Tough game...couple of questions

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

Question #2: Other team's coach didn't like one of my low strikes, but by now, it was the fourth inning or so and I had called it there all game (in hindsight, again, I was calling it just about a ball below the knees...lower than I normally would call it, but I had established it there and kept it there). In this case, I probably missed it and it was mid-shin, and this probably influenced my lack of ejection that followed. He approached calmly, asked how I could call that a strike, and I told him it was the same place I'd been calling them all game, we're not discussing this any further, let's play ball. .

I'm assuming he requested time and I'm assuming you granted.
IMO that's where things went awry.
I would never grant time to allow a coach to come to the plate and discuss balls and strikes in the middle of an inning.
If you don't grant time and he still comes to the plate, he's delaying the game and I would start ringing up strikes on his batter.
Lots of advantages with this strategy.
1. I'll probably get an "out" out of it.
2. He'll wise up real quick and get his butt back where it belongs. Or more likely
3. He'll lose his temper and you get an easy ejection with no mental gymnastics.

If he does manage to stay in the game you just nuetered him and I doubt you have any more problems.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

If you don't grant time and he still comes to the plate, he's delaying the game and I would start ringing up strikes on his batter.

Why punish the kids for the coach's behavior?

[sargee7]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I'm assuming he requested time and I'm assuming you granted.
IMO that's where things went awry.
I would never grant time to allow a coach to come to the plate and discuss balls and strikes in the middle of an inning.
If you don't grant time and he still comes to the plate, he's delaying the game and I would start ringing up strikes on his batter.
Lots of advantages with this strategy.
1. I'll probably get an "out" out of it.
2. He'll wise up real quick and get his butt back where it belongs. Or more likely
3. He'll lose his temper and you get an easy ejection with no mental gymnastics.

If he does manage to stay in the game you just nuetered him and I doubt you have any more problems.

Don, even if you don't grant "time" to the coach, if he approaches the plate with a live ball you HAVE to kill the play because this idiot has now interjected himself in the middle of it. If he did that, I would not hesitate, kill the play and immediately elect.

Don't start ringing up strikes on the batter. What if he were to hit a pitch and put the ball into play during this, naw, kill the play, toss the coach and start again.

Assuming that scarolinablue called time, even though he doesn't say let's go on that basis. Assuming the coach requested time, I'd do the same because I have no reason not to grant time since I don't know why the coach is asking for it. For all I know it could be he wants to make a change or he has a question about something else relevant at that time.

Once he's starting to question, knowing full well that you've been calling low all game and now one mid-shin give the coach a little more latitude than you normally would. Keeps him happy, no ejections, you know you've missed some. What extra you give him is up to you.

Regarding the CI - if you're not sure, don't call. If you go ask your partner, chances are he will agree with you, unless 100% positive you made the wrong call. From 100' away, it's not likely.

[scarolinablue]

For the play in question, I had granted time to the coach. The way he approached me, it appeared he was going to make a substitution (he was holding his lineup card, and this was the way he had made a previous substitution).

As BigGuy said, I probably gave him a little latitude due to the fact it was a questionable strike by my own estimation, but I think I let it get out of hand.

The way the game went compared to the previous night's affair, I can best describe in a golf analogy. You ever notice how guys who light up the course one day, say shoot a 63, rarely ever follow it with a solid round, and often come in around 76 the next day? That's kind of how these two games feel to me. It happens, I know, and I'll do my best to be around a 70 tonight!

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by sargee7

Don, even if you don't grant "time" to the coach, if he approaches the plate with a live ball you HAVE to kill the play because this idiot has now interjected himself in the middle of it. If he did that, I would not hesitate, kill the play and immediately elect.

Don't start ringing up strikes on the batter. What if he were to hit a pitch and put the ball into play during this, naw, kill the play, toss the coach and start again.

I'm sorry I miscommunicated.

I would not continue play and certainly would not allow a pitch. Certainly I would kill the play, but not because the coach requested it but because we can't play with him at the plate, which is why it is delaying the game.
I would ring up a strike much like I would if the batter refused to get in the box. Dead ball strike. I don't have my Fed book with me but OBR 6.02 (c)
I know this refers to the batter, but it's a delay of game issue. I have no problem applying it to a coach that is in the plate area with out permission.

There were two issues I saw in the OP that I was addressing.
1. His reluctance to eject a coach because of outside pressures.
I presented this option as a way to quickly get the coach back in the dugout or bait him into a very easy ejection.
2. To make the point that IMO the coach should not be allowed at the plate to discuss balls and strikes. In this case a very strong statement can be made short of ejection. I refer back to my 3 advantages of this strategy.

[ctblu40]

Here's what I would have done:

(1) If I don't call interference right away, I'm not calling it at all. Then it looks like the coach talked you into it. However, if I talk to my partner, and he's sure he saw int, I approach the other coach, tell him "I wasn't sure, but after talking to my partner, I know now that I have int."

