HS Coach Strikes Umpire

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Justme

The film clip that I saw went like this
1. Coach was ejected and the PU turned away.
2. Coach followed, reached out and laid hands on the PU.
3. The PU turned around and the coach got in his face.
4. The PU got back in the coach's face, pushing forward in response to the coach's aggressive actions. (He shouldn't have but he's only human)
5. The coach hit the PU.

I agree with all your observations only I would further characterize it this way ...

Although wrong, the coach approaching the umpire from behind and touching him could not be viewed as physically threatening.

Getting in each other's face was not physically threatening. That happens all the time.

The first physically threatening act was by the UMPIRE when he thrust his mask forward, hitting the coach squarely in the face - to which the coach reacted (understandably) by taking a girlie shove to the umpire - hardly an act that will cause any physical harm - unlike a mask in the face.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. But, in my opinion, the UMPIRE was the only one who engaged in any meaningful, harmful, physical activity.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[blueump]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I agree with all your observations only I would further characterize it this way ...

Although wrong, the coach approaching the umpire from behind and touching him could not be viewed as physically threatening.

Getting in each other's face was not physically threatening. That happens all the time.

The first physically threatening act was by the UMPIRE when he thrust his mask forward, hitting the coach squarely in the face - to which the coach reacted (understandably) by taking a girlie shove to the umpire - hardly an act that will cause any physical harm - unlike a mask in the face.

There is plenty of blame to go around here. But, in my opinion, the UMPIRE was the only one who engaged in any meaningful, harmful, physical activity.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Maybe its in the eye of the beholder, but that's not the way I saw the video Dave. I clearly saw the coach give the umpire a little shove from behind. The umpire turned and they both went face to face yelling at each other. I think the "head butt" was a collision of both faces as they tried to outscream each other.

Once the coach was tossed, and the umpire turned his back and began walking away, the other umpire should have been there (if at all possible) by then to step between the two.

Besides, the ball did look a little low!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by blueump

Maybe its in the eye of the beholder, but that's not the way I saw the video Dave. I clearly saw the coach give the umpire a little shove from behind. The umpire turned and they both went face to face yelling at each other. I think the "head butt" was a collision of both faces as they tried to outscream each other.

Once the coach was tossed, and the umpire turned his back and began walking away, the other umpire should have been there (if at all possible) by then to step between the two.

Besides, the ball did look a little low!

If you hadn't "quoted" that other post, I wouldn't have had the pleasure of seeing the King Rat version.

Being grabbed and turned around from behind isn't threatening? Horsesh!t. I can tell you from my short time on the force, little feels more threatening than being grabbed from behind.

The movement of the head coincides with the body move forward and the act of yelling. Heads move when one shouts...watch the coaches.

The one sin this umpire committed was the failure to remove his helmet.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you hadn't "quoted" that other post, I wouldn't have had the pleasure of seeing the King Rat version.

Being grabbed and turned around from behind isn't threatening? Horsesh!t. I can tell you from my short time on the force, little feels more threatening than being grabbed from behind.

The movement of the head coincides with the body move forward and the act of yelling. Heads move when one shouts...watch the coaches.

The one sin this umpire committed was the failure to remove his helmet.

Why? He knew the manager was coming out and was going to get run. Why even bother respecting him by removing it? King Rat......that's priceless.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why? He knew the manager was coming out and was going to get run. Why even bother respecting him by removing it? King Rat......that's priceless.

My training, at all levels, is to remove my mask for an ejection. From Hiler three man NCAA camps, to Evans, to ABUA, to Gerry Davis, to Doug Harvey...all instructed the same: the mask comes off for an ejection. I see no reason to exempt helmets.

I have since been informed that at PBUC, when the mask comes off, someone goes.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

My training, at all levels, is to remove my mask for an ejection. From Hiler three man NCAA camps, to Evans, to ABUA, to Gerry Davis, to Doug Harvey...all instructed the same: the mask comes off for an ejection. I see no reason to exempt helmets.

I have since been informed that at PBUC, when the mask comes off, someone goes.

Not talking about a special exemption for helmets. Masks/helmets, same discussion.

Fair enough. But then you are saying that you'd leave the mask/helmet on with the head coach coming out to argue? That's what I thought you were talking about.

Looking at the video, I probably would've removed the bucket once the head coach came out to argue balls and strikes. Cause once he did that, he was going.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you hadn't "quoted" that other post, I wouldn't have had the pleasure of seeing the King Rat version.

