Tough game...couple of questions

[scarolinablue]

I went from having my best game (IMO) of the season last night (4-2 1:40 7-inning game between two local HS powers and rivals) to my worst game of the season tonight (18-13 3:15 uglyfest between a good 4A school and a so-so prep school in a spring break tourney). I say it was my worst game of the season because I felt my strike zone tonight was a tad on the inconsistent side, mainly on the low strike. Probably had 6-8 pitches that I muffed...maybe that's not too bad in this length of game, but I hate missing that many, or even feeling like I did.

Where I got into trouble, and the basis for question #1 is: Batter foul tips, I heard, but wasn't sure of, a possible catcher's interference. Since I wasn't sure, I rang up the foul tip strike. Third base coach calmy walks up, asks what I have, and asks me, accepts my explanation, but asks me to ask my partner (who was in C, not that I think it matters). He, of course, has nothing, as you can't/don't make that call from C. However, as I walked out to him, I begin to replay the sitch in my mind and am now convinced there probably was interference. My question is: should I have overturned this call. I'm pretty sure this isn't something the BU can't overturn, and I decided to eat the foul tip strike and play ball. Two pitches later, kid hits a double, all was forgotten, but should I have overturned this?

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. He then proceeds to ask me what the rule book defines a strike as. I tell him we're not going to discuss balls and strikes, and that's certainly not a valid question and this discussion is over. He won't leave, and repeats his question. I realize I should have dumped him right there, but I didn't. Instead I give him a loud warning (which they stress in these parts, warn first, then restrict, then eject - ejections are stressed, by the SC High School League, as a means of last resort, so maybe that's why I didn't dump him). He then tells me not to raise my voice to him, and I repeat that right back to him. I'm now about to dump him when my BU steps in between and coach retreats. I realize I let this go too far and should have dumped him when he asked the "rulebook definition" question. Opinions?

Next inning, he comes to me to make a substitution, he offers a mild apology, and we have no problems the rest of the game. However, I'm second-guessing myself the rest of the game, struggled to maintain focus, and I'm sure that caused me to muff a few other pitches the rest of the way. All in all, just a bad day, but we'll strap it on again tomorrow and do it again.

The funny thing is, the other big argument I had tonight was on something that I think is a tough call but I got absolutely right. LH batter slaps a high-hopper down the third-base line...first bounce at the edge of the homeplate dirt about a foot fair, ball goes about 30 feet or more in the air, I'm right on the line, ball crosses the base (by definition, in fair territory) and lands about 25 feet past the base about 6 inches in foul territory. I'm pointing fair ball, batter ends up on second base, here comes the defensive coach. Fans (this teams fans were sitting on the first base side, so looking right down the line, and of course all they see is the ball landing past the base in foul ground) are screaming "foul ball, are you blind?" Coach comes up and says, to the catcher, but of course directed at me "what did you see." Pipsqueak says "I saw a foul ball", coach says to me "how could you call that fair?" I explain that it bounced fair, crossed the base in fair territory, and that yes, it landed in foul territory, but that is irrelevant since it both bounced fair and crossed the base in fair territory. He blows up as he turns away and screams "how could that possibly be fair if it lands foul. Unbelievable!" Maybe I could have dumped him too.

Sorry for the rant...I think I just needed to vent. I feel better already. Guess I have some frustration over the SCHSL really wanting us to avoid ejections...I feel like warnings and restrictions are really wimpy alternatives. I think I'll just need to start keeping the league office busy.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I say it was my worst game of the season because I felt my strike zone tonight was a tad on the inconsistent side, mainly on the low strike. Probably had 6-8 pitches that I muffed...maybe that's not too bad in this length of game, but I hate missing that many, or even feeling like I did.

It happens. Why do you think you missed that many pitches? Do you think your timing was off?

He, of course, has nothing, as you can't/don't make that call from C. However, as I walked out to him, I begin to replay the sitch in my mind and am now convinced there probably was interference. My question is: should I have overturned this call. I'm pretty sure this isn't something the BU can't overturn, and I decided to eat the foul tip strike and play ball. Two pitches later, kid hits a double, all was forgotten, but should I have overturned this?

