HS Coach Strikes Umpire
 

See the two links below for the actual footage and background..


http://citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.d...090&source=rss

(Look at the Slideshow)

http://www.wlos.com/players/news/sports/video.shtml

(See Enka players react to Coach's Resignation)


Lawrence

Interesting. Guess that's another benefit of the HSM we haven't discussed.

Clearly the coach was out of line and that's why he got tossed. Then he was out of line again when he put his hands on the umps back and turned him around and jumped in his face. His hit/push in the face came after the ump thought about offering him a head-butt but stopped before he really got em good. What an ugly situation.

I wonder of those guys up there have had other trouble from this coach or is this just him jumping off the mountain. He does seem humble about it now but the damage is done.

I think the ump more than thought about the head-butt. After the coach got in the umpire's grill, the umpire gave a relatively good retaliation with his mask.

I don't think so. After viewing that particular sequence several times, I believe the umpire made move towards the coach with his full body, with the movement of head being a reation to, and part of, his body movement. When you view it, watch the umpire's shoulders and torso. His movement towards the coach while probably saying something to the effect of "Don't you EVER touch me again, Gilligan" is understandable.

It looks more agressive due to the presence of his helmet. Had he removed it as he should, the move would not have looked the same.

..and he would have been slapped in the face :D

L,

What would you do if someone hit you in the face with a HSM? The coach was wrong for putting his hands on the umpire in the first place, but as a man, if this Hall guy hit me in the face with his HSM, well ... let's just say that it is a felony to assault officials and if I was able o keep myself restrained, I think I would be calling Lawump to see what type of charges swung the other way when and umpire struck me as a coach.

He only got slapped as a reaction to being hit in the face.

Don't you think it's a natural reaction for a man to at least push someone off who's right in their face yelling at them. This has never happened to me on the diamond, and hopefully it never will. But my first instinct would have been to go right back at him.


Tim.

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 have been in a few of these. I step back as I am warning the offender about ejection/additional suspension that comes with physical contact/spitting.

Your #4, the umpire looked like a bobble head when he pushed forward. And he probably only did that b/c he knew he had his mask on.

The umpire that was involved probably didn't sleep well before the HS asso. decided that he did not head butt the coach and no sactions were placed on him.

Before the coach RESIGNED and the NCHSAA *correctly* didn't sanction the umpire.

I was checking out the original news clip and apparently the visiting team won on a balk call - attempted hidden ball trick. The official ruling was that the pitcher was still in dirt area of the mound, thus a balk was called. I thought a pitcher had to be on or astride the pitching plate for this to be a balk? Am I off here?

The pitcher cannot be around 6 feet from the pitching rubber in FED rules. So you would be off on this issue.

The umpire should have taken off his helmet and beat the coach with it. At least it would have taken a lot for me not to do that. The coach was wrong and did not back off. I see nothing wrong with the umpire's actions.

Peace

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

Approximately 5 feet is the NFHS rule. If the ball was live (I'm assuming it was), then it was clearly a balk as the pitcher was clearly within 5 feet of the rubber.

Found it - FED 6-2-5

""or positions himself within approximately 5 feet of the pitcher's plate without having the ball"

Thanks J!

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!:p

I think 6 feet is set in my mind because of basketball. The bottom line you can be called for a balk if you are not straddling the rubber. Thanks for the clarification.

Peace

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.

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.

All I said was, had the umpire removed his HSM, then the coach's slap would have struck his face instead of the HSM. That's it. There's no hidden meaning in my comment, just a statement of fact.

Its a little like NFL players 'fighting' with their helmets on :rolleyes: . If a coach wants to slap my HSM (I don't have a HSM, but if I did....) with his bare hand, be my guest, I'll be doing the laughing :D

Fixed that for you, and I disagree.

His sin was wearing a dazzle shirt. Anyone see a zipper?
He looked to be six feet behind the catcher. No wonder he was getting grief. Buy the HSM but stand that far back?
Yes, when talking with a coach (especially if you're gonna launch him) take off the mask, and the :cool:

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.

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

you guys will argue anything.
 

i would remove my mask before ejecting anyone..thats how it is taught..what a joke..i think this happened a little to fast to think about taking of a mask.
Yea, the coach did nothing Garth,,,so you would let someone touch you...you such a good umpire, we all wish to be like you.
yea , a bobble head...you look so good in your gear..we look at amazement on hoe ripped you are and how perfect you look..In fact, i bet 3/4 of you think that when the game is going on, all the fans are looking at you..lol.
No one but no one, puts there hands on me....specially in a half *** high school game...
critize, joke and examine it to death because most of you would have handled it diffrently..lol thats why your in the bigs making 100,000 of dollars..lol.
who cares what shirt color he has, what helmet he's wearing and what calls he made,,,he's working hard and some coach pushes him or turns him around.
great respect, sportsmanship and way to teach our up and coming citizens how to handle a problem....this is high school baseball...not getto ball in east l.a....you never ever touch another human being unless ya wanna fight!!!

