HS Coach Strikes Umpire

[outathm]

I am amazed that only one person has mentioned how far back the guy was calling balls and strikes. I imagine he did get some noise if he was calling pitches from as far back as he was.

I by no means condone the coach arguing, but if your going to get dressed up like Darth Vader you should at least be able to close the gap to the plate.

[LMan]

I can only see one small clip of him in his stance...although he's not using the GD stance, he doesn't appear to be any farther back than the GD stance allows. Hybrid box/GD? who knows.....*shrug*

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Aren't both Tathum and Mikulik centered in Asheville? What's in the water?

It probably won't surprise you to know I'm originally from Asheville, now would it

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If the umpire didn't have a helmet on, there would have been no contact and there would have been no discussion.

Good point, he should have had his helmet off, and if he did it wouldn't have been a head butt. Given that he had his helment on it wasn't a head butt but a mask butt, same difference though, in effect. I have my mind made up because I saw it clearly, was in position to make the call and made it decisively.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by outathm

I am amazed that only one person has mentioned how far back the guy was calling balls and strikes. I imagine he did get some noise if he was calling pitches from as far back as he was.

I by no means condone the coach arguing, but if your going to get dressed up like Darth Vader you should at least be able to close the gap to the plate.

Higher and deeper is perfectly appropriate and is a staple of the GD stance.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by SAump

I hope that whenever I make a mistake, I can find a lawyer that can sell as bad an argument to the jury as well as most of you have here.

I'll take this umpire's case. Sorry, SAump...I think you're wrong.

What does this video show?
(1) A coach arguing balls and strikes (and leaving his position to do so)...which every umpire, coach and player from little league to MLB knows is the quickest way to an automatic ejection.
(2) An umpire ejecting the coach AND turning his back on the aggressor (the coach) and walking away.
(3) The coach physically grabbing the umpire and turning him around. The umpire points at him (and likely, I submit based upon my umpire training, tells the coach "that's a bump" or something of that nature).
(4) The coach takes several steps directly TOWARD the umpire and makes contact with the umpire. THE COACH INITIATES THIS ADDITIONAL CONTACT. The coach's face clearly touches the umpires' mask and he goes chest-to-chest with the umpire. At about the same time the coach quickly brings up both of hands to his chest level, suggesting to a reasonable person that he might be getting ready to push the umpire. THIS ALL HAPPENS BEFORE THE "HEAD-BUTT" THAT SOME ON THIS THREAD HAVE SUGGESTED THE UMPIRE COMMITTED.
(5) At this point, there has been NO SEPARATION between the umpire and coach [Again, the COACH initiated this contact (as described in #4.)]
(6) Then, within a second or two of the coach initiating contact (as described in #4), the umpire's head moves toward the coach. I think there is a very strong argument that can be made that this is nothing more than the head's natural movement when the umpire was yelling at the coach.

BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL HEAD-BUTT: If I was defending the umpire in some lawsuit that arose as a result of this incident, I'd have a great defense to any claim the coach has arising out of the head-butt. Basically the law says a person can use force in self-defense and such force extends to the use of all reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact...whether that contact is intentional or negligent.

Again, Coach grabs umpire, coach then steps offensively toward umpire (who again was walking away after the ejection) and contacts the umpire. Furthermore, the coach brings his hands up to chest level in a threatening manner. With a second or two of these actions, the umpire MAY have head-butted the coach. Even if it was a head-butt, this action was clearly "reasonable force" to meet the threat the coach was posing with his contact and threatened contact.

(7) The coach then takes his right hand and pushes the umpire's head after the perceived head butt.

How anyone can suggest that the umpire is the aggressor here is beyond me. Again, he (1) walked away after the ejection. (2) The COACH grabbed the umpire. (3) The COACH after turning the umpire around walked directly AT the umpire AND initiated contact with him. The COACH's face and chest clearly make contact with the umpire. (4) The COACH then raises his hands. (5) Within seconds the UMPIRE either starts yelling at the coach and his natural movements cause contact between his mask and the Coach's head OR he head butts the coach...which I submit is reasonable force to meet the threat posed by the Coach.

[TussAgee11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYv89qgZLqQ

To me, yes the coach grabbed the umpire which started the physical conflict.

But the headbutt, the most physical violence up to that time, came from the umpire, no question about it.

This is why your partner should fly in after an ejection and play rodeo clown.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by lawump

I'll take this umpire's case.

BUT EVEN IF THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL HEAD-BUTT: If I was defending the umpire in some lawsuit that arose as a result of this incident, I'd have a great defense to any claim the coach has arising out of the head-butt. Basically the law says a person can use force in self-defense and such force extends to the use of all reasonable force to prevent any threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact...whether that contact is intentional or negligent.