I think you made the right choice. You were still not SURE that there was interference. If you're not sure, you shouldn't call it.

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 would've ended it there and returned to my position. If he follows me still wanting to argue about it, he's done.

Instead I give him a loud warning (which they stress in these parts, warn first, then restrict, then eject - ejections are stressed, by the SC High School League, as a means of last resort, so maybe that's why I didn't dump him).

It seems you've already warned him by saying you're not going to discuss balls and strikes any further. Alternatively, if you want to be a smart @$$, ask him what the rule book says about arguing balls and strikes. I don't really recommend this method though.

Sorry for the rant...I think I just needed to vent. I feel better already. Guess I have some frustration over the SCHSL really wanting us to avoid ejections...I feel like warnings and restrictions are really wimpy alternatives. I think I'll just need to start keeping the league office busy.

That is rather unfortunate. It's a tough situation to be in but I think you should do what needs to be done during a game and then let the administrators deal with it. That is preferable, to being a doormat IMO.

[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.

[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!

[lawump]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I went from having my best game (IMO) of the season last night (4-2 1:40 7-inning game between two local HS powers and rivals) to my worst game of the season tonight (18-13 3:15 uglyfest between a good 4A school and a so-so prep school in a spring break tourney). I say it was my worst game of the season because I felt my strike zone tonight was a tad on the inconsistent side, mainly on the low strike. Probably had 6-8 pitches that I muffed...maybe that's not too bad in this length of game, but I hate missing that many, or even feeling like I did.

scarolina blue,

I am speaking from experience: I have found through the years, that my very worst plate jobs virtually always occurred immediately AFTER my very best plate jobs.

I don't know why that is, but I have a theory. Basically, I think after a great plate job we, either consciously or sub-consciously, feel like "I've finally figured it out" and begin to believe that we're better than we actually are. In otherwords, I think on a sub-conscious level we go into our next game (after a great plate game) maybe a little too laid back or with a little bit of a swelled head.

From my own example (and this is only one): I had a great, great plate game in the first game of a 4 game series when I was in the minors. To top it off, there was an evaluator there (which I did not know until after the game). After the game, I got as good an evaluation as any minor league umpire could ever hope to hear. (I'm not patting myself on the back...it is what it is).

Anyways, my next plate game (game three of the series) was the worst plate game I've ever, ever had. I ejected people from BOTH teams over balls and strikes. It was miserable...and my partner was laughing at me after the game (and deservedly so). I looked like I couldn't umpire a middle school game.

I began to notice a pattern over the years...my worst games always came after my best games. I decided that subconsciuosly, I must have been having mental "let-downs" after a great game. That is, I probably wasn't focusing as much before and during the game as I probably needed to.

As a result...whenever I have a great game...I focus twice as much before the next game. I CONSCIOUSLY go through a meticulous pregame of stretching, reviewing some rules, focusing on timing, etc. Even during the first inning, I might really try to be very mechanical in calling balls and strikes just to make sure I'm totally focused.

As a result, I have significantly reduced the number of "bad" games I have. Now I rarely have one after a "great" game. Sure, a bad game still pops up once-in-awhile, but I just write it off and move on.

So, I guess, in short...take a moment and see if you made the same mistake I made: that is not focusing enough before your next game after a great game.

You might find out that that is/was your problem.

To paraphrase a well-known basketball coach in our neck of the woods (SC), "you're never as great as you think you are after (a great game) and you're never as bad as you think you are after (a bad game)."

Good Luck

[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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I went from having my best game (IMO) of the season last night (4-2 1:40 7-inning game between two local HS powers and rivals) to my worst game of the season tonight (18-13 3:15 uglyfest between a good 4A school and a so-so prep school in a spring break tourney).

In my experience a well pitched and well contested game make for a good plate performance.

When both F1's are "on" you as the PU can get into a "zone". Also, the game is crisp and has a good flow to it. In other words you are focused.

Whenever you get those marathons or slug fests is when your plate performance can be spotty.

Another factor could be fatigue if you get 5/6 plate assignments in a row from your assignor.

In a nutshell you need to ask yourself why you had a "spotty" performance and correct it the best you can.

Pete Booth

[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.