Coaches outside dugout

[David B]

Originally Posted by Old Time Ump

David B, 9.01c

I needed a laugh! Don't even go there!

Thanks
David

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Old Time Ump

David B, 9.01c

Old Time Ump,

Are you this mealy-mouthed and transparent when you umpire games? (On the off chance that you actually have ever umpired a game.)

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on why the situations being discussed in this thread might properly be considered situations to which 9.01(c) could apply and what the proper application might be. Instead of pretending to say something pithy in regard to the discussion.

Let's see, Clips2 suggested a 9.01(c) ruling. He was wrong. (I'm guessing he doesn't even realize what he suggested ruling.)

Bob P. suggested alternative rulings. While I found some of his suggested rulings a bit draconian, he obviously has a formidably deeper understanding of the principles underlying the game than clips. And, I would guess, a much better understanding of the proper application of 9.01(c) than you.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Do tell.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Hmmm....

So, if I understand you correctly, you would award the defense an out because a defensive coach interfered with a (defensive) fielder's attempt to catch a pop fly.

Groundbreaking ruling, to say the least.

I would very much enjoy being the offensive manager (who was in his dugout, like he was supposed to be, by the way) when you made this call.

JM

Very interesting.

My first reaction to 1) was rule as if the ball went into the dugout. My first reaction to 2) was interference. But then the curve ball is thrown and we consider who was sitting on the bucket.

But don't enjoy the situation too much.

[UmpJM]

Don,

Originally Posted by DG

But don't enjoy the situation too much.

Good advice.

Since you brought it up, which of:

"mealy-mouthed", "transparent", and "draconian"

do you think would get me tossed in a game?

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Don,



Good advice.

Since you brought it up, which of:

"mealy-mouthed", "transparent", and "draconian"

do you think would get me tossed in a game?

JM

Personal, prolonged, or profane will get you tossed. It would depend on what you said while you were mealy-mouthed, transparent, or dracanian whether one of the 2P's applied. The prolonged P is a function of time and would probably be the last P. Given enough time the other two P's will appear but if not, rolonged will get rid of the argument.

It's a mute discussion, however, because I don't allow coaches on buckets outside the dugout.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Old Time Ump,

Are you this mealy-mouthed and transparent when you umpire games? (On the off chance that you actually have ever umpired a game.)

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on why the situations being discussed in this thread might properly be considered situations to which 9.01(c) could apply and what the proper application might be. Instead of pretending to say something pithy in regard to the discussion.

Let's see, Clips2 suggested a 9.01(c) ruling. He was wrong. (I'm guessing he doesn't even realize what he suggested ruling.)

Bob P. suggested alternative rulings. While I found some of his suggested rulings a bit draconian, he obviously has a formidably deeper understanding of the principles underlying the game than clips. And, I would guess, a much better understanding of the proper application of 9.01(c) than you.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Do tell.

JM

Damn. You really have crossed over. You, sir have become an umpire. I'm so proud....I could cry.

Congratulations. Now, you just need a new moniker to keep others from being confused as to how to take your posts.

(I told you what would happen if you went to the Evans Classic.)

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Damn. You really have crossed over. You, sir have become an umpire. I'm so proud....I could cry.

Congratulations. Now, you just need a new moniker to keep others from being confused as to how to take your posts.

(I told you what would happen if you went to the Evans Classic.)

Whaddya say... "UmpJM" sounds pretty good as a new screen name...

[UmpJM]

Well,

I guess I kind of have crossed over, but that really started to happen a while ago.

I suppose I am an umpire now, but I'm certainly not as good an umpire as I'd like to be. I'm working on it.

Despite the points raised in PeteBooth's very interesting thread Umpiring is not that difficult, I would say it's not that easy either.

As to my nickname, I've been "CoachJM" since I started posting on these boards. I'm kind of a stickler in regard to my own behavior in regard to what I consider proper etiquette when posting on boards such as this. Part of that is not posting under different nicknames. I haven't figured out how to "change" my nickname (so that my previous posts could still be attributed to me) without creating a new nickname. So, for the time being, I'll remain CoachJM.

JM

[GarthB]

Yep. The transition has been obvious. Although, you had a command of the rules prior to the beginning of your conversion, your explanations now come from a different voice. And, I believe, your experience in Arizona has been helped seal the deal. That training is more than some umpires with ten years experience have had.

The problem remains that some folks will know you by your screen name only and will confuse the intent of your posts.

Might I suggest "The umpire formerly known as CoachJM."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David B

Now if you could just give me the rule to back up your decision.

Sure the bucket is not supposed to be on the field but it still requires "intent"

Same as with the photograper, kids warming up in live ball territory, etc.,

Thansk
David

Somewhere, there's a FED ruling (might be in one of the yearly interps) to the effect that an umpire should judge what would have happened to a thrown ball that hits equipment left outside the dugout, and rule accordingly.

IMO, the benefit of the doubt goes to the team that didn't have the equipment / bucket outside the dugout.

[UmpJM]

Bob,

From FED 1-3-7:

PENALTY: If loose equipment interferes with play, the umpire may call an out(s), award bases or return runners, based on his judgement and the circumstances concerning the play.

JM

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Somewhere, there's a FED ruling (might be in one of the yearly interps) to the effect that an umpire should judge what would have happened to a thrown ball that hits equipment left outside the dugout, and rule accordingly.

IMO, the benefit of the doubt goes to the team that didn't have the equipment / bucket outside the dugout.

You're right.
Fed 1-3-7
Under penalty
If loose equipment interferes with play, the umpire may call an out(s), award bases or return runners, based on his judgement and the circumstances concerning the play.

I love these total judgement penalties

[Daryl H. Long]

1): Equipment must be inside the dugout or in a dead ball area.

NF Rule 1-3-7...loose equipment, such as gloves, bats, helmets, or catcher's gear, of either team, may not be on or near the field

Penalty: If loose equipment interferes with the play, the umpire may call an out(s), award bases or return runners, based on his judgement and the circumstances concerning the play.

2) People must be inside the dugout unless authorized to be out.

NF Rule3-3-1a.

A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not leave the dugout during a live ball for an unauthorized purpose.

Penalty: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected.

Therefore, it is illegal for a coach or any player etc to sit on a bucket outside the dugout at any time. Nor may any equipment be left lying in live ball area. Umpires must be diligent to make sure these two basic rules are followed. I mention it briefly at pregame meeting with coaches as a preventative measure and so far I have never had to invoke any of the penalties listed above.

[DG]

Coaches sitting outside the dugout on buckets is no longer a problem around here. Players coming out to congratulate runners who have scored still is.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by DG

Coaches sitting outside the dugout on buckets is no longer a problem around here. Players coming out to congratulate runners who have scored still is.

It is OK for players to come out of the dugout to congratulate scoring runners if the ball has become dead because of home run or other awarded bases during a dead ball.

The prohibition is only while the ball is LIVE.