Arguing

[PeteBooth]

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

[ctblu40]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[RPatrino]

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.

[GarthB]

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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

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.

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?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

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.

[RPatrino]

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.

[Dave Hensley]

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.

[mandotheman]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

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?

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mandotheman

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

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

[PFISTO]

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.

[ozzy6900]

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.