Being grabbed and turned around from behind isn't threatening? Horsesh!t. I can tell you from my short time on the force, little feels more threatening than being grabbed from behind.

The movement of the head coincides with the body move forward and the act of yelling. Heads move when one shouts...watch the coaches.

The one sin this umpire committed was the failure to remove his helmet.

I guess I should have defined "physically threatening" a little better. By "physically threatening", I meant that the act had the potential to cause physical harm.

Touching somebody and attempting to turn them around is NOT going to injure them. Getting in somebody's face is NOT going to injure them.

Butting somebody in their unprotected face with a rigid metal mask certainly COULD cause injury.

That's what I'm saying.

So, by that definition, I maintain that the only "physically threatening" act was on the part of the umpire.

The biggest "sin" in this incident was hardly the umpire's failure to remove his mask. You say that the umpire's mask hitting the coach was incidental - I say it appeared intentional. You may be right - but I doubt you are.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[LMan]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Although wrong, the coach approaching the umpire from behind and shoving him could not be viewed as physically threatening.

Fixed that for you, and I disagree.

[DG]

I sent the video link to a friend of mine at work, a big baseball fan. He has a tripped plan in late May to 4 major league stadiums in 4 days with some of his baseball buddies.

I told him about what happened and the coach was suspended, but resigned instead.

He came to me later and said "wow, he really did deserve to be suspended, but what did they do about the umpire?" I said "what do you mean?" and he said "he head butted the coach".

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

I sent the video link to a friend of mine at work, a big baseball fan. He has a tripped plan in late May to 4 major league stadiums in 4 days with some of his baseball buddies.

I told him about what happened and the coach was suspended, but resigned instead.

He came to me later and said "wow, he really did deserve to be suspended, but what did they do about the umpire?" I said "what do you mean?" and he said "he head butted the coach".

No one said you had a monopoly on being wrong.

[GarthB]

I find it interesting that after reviewing the episode, the association that said the umpire did nothing to be punished for was the NCHSAA, a state association of schools, which, according to their material, is primarily run by AD's and coaches, not umpires.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

I sent the video link to a friend of mine at work, a big baseball fan. He has a tripped plan in late May to 4 major league stadiums in 4 days with some of his baseball buddies.

I told him about what happened and the coach was suspended, but resigned instead.

He came to me later and said "wow, he really did deserve to be suspended, but what did they do about the umpire?" I said "what do you mean?" and he said "he head butted the coach".

Wow, your buddy is a big baseball fan? Unbelievable the treasure trove of baseball knowledge big baseball fans have, especially if they visit major league stadiums around the country!

Why should anything happen to the umpire? Like Rich F. and others have pointed out, this dumb a$$ of a coach got up in the umpire's grill. When someone is up in your face, when they are supposed to be gathering their sh*t and leaving the park, they are liable to get hurt. The polite speaking distance is 3 feet, not 3 inches. Lots of bad stuff can happen when you get in the umpire's bidness.

The only thing I saw the umpire do wrong in the argument was not remove his mask. Perhaps that is why the coach biatch-slapped him. It's the only excuse I could buy in this case.

[DG]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Wow, your buddy is a big baseball fan? Unbelievable the treasure trove of baseball knowledge big baseball fans have, especially if they visit major league stadiums around the country!

Wow, you missed the point entirely, most likely because you don't care to see an umpire err either. The travel information was NOT part of the point.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

Wow, you missed the point entirely, most likely because you don't care to see an umpire err either. The travel information was NOT part of the point.

I didn't miss the point, but why didn't you just say your friend told you that the umpire should have been punished? You prefaced your post by giving me the information that your friend was a big baseball fan, as if that gave him some kind of special baseball knowledge. Was this information relevant to the situation at all? No, it wasn't. So why did you include it in your post if you didn't think it lent to his credibility? If I want unbiased opinions on umpires, the second least likely people I will solicit opinions from are fans (coaches being #1).

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen,

While it is obvious to me that the coach was the one who went "berzerkers" in this sitch, and, in my opinion, the umpire should NOT receive any sanction of any kind, to me it certainly didn't "look good" when the cage of the umpire's helmet hit the coach's face.

Up until that point, the umpire had done everything right (well, he really should have removed his helmet, but, in and of itself, not that big a deal) and the Coach had done everything wrong. Upon the cage/face contact, the perception of behaviors shifted a bit.

My only point is that, in addition to doing the right thing(s), it behooves us all to "look good" while doing them.

JM