect of an umpire's game management responsibilities would fundamentally change the game, and turn it into something that would only resemble the game of baseball in passing. It would be a dumbing down that would cost far more than it would gain.

And it would chip away, in a big way, at the sense of pride and accomplishment we have when we walk off the field at the end of a game, knowing we turned in a good umpiring performance and managed any tense situations professionally and with aplomb.

Just quoting on handling coaches you dont know in high ranking games. (state playoffs) First the coaches know that you are qualified to do the games and yes they are going to try you. If you as an umpire know your job and have confidence in yourself, then you shouldn't have a problem. In my pregame meetings I let the coaches know how we are going to handle the game. This includes balls and strikes and judgement calls...lets play ball:eek:

If true, you're talking too much in your plate conference.

Well my spin on this is as I have played ball since a kid and have managed all levels thru American Legion including H/S (As an assit.)
During the pre game if the timimg is correct as in a manager may ask some questions about a previous call or what ever, I will tell him that I don't have a problem with him asking for an explaination about a call as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game and it's handled with respect. Now this situation does not allways come up so usally it happens during the game and I will respond depending on how the coach comes to me.
I believe that a good spirted disagreement is part of the game and that I should be able to manage it correctly and not let it get out of hand. Now if a coach comes running out of the dugout acting like Lou Pinnela he will have a very short leash as in a simple answer "Hey coach I was in postion and I saw the play" thats it and if he continues to push he will get a very clear warning that the conversation is over.
Now the problem is what happens when perhaps you got caught out of postion or missed the call and you have questiond your call in your own mind and the coach comes out and there is no doubt what his intentions are. Now we all try and keep these events down to a minimum if any at all but it does happen. Now depending on the relationship you have with your partner and the type of play it was and if the coach ask's with respect if we could ask for help I might ask for help. But no matter what happens never let them see you sweat. Even if you blew it and everyone knows you did, let him say his peace and end it, this is part of the game as far as I'm concerned. None of this applies to balls and strikes.

Well to start with, the plate meeting is no place to discuss anything but the ground rules and get the managers to agree that their players are properly equipped (notice I said managers). You don't discuss rules, how you are calling the game or any of that crap! The only other point that should be discussed is if you are instructed (on the rare occasion) to give pre-game warnings due to a bean ball war (that will come from your assigner). The meeting should be over in less than a minute.

As far as discussion of judgment calls goes, when a manager (there's that word again) comes out, I let him talk a bit then I ask him simply "Are we discussing your judgment or mine, coach?". That is usually enough to stop that BS from occurring again. I try to keep it quiet simple but I make sure that they realize that I am not entertaining any discussion on my judgment. I will always allow a manager to question a rule point or application (short discussions) but never judgment. You kind of learn this over the years.

My typical plate conference:

I first collect two copies of the lineups from both head coaches and scan them for obvious issues. I hand one copy of the lineups to appropriate head coach.

Turning to home head coach: "Coach would you take us around the field?"

After he covers the ground rules, I ask: "Is everyone legally equipped?"

After receiving a positive response from both coaches I wish them luck, shake their hands and move away from the plate to allow the catcher to set up.

If you want to piss off the manager at the plate conference - issue warnings for something that hasn't yet happened. Having then gotten off on the wrong foot, be prepared for a bad experience.

Great plate meeting! I do the same but I don't wish anyone luck. I tell them, "Have a good game". That's just me being me!

The only thing I do in addition to these items is to ask them if they have any questions.


Tim.

I don't know when the first time you ejected someone during your umpiring career, but I felt my first came very soon. Like I have said in other forums, I just started out. I did 85 games last year. I only had 1 ejection, and that was because the coach argued every single call. Finally. I told him complain again and your gone. Well, 10 pitches later he complaiend about a strike being a ball so I gave him the hook. This probably isn't on topic, but I don't understand how coaches in the 8-12 year old range can honestly be arguing balls,strikes, or anything for that matter. 95% of the time when there is a play in the infield the ball won't get to the firstbaseman. And even when it does I'd say they only convert the play 1% of the time. And with the strike zone you have to be very lenient because of the age I am calling.

I don't take **** from any of the coaches. Especially, since half the coaches don't know anything about the rules of their age group. And plus there has to be an embarassment factor when a person half their age is giving them the boot. My opinion though.

Just an old habit. I tried to break it but have given up. It doesn't seem to have affected my career negatively.

95% of the time when there is a play in the infield the ball won't get to the firstbaseman. And even when it does I'd say they only convert the play 1% of the time.

Your league must be really really bad. Heck, Tee-Ball teams get outs at first more than 1% of the time.

OK, you just started out so you're still learning. Make sure you understand that you are still learning.

I don't understand how coaches in the 8-12 year old range can honestly be arguing balls,strikes, or anything for that matter.

Arguing is easy - though perhaps unwise. BTW, it's very easy to see high/low from the dugout.

And with the strike zone you have to be very lenient because of the age I am calling.

There's a big difference between lenient and inconsistent. Inconsistent will get a lot more comments from the dugout. And don't become so lenient that unhittable pitches are called strikes. Perhaps your "very lenient" falls into the later.

i don't know how kids that age can be any better though. This was fall ball so there were 8 years old preparing to play 9 year old ball next season.

