Tough game...couple of questions

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I didn't make up a rule, I made up a penalty.

I have a serious question for you.
Fed rules
Home team at bat R1, R2 no outs

Ground ball to F5 forces out R2
R2 keeps jogging right past 3rd to dug out.
6 feet from dugout R2 takes off helmet while still jogging and 1 second later is in dug out helmet in hand.
You clearly see it.
Are you issuing a warning?
If you answer truthfully then the answer should be no, if you answer yes then I'm sure I can find a sitch to get my point accross.
I think you get my point.
If you answered no
You have just chosen to ignore a safety rule
Do you ignore other safety rules also. You obviously take it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide which rules are important enough to enforce.

If you choose not to penalize a rules infraction haven't you in essence changed the penalty?
We all draw lines within the rule book, it's just a matter of where.
In this case I chose to modify the penalty and got a much better long term result than an ejection would have got me.

So, you equate being in LBT for a second without a helmet with penalizing a batter for the actions of his coach?

Not even in the same ball park.

Here's an example that fits: You're upset with your wife, so you spank your kid.

BTW what the hell does "better than though" mean?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I didn't make up a rule, I made up a penalty.

Did you do this to avoid dumpin the coach? I hope not.

The problem with this is that you're making it difficult for the other umpires who will work this team's games.

[LMan]

Don, you are way out of line on this one. Back off from the ledge and think about what you are saying. Your solution isn't one, to be blunt. Listen to the collective wisdom and rethink your approach here.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by LMan

Don, you are way out of line on this one. Back off from the ledge and think about what you are saying. Your solution isn't one, to be blunt. Listen to the collective wisdom and rethink your approach here.

I do recognize at this point that I am on the ledge, but dug in quite nicely.
I'm going to step away from the ledge a bit. I shouldn't be advocating to new umpires the idea of substituting their own penalties in any situation. Nor should I make a practice of it.
As to another poster thinking my handling of this situation makes it more difficult for future umps with this coach I disagree.
This coach now believes that if he comes out to argue a strike call his batter is at risk for a delay of game strike. That strike means more to him than an ejection. He hasn't argued strikes and balls with me in the 2 games since.(he has a well deserved reputation as a whiner)

So in this case, I saved an ejection and modified behavior of a coach at the expense of 1 strike to a batter.
Not saying it was right only that this time it worked. IMO

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I do recognize at this point that I am on the ledge, but dug in quite nicely.
I'm going to step away from the ledge a bit. I shouldn't be advocating to new umpires the idea of substituting their own penalties in any situation. Nor should I make a practice of it.
As to another poster thinking my handling of this situation makes it more difficult for future umps with this coach I disagree.
This coach now believes that if he comes out to argue a strike call his batter is at risk for a delay of game strike. That strike means more to him than an ejection. He hasn't argued strikes and balls with me in the 2 games since.(he has a well deserved reputation as a whiner)

So in this case, I saved an ejection and modified behavior of a coach at the expense of 1 strike to a batter.
Not saying it was right only that this time it worked. IMO

But it isn't over yet. Sooner or later, that coach will learn the truth, and you will be perceived as either a dishonest, cheating umpire, or "another" ignorant umpire. That may not bother you. Perhaps you're used to it. But it will bleed over into his relationship with other umpires.

Quoted from Don Mueller I do recognize at this point that I am on the ledge, but dug in quite nicely.
I'm going to step away from the ledge a bit. I shouldn't be advocating to new umpires the idea of substituting their own penalties in any situation. Nor should I make a practice of it.
As to another poster thinking my handling of this situation makes it more difficult for future umps with this coach I disagree.
This coach now believes that if he comes out to argue a strike call his batter is at risk for a delay of game strike. That strike means more to him than an ejection. He hasn't argued strikes and balls with me in the 2 games since.(he has a well deserved reputation as a whiner)

So in this case, I saved an ejection and modified behavior of a coach at the expense of 1 strike to a batter.
Not saying it was right only that this time it worked. IMO

Since I posted my first statement to you - and for the benefit of someone who doesn't want to go back and find it, I'll copy it here

I have a real simple question - where in FED does it say you can call a strike on a batter for conduct on the part of the coach? As long as the batter is in the batter's box and the batter has not committed an infraction, you as PU have NO authority to call a strike on the batter in this situation.

The only time an umpire may charge a batter with a strike other than a called strike or swinging strike/foul ball, is for delay of game on the part of the BATTER. See 2-27-1f, 7-2-1e, or 7-3-1 penalty

Now - several since me have commented on some of your, shall we say, "questionable" tactics. You have remained steadfast in your defense even though you admit what you did was not within the confines of the written rule. You indicate that you have avoided an ejection and at the same time made the coach think twice about repeating it in the future.

The entire problem with your line of thinking is this - at some point in time that coach WILL find out that what you did is not legal. And maybe some time in the future you'll have another game with him and he's going to realize what a horse's a$$ you really are and he will spread the word about you. Your credibility will be called into question on every rule interp situation you have.

In any situation where an umpire makes up rules as the means to the end, it is wrong, no ifs, ands or buts about it. An umpire is judged by his actions on the field and by his INTEGRITY. What you have done is compromised your integrity whether or not the coach ever finds out about it. AN UMPIRE CAN NEVER COMPROMISE HIS INTEGRITY. IF HE DOES, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO BE AN UMPIRE.

For some reason, you seem to be the only one in this discussion to think this way. You better change your attitute quick before you find yourself before a protest board or before your state association get's a hold of you and tries to take your license for ethics violations.

[lds7199]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I do recognize at this point that I am on the ledge, but dug in quite nicely.
I'm going to step away from the ledge a bit. I shouldn't be advocating to new umpires the idea of substituting their own penalties in any situation. Nor should I make a practice of it.
As to another poster thinking my handling of this situation makes it more difficult for future umps with this coach I disagree.
This coach now believes that if he comes out to argue a strike call his batter is at risk for a delay of game strike. That strike means more to him than an ejection. He hasn't argued strikes and balls with me in the 2 games since.(he has a well deserved reputation as a whiner)

So in this case, I saved an ejection and modified behavior of a coach at the expense of 1 strike to a batter.
Not saying it was right only that this time it worked. IMO

The problem is you haven't solved anything, and you sure haven't made it any easier on future umpires. These made up "rules" and "penalties" just make the work of future umpires that much more difficult.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

As to another poster thinking my handling of this situation makes it more difficult for future umps with this coach I disagree.
This coach now believes that if he comes out to argue a strike call his batter is at risk for a delay of game strike. That strike means more to him than an ejection. He hasn't argued strikes and balls with me in the 2 games since.(he has a well deserved reputation as a whiner)

So in this case, I saved an ejection and modified behavior of a coach at the expense of 1 strike to a batter.
Not saying it was right only that this time it worked. IMO

The reason you've made it difficult for future umpires is because this coach now thinks that it's worth the minor penalty of a called strike.
You screwed the pooch on this one Don. Stop trying to defend it.

BTW- Saving an ejection when one is warrented is nothing to be proud of IMO. Do you're job. Don't look for EJ's, but take care of them when you need to.