The coach should not have been arguing this call. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have tried to turn the umpire around to continue arguing. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have put his face in the umpire's face. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The umpire should not have head butted the coach, using his face mask as a weapon. NOW SOMEBODY COULD GET INJURED!

The coach's final reaction was clearly in response to getting a piece of rigid metal shoved into his face. But even that was nothing more than a "girlie shove" that couldn't have injured a 6-yr-old.

I'm not condoning anything this coach did. I'm only pointing out that the only thing that happened that had the potential for bodily injury was the umpire's head butt.

If I were an attorney, I wouldn't want to defend either one of them. From a bodily harm aspect, however; I would think the coach's actions would be easier to defend than the umpire's. I don't see anything the coach did that warranted getting a face full of metal.

The coach was physical with the intent of getting the umpire's attention - not with doing the umpire any physical harm. Nor could the action taken by the coach be construed as having the reasonable potential to cause bodily harm.

This does not justify the coach's actions, however.

On the other hand, it appears the umpire's only intent was to cause physical harm. And his action could certainly be construed as having the potential to cause great bodily harm.

I would say the latter trumps the former as for as egregiousness.

There should be sanctions for both - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[lawump]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The coach should not have been arguing this call. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have tried to turn the umpire around to continue arguing. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have put his face in the umpire's face. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The umpire should not have head butted the coach, using his face mask as a weapon. NOW SOMEBODY COULD GET INJURED!

The coach's final reaction was clearly in response to getting a piece of rigid metal shoved into his face. But even that was nothing more than a "girlie shove" that couldn't have injured a 6-yr-old.

I'm not condoning anything this coach did. I'm only pointing out that the only thing that happened that had the potential for bodily injury was the umpire's head butt.

If I were an attorney, I wouldn't want to defend either one of them. From a bodily harm aspect, however; I would think the coach's actions would be easier to defend than the umpire's. I don't see anything the coach did that warranted getting a face full of metal.

The coach was physical with the intent of getting the umpire's attention - not with doing the umpire any physical harm. Nor could the action taken by the coach be construed as having the reasonable potential to cause bodily harm.

This does not justify the coach's actions, however.

On the other hand, it appears the umpire's only intent was to cause physical harm. And his action could certainly be construed as having the potential to cause great bodily harm.

I would say the latter trumps the former as for as egregiousness.

There should be sanctions for both - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The coach grabs the umpire, the coach walks toward and initiates contact with the umpire, the coach brings his hands up...do these actions AND the perceived threat they create, make it reasonable for the umpire to head-butt the coach?

I say "yes"...I believe you would say "no". And that is why (1) many law professors often say (as they are handing out their final exam) that there is no right or wrong answer to the question asked in the exam AND (2) we have juries for "real life" situations.

[Mike L]

when I first began working baseball many moons ago, I was fortunate enough to have a very good, very wise old veteran mentor me. One of the things he always stressed was a simple rule set in order to get better:

1) realize you will make mistakes
2) recognize and admit the mistakes you make
3) learn from those mistakes and strive to avoid them

making the excuses that his "head movement forward is just a natural physical action to responding" or the "coach was more wrong" or the "coach provoked it" is a failure of point #2 which prevents point #3.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

The coach should not have been arguing this call. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have tried to turn the umpire around to continue arguing. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The coach should not have put his face in the umpire's face. But nobody is going to get injured as a result.

The umpire should not have head butted the coach, using his face mask as a weapon. NOW SOMEBODY COULD GET INJURED!

The coach's final reaction was clearly in response to getting a piece of rigid metal shoved into his face. But even that was nothing more than a "girlie shove" that couldn't have injured a 6-yr-old.

I'm not condoning anything this coach did. I'm only pointing out that the only thing that happened that had the potential for bodily injury was the umpire's head butt.

If I were an attorney, I wouldn't want to defend either one of them. From a bodily harm aspect, however; I would think the coach's actions would be easier to defend than the umpire's. I don't see anything the coach did that warranted getting a face full of metal.

The coach was physical with the intent of getting the umpire's attention - not with doing the umpire any physical harm. Nor could the action taken by the coach be construed as having the reasonable potential to cause bodily harm.

This does not justify the coach's actions, however.

On the other hand, it appears the umpire's only intent was to cause physical harm. And his action could certainly be construed as having the potential to cause great bodily harm.

I would say the latter trumps the former as for as egregiousness.

There should be sanctions for both - in my opinion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I'm not surprised that you continue to argue from the perspective of the rodent.