Mike1989, here, this might help you. You'll thank me later.

What the he!! are you talking about? Where did I say I'd let someone touch me? Where have I done anything but take the side of the umpire?

Before you address one my posts, try reading it first. Or perhaps even better, have someone literate read it to you.

Mike1989, is that the year you were born?

Anyway, I just saw this on the news here. They only showed the part where the umpire was getting in the coach's face, and then the head slap from the coach. They left out the original ejection, which would have been nice to see. At first I thought that the umpire had been at fault by getting in the coach's face, but now after viewing the whole thing, I can no longer take that position. Once the coach was ejected, the only thing he should have done was exit the field. Coming back and touching the umpire was not a good move on his part.

Coaches have no business laying their hands on an umpire for any reason, especially grabbing from behind. The coach is lucky he didn't get his butt kicked.

I have not to my recollection ever ejected anyone while wearing a mask or helmet. It is just more manly to not hide behind a mask when dealing with managers. The mask isn't there to make an umpire tough, it's there to protect his face from pitched baseballs only.

I see your point, Steve, but I see a lot of the opposite also.

I was under the impression that HSM wearers touted the fact that since the HSM had such better vision and so on, that they were freed of the requirement to take it off as often as mask-wearers do. I know a HSMer certainly would have it off for the plate meeting, but I see HSMers keep it on while making lineup changes, casual chatting with a coach b/w innings, etc, and I see them certainly keep it whilst in a rotation, etc. Traditional mask-ers obviously remove the mask for those events.

So, is it 'policy' for HSMers to only remove it when an ejection is imminent? Would this umpire have kept it on for a 'calm' discussion with the coach?

http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/nc/Crayon.gif
:D

If you're going to nitpick, how about the fact that the umpire removed his HSM with his RIGHT hand after getting bashed.....:D

now that is freakin funny!!!

I wore the helmet for three seasons, and making lineup changes was the only time I kept it on other than for pitches, and even then I would usually remove it. I was not above dropping it onto the grass to free up my hands, if necessary.

During play I pulled the helmet just like a mask as soon as the ball was hit (forward), and removed it during conversations, etc. I never looked at the helmet as being freed from any requirement to remove it, just for better protection.

If and when I return to umpiring, it will be with a conventional mask and 6 stitch hat.

He moved his head back and thrust it forward. Head butt, no doubt about it. I would love to know if the ball was alive or dead when the balk was called. If it was dead the coach should have quietly protested the call.

(sigh)

If you watch video of other coach/umpire arguments, you will see the same movement of the head accompanying the yelling and the body movements. For example, the old "minor league meltdown video": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDx_6...elated&search=

Check out the movement of the coach's head as he yells. If he was wearing a HSM there would be contact.

Incidental contact, no doubt about it. And, wisely, so ruled by the authorities in this case.

Well.....that certainly makes it OK. :rolleyes:

Not my point! My point was the umpire ****ed up, and I hope we all learn from it. He is luck he got off and should consider himself so.

I find it absolutely amazing that some of you think that after you dump a coach, it is okay for the coach to grab you by the shoulders, spin you around so that he may start his verbal tirade.

This is High School baseball, not college or the Major Leagues. Sportsmanship is always supposed to be a major point of emphasis as well as coaches setting the example for their players.

I don't condone the umpire's apparent head-butt, intentional or not. But ask yourselves this, would the head-butt, however slight, have occured had the coach not laid his hands on the umpire and physically spun him around?

Where did you read that? Of course the coach was wrong for going after the ump. And the ump's actions were wrong too. He should have backed away and kept walking. After I eject a coach I'm done with him and I'm getting out of the area as quickly as I can. If the coach insists on following me it's my partner's job to head him off. But the coach's actions in no way justify what the ump did.

Like my dad used to tell me, two wrongs don't make a right.

I am only looking at this one case. It is the only one under discussion. And he head butted the guy despite your objection to this fact. If the authorities are overlooking it is becuase the coach's actions were much more serious.

This video is not representative of what happened here and therefore irrelevant. The umpires in this case are completely composed and the coach has lost his mind, but he didn't head butt anybody.

My question is, Where in the world is his partner after he dumps the coach?