That was the only coach the whole year that said there was a problem with my strike zone. And just to let everybody know, our association will NOT let him coach again this year. What a coincidence.

Never give an ultimatum to a coach! If you say to a coach "One more word and you are gone", and he says "Sorry, Blue", you have to throw him out! If you don't, you haven't kept your part of the ultimatum! Pretty silly, isn't it?

In your situation, just go to the coach and say "We are not going there today, coach! Do I make myself clear?" and do it early on. Don't allow pi$$ing and moaning about balls and strikes. If you let it fester for 3 innings, you can only blame yourself!

Be careful here. Make sure you know who the manager is and make sure that he is the only one who talks to you. He gets a little tolerance so let him have his say to a point. If he gets personal verbally ("You are horrible" as opposed to "That's a horrible call"), abusive or makes any physical contact, he's gone.

As far as who talks to you, here's the general rule of thumb I was taught:

Players - They get a smile and not much more. I'll talk to them politely about the weather and stuff like that but if they start arguing, they will be dismissed.

Base Coaches - They have no business arguing calls with me. The only discussion I want with them is "How's the wife & kids". Their job is to coach the players. If they start arguing, they usually are not long for the game.

Manager - He has the right to confront me. He is my contact to the team and he and only he speaks for the team. I will give him my undivided attention should he want to discuss (and I mean discuss) a call or decision. When he starts to repeat or when I feel he has had his say, I tell him that we are done and we are getting back to the game. I then hustle back to my position or the outfield. If he follows me, he's more than likely getting an early dismissal from the game.

Scorekeepers, Tournament Directors - Not one word is allowed! If they have a comment, they are gone - period. I've tossed 5 tournament directors in my time that thought they would intercede on an ejection or a ruling. I do not allow them on the field - period!

Fans & Parents - Not my problem. If they become a problem for me, the game is halted until someone with authority remedies the problem. If the problem doesn't go away, the game is over!

I do not and never recommend an umpire dealing with anything outside the fence. Only NCAA has specific rules that cover an umpire's legal power outside the confines of the field.

I do just the opposite -- ask the "legally equipped" question first, then ask the coach to cover the ground rules.

The point is, that's enough.

In more rec/ informal league play, I run into the problem of walking onto the field with my partner, and having the home team already throwing the ball around, ready to go, and on the field warming up. The pitcher already has the game ball (even if its 5-10 minutes before game-time). It's like when they see us starting to walk from the field they just get ready.

So then I have to play a game with the home team coach. "Hey, lets do pregame over here". What should my response be to that?

I know it should be done at homeplate, but when the pitcher has the ball, am I going to just stand there and piss off a coach for a logistical reason?

This only pretains to games where there isn't a TD, because they will provide the balls of course.

Where do you find coaches that young ? :eek:

I believe you can find them in the same league in which Garth found the 12 year old using the GD stance.:D

I used to be concerned about pissing a coach off for logistical reasons too. Not anymore. I guess you have to make a personal decision about where and when you assume control of the game. My choice is to take control as soon as I set foot on the field. If you let the coach control when and where you have your pre-game meeting, whats next? He determines the time between innings, the number of warm-up's??

My response to the situation that Tuss mentions is simple. " NO coach, get the player's off the field and we will have our plate meeting at the plate". If he doesn't like that, so what.

Well,
 

Under NFHS rules the plate conference occurs at the plate (that is why it is not called "hey let's have a meeting over here by the screeen meeting") and the defensive team is not allowed to take the field until that conference is complete.

One Rule ~ One Interpretation ~ One Mechanic

I usually don't get but one copy, which is fine by me. I ask the coaches if their players are properly equipped, remind them that sportsmanship is expected, and then ask the home team manager to cover the ground rules. I don't think I have wished anyone good luck, but I am sure I have said "have a good game".

To steer this ship back into the channel
 

The topic originally was "arguing"- the length and breadth of the plate conference developed as what I like to call in my business a "tangent."

OBR 9.02 does say (my paraphrase) "Don't argue."

What's an argument? Here comes the proverbial cutter pitch. You ball it. F2 asks you, politely and so only the two of you can hear, "Hey, blue, where was that pitch?" I'm likely to tell him. If on the other hand, his coach (around here, we don't usually call them skip or manager) asks the question from the dugout, he now has my attention. He may or may not get run, depending on a lot of factors. We all have different tolerances for BS. Knowing where to find and draw that line is an art- one I'm still working on myself.

Strikes. Outs. Beer.

Actually, counselor, the OT was a question asking when and why limited arguing became allowed. A couple of posts answered those questions directly. If you have something new to offer in regards to the OT, feel free.
If not, feel free to post whatever you'd like, as you did above.

My plate meeting takes such a short amount of time, I simply don't care where we have it. Lineup cards, properly equipped questions, ground rules, done. I will (probably) suggest us taking it to the side in a non-school game and get it over quickly.

In a HS game, they shouldn't even be on the field.

The Argument about the Argument
 

And my point, Garth, was that the first step in deciding how much argument to take is defining an argument in the first place.

Most of us remember the days when MLB umpires acted by the philosophy "I am God here. Dare not question me." That is not what is taught in modern camps and schools, and in fact, I have been told by every MLB instructor I have had that you should respond to a reasonable question with a reasonable answer. Discerning the "argument" from the "question" is not always easy.

Strikes. Outs. Beer.