Let's hit the important points:

(1) Umpire calls pitch a ball
(2) Coach COMES OUT to argue
(3) Coach gets ejected quickly
(4) Umpire TURNS AND STARTS WALKING AWAY
(5) Coach turns umpire with BOTH HANDS

OK, those are the important points. Cause after 5, I sureashell am not turning and walking away AGAIN.

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

It is interesting to me that there is such a dichotomy in the responses from other umpires across the country. I've thought long and hard about what's been said and written and I've tried (as much as possible to put myself in Russell Hall (umpire)'s shoes). Here's where I stand.


1) Was Bergin Tatham or Russell Hall the agressor in this confrontation? It is fairly obvious to me that Tatham was the aggressor. Hall maintained a good 3-5 feet from Tatham as he ejected him and then walked away. Tatham paused to look at the crowd with his hands up, then chose to move toward Hall. He put his hands on Hall without Hall ever seeing what was happening. He may not have "spun Hall around" but he certainly initiated contact. He then began to jaw with Hall before the supposed "head butt".

2) Did Hall head butt Tatham? We will never really know the answer. He definitely made contact with Tatham. Was it an intentional action or merely a by-product of a heated argument? Without being there and hearing every word, without knowing the type of guy Hall is, it is inconclusive. I am a little dubious that any umpire would think of intentionally head butting a coach, helment or not. But there is such thing a fight or flight response and that may have kicked in.

3) Should Hall have taken off his mask? Absolutely...He made a mistake by not taking it off. But did it change or affect the outcome? Doubtful since Tatham's aggression didn't seem to be affected by the helmet on or off. If the head butt was intentional he could have done it with or without the mask.


4) Should Hall be punished as well? Again, I don't know what happened throughout the entire game. Maybe he baited Tatham or something of the like. I can tell you that Mark Dreibelbis, NCHSAA Supervisor of Officiating, will not tolerate any junk or sloppiness. If there is fault by Hall, Dreibelbis and his staff will handle it. On the merits of only the tape, I would only caution Hall in the future to remove his mask and I would chastize his partner for not getting there sooner (he never appears in the video that I can see).


I have wondered how I would have reacted had someone come up from behind me and put their hands on me. Several people have said it didn't look aggressive or it wasn't that big of a deal. How do we know? We can only judge that yes there was contact and a coach put his hands on the official. I can't tell you precisely what I would do but I know any contact would shock me and probably kick in my fight/flight response.

I think it is extremely easy to say how we as umpire's would/should handle this. The problem is that very few officials (thankfully) have ever had to deal with this. I do know one thing, Tatham is extremly lucky from a criminal standpoint. What he did by coming up from behind Hall and grabbing him is a Class 1 Misdemeanor under NC Law as it clearly was assault.

As an aside, last year in an American Legion game I missed a batter interference call late in the game. The defensive head coach came out to argue with me. I still had my mask on when about 30 seconds in the discussion I realized I had not removed it. I removed it like you should by pulling out and then up. In the process, I "billed" the coach with my mask. He could have gone nuts but is a class guy and immediately accepted my apology. Luckily, the discussion started calmly and ended calmly.

Lawrence

[lawump]

Lawrence and Rich,

I don't disagree with your timelines at all. Only, to me, this FACT is crucial:

Not only does the coach physically "turn the umpire" around...after he does so, he walks directly and purposefully TO the umpire (the umpire does not move toward the coach) and then MAKES CONTACT with the umpire AGAIN. He goes chest-to-chest with the umpire and THE COACH PUTS HIS FACE ON THE UMPIRES' MASK. It is as plain as day. Again, the first time the coach's face touches the umpire's mask it is because THE COACH PUT HIS FACE ON THE UMPIRE'S MASK. Does this mean the umpire is not allowed to move his head out of fear of injuring the coach? Of course not.

This is a "bumping" folks.

I think too many people on this thread are ignoring and/or minimizing what occurred between the time the coach turned the umpire around and the moment of the alledged head butt. The coach's aggression is not limited to his turning the umpire around. Physical contact INITIATED by the coach continued after that event and BEFORE the "head butt".

The coach was out of control.

[Lawrence.Dorsey]

Lawump,

I should have been more concise. At the end of the day, Coach Tatham is clearly in the wrong. Does Hall deserve some evaluation to see if he could have handled it better, yes. But he never initiated the touching nor Coach Tatham getting in his face prior to the supposed head butt. I agree with what you have said.

Lawrence

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by LMan

It probably won't surprise you to know I'm originally from Asheville, now would it

In St. Clair County ?????!!