The head move is not a head butt. Simple as that. I brought up the other video to illustrate that when one yells as in this kind of confrontation, the head moves, both backwards and forwards. Just watch the coach in that video. I can additional visual evidence of that fact, but it appears that you'd rather not be annoyed by facts now that you have your mind set.

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

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.
:confused:

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*

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.:D

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.

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.

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

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.

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

In St. Clair County ?????!! :rolleyes:

Well I'm not going to sit around and debate with him.

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.

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.

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!:rolleyes:

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.

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).

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

Buncombe, actually.

As of July 6, I will have been to all 30 current MLB parks. That and $4 will buy you a latte at Starbucks.

I gave it to a baseball fan to see what he would say. I included this information so you would know I didn't give to a guy on the street corner who has never seen a game and would not know anything about what he saw. It was relevant information. I wanted an unbiased opinion, but from someone who would have one, and not someone who didn't know what they were looking at.

Partial Umpire?
 

I would say the UMPIRE did something wrong. Wish I could ask the coach why he put his face so close to the cage to begin with. I'm sure he wasn't trying to smell ump's breath. I'm sure it wasn't all about balls and strikes, either. Would be nice to know. In fact I am sure a reasonable man would suspect that the umpire knew he did something wrong. Why can't you boys admit that the umpire may have done it?

Went to another HS regional playoff game today. Score VT 0 1 1 HT 2 8 0 Southpaw lost a no hitter in top of 7th on a flailing duck just over 2nd base. First run scored on a {suicide} squeeze. Second run on walk mixed into 3 consecutive hits. Solid defense on both teams.

Could hear VC arguing balls and strikes after the 5th inning in a very windy atmosphere. Chirping from the dugout had been going on for about 2 innings prior to this incident. Umpire walked over and had a discussion with the coach between innings. No one knew what was said. Umpire then continued his business as usual. No punches or ejections needed.

Yeah, I wouldn't ask Phyliss Diller what she thought of the play either. I just find that the majority of "big baseball fans" have about as much knowledge of baseball as the seats they occupy. Most fans blame the umpire first, ask questions later. That is why I wasn't surprised that your friend said this.

The bottom line is still that if the coach wasn't in the umpire's face, it wouldn't have happened, so the onus is on the coach in this case.

Yes, he should have removed his mask to toss him, and then put more distance between himself and the coach.

Well, he tried walking away, but the coach insisted on grabbing him from behind. He's lucky I wasn't the umpire. He would either be in jail or the hospital.

As a coach and an umpire, here's my take on the situation. The coach was completely in the wrong for contacting the umpire from behind as he did, and it was that action alone that led to all subsequent action. When the umpire turned around, the coach got right in his face, nose to nose, the umpire made a move toward the coach's face with his mask to create separation, and the coach reacted to that by shoving the mask back.

I don't blame the coach for reacting defensively to the mask, but the only reason that happened was because the coach chose to contact the umpire from behind and then get in his grill. I think everyone involved was lucky that there was not a fight. Punishment wise, I think the coach was right to resign, I think he should be done for this season and maybe be required to attend anger management before returning to coach.

As I've said once or twice, there are coaches who umpire and umpires who coach. You sound very much like an umpire who coaches.

Good call.

I was with you for a while, but.....

Yes, he should have removed his mask.

Yes, he should have turned his back after the ejection. (Where is his partner?)

He shouldn't have displayed any anger? Have you ever had a manager get in your face like this? You're not going to be very pleasant.

It is not his responsibility to make sure the coach is leaving the area, that duty falls on his partner.

He didn't move forward and become the agressor, the manager physically turned him around to face him and then got in his face.

And lastly, his ejection technique was fine with the exception of leaving his mask on.

Let cut the crap here. Next thing we will be saying is that the coach should eject with his left hand because it could have been interpreted as a strike, because he used his right. Quit nit-picking this to death, because the perfectionist's here probably would'nt have done much better.

The coach initiated, continued and elevated the entire incident to the point that he made contact 2 times before punching the official. He should be lucky that the mask wasn't used on him. And please don't try and argue that the official does not have a right to protect hisself.

Your the one that should be showing more class here and supporting an official that did an excellent job handling an out of control coach under circumstances far from ANY normal athletic competition. This was a HS game.

Could have , would have, should have....The coach was nothing but WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

First, why would I care how long this coach had to wait in the emergency room while I was home sipping on a Miller Chill?

Second, if I didn't kick this guy's a$$, I might as well not come home at all, as my wife would just call me a big PUSS for letting the coach slide. My wife is Sicilian, buddy. She doesn't take too kindly to anyone getting in my face. She would have made a great umpire (or prizefighter) herself.:D