(2) Even if I'm having a "not-so-good" game, as soon as I know the coach want's to argue balls and strikes, I warn, "Coach, you may not leave your position to argue balls and strikes." If he takes another step and mentions the strike zone, I run him in a BIG way. Don't let your bad game be a free pass for the coaches.

(3) If a coach comes out to argue with me about a call I make, and to bolster his position, he asks a player what happened, I tell him, "This discussion is between you and me coach. You and I will discuss it." If he asks the player again, I run him. He's asking the player for one of two reasons, 1. He thinks you're lying (questioning integrity) or 2. making sure the player knows what a blind fool you are (showing you up). Either way, I bounce the coach and tell the kid not to lie to his coach.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

I'm sorry I miscommunicated.

I would not continue play and certainly would not allow a pitch. Certainly I would kill the play, but not because the coach requested it but because we can't play with him at the plate, which is why it is delaying the game.
I would ring up a strike much like I would if the batter refused to get in the box. Dead ball strike. I don't have my Fed book with me but OBR 6.02 (c)
I know this refers to the batter, but it's a delay of game issue. I have no problem applying it to a coach that is in the plate area with out permission.

There were two issues I saw in the OP that I was addressing.
1. His reluctance to eject a coach because of outside pressures.
I presented this option as a way to quickly get the coach back in the dugout or bait him into a very easy ejection.
2. To make the point that IMO the coach should not be allowed at the plate to discuss balls and strikes. In this case a very strong statement can be made short of ejection. I refer back to my 3 advantages of this strategy.

Again I ask, why penalize a kid because his coach is not behaving?

[johnnyg08]

I agree...while working a good plate does establish you as an umpire...working to many in a row can cause issues.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by Blue37

Again I ask, why penalize a kid because his coach is not behaving?

Good Question.
Here's the way I look at it.
One dead ball strike call or even one dead ball K in the life of a high school ball player means virtually nothing to that player an hour after the game is over. I can speak fairly confidently to this having played myself and also having 3 kids that have played HS ball. Although I don't ever remember this specific call being made on them, they certainly have felt they got the wrong end of some very egregious calls. Almost always the call is forgotten before dinner. However, the coach, if he has half a brain will remember the call, the point of the call and the person who made the call for a long time.
So that coach will never approach a plate I'm behind again without permission and the kid will forget the called strike before breakfast.

One quick clarification.
I definitely don't want to dead ball K a kid, so I'm certainly letting the coach know the possible consequences of his actions if I have 2 strikes on the batter, then the onus is on the coach.
I have never dead ball K'd anyone, but I have rung up a strike in this situation, the coach was stunned, he then turned around and went back to his box. I'm sure I got more milage out of that strike than I ever would have got out of an ejection.

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Good Question.
Here's the way I look at it.
One dead ball strike call or even one dead ball K in the life of a high school ball player means virtually nothing to that player an hour after the game is over. I can speak fairly confidently to this having played myself and also having 3 kids that have played HS ball. Although I don't ever remember this specific call being made on them, they certainly have felt they got the wrong end of some very egregious calls. Almost always the call is forgotten before dinner. However, the coach, if he has half a brain will remember the call, the point of the call and the person who made the call for a long time.
So that coach will never approach a plate I'm behind again without permission and the kid will forget the called strike before breakfast.

One quick clarification.
I definitely don't want to dead ball K a kid, so I'm certainly letting the coach know the possible consequences of his actions if I have 2 strikes on the batter, then the onus is on the coach.
I have never dead ball K'd anyone, but I have rung up a strike in this situation, the coach was stunned, he then turned around and went back to his box. I'm sure I got more milage out of that strike than I ever would have got out of an ejection.

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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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?.

Same place where it says a coach can come to the plate during live ball action to argue about my balls and strikes.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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..

I did it. So I got the authority from somewhere.
I think it's called assumed authority. Your speaking strictly to expressed authority.
And I agree that I overstepped my expressed authority, but it worked so well that given similar circumstances I'll do it again.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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.

I know the rule. I'm not arguing. But it's a great way to disarm the coach and an easy sell.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

Good Question.
Here's the way I look at it.
One dead ball strike call or even one dead ball K in the life of a high school ball player means virtually nothing to that player an hour after the game is over. I can speak fairly confidently to this having played myself and also having 3 kids that have played HS ball. Although I don't ever remember this specific call being made on them, they certainly have felt they got the wrong end of some very egregious calls. Almost always the call is forgotten before dinner. However, the coach, if he has half a brain will remember the call, the point of the call and the person who made the call for a long time.
So that coach will never approach a plate I'm behind again without permission and the kid will forget the called strike before breakfast.

One quick clarification.
I definitely don't want to dead ball K a kid, so I'm certainly letting the coach know the possible consequences of his actions if I have 2 strikes on the batter, then the onus is on the coach.
I have never dead ball K'd anyone, but I have rung up a strike in this situation, the coach was stunned, he then turned around and went back to his box. I'm sure I got more milage out of that strike than I ever would have got out of an ejection.

Leave the cheating to the Rats. If you can't call an honest game, find another hobby.