It's Why We Call Them Rats......

[ChucktownBlue]

Originally Posted by DG

By the way, I would never charge a conference for this, even when rules limit the number of offensive conferences. But is there a limit in LL baseball (using modified OBR)?

Yes, as Jim Porter noted earlier. One offensive conference per inning. It's just a simple speed-up rule.

[Dave Reed]

I didn't see or hear the play, but based on the description, I don't think there was rat-like behavior, or meaningful coaching. The player has been hit by his own foul ball, he's gone down like a shot, and now the coach has ascertained that the kid is OK to continue. At this point the coach can say: " Alright little Jimmy, the time for drama is over, the game needs to go on; get in the batter's box." A good coach, however, won't refer to drama or the injury either explicitly or implicitly. The fast way to get the kid back in the box, ready to hit effectively, is to signal that it is now time to play by providing some innocuous baseball related comment. "Don't let the fast ball get by you" sounds like baseball, but it is no pearl of wisdom, and is unlikely to either help or hinder the batter. Furthermore, the coach could just as easily yell that simple advice from the dugout or coaches box--the concept doesn't require any secrecy or a conference.

With 12 year olds, talking about baseball rather than painful shins is the right way to get the game going.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I didn't see or hear the play, but based on the description, I don't think there was rat-like behavior,

The Rat behavior was when he claimed to still be checking the kid out when in fact he was done with that and was coaching him.

The Rat behavior was the lie.

Nobody is saying it was a huge thing. But it was an unnecessary thing and that, in part, is what elevates it to something worth noting.

It's almost, by definition, pathological for a coach to lie in that circumstance...completely useless.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I didn't see or hear the play, but based on the description, I don't think there was rat-like behavior, or meaningful coaching. The player has been hit by his own foul ball, he's gone down like a shot, and now the coach has ascertained that the kid is OK to continue. At this point the coach can say: " Alright little Jimmy, the time for drama is over, the game needs to go on; get in the batter's box." A good coach, however, won't refer to drama or the injury either explicitly or implicitly. The fast way to get the kid back in the box, ready to hit effectively, is to signal that it is now time to play by providing some innocuous baseball related comment. "Don't let the fast ball get by you" sounds like baseball, but it is no pearl of wisdom, and is unlikely to either help or hinder the batter. Furthermore, the coach could just as easily yell that simple advice from the dugout or coaches box--the concept doesn't require any secrecy or a conference.

With 12 year olds, talking about baseball rather than painful shins is the right way to get the game going.

Dave,

I didn't feel the coach saying what he did to his player was out of line. In fact, I would have expected him to say something along these lines. It was his reponse to the umpire after being told it was time to get the game going again that I take exeption to. It was rude and ratesque of him to snap back at such an innoucuous request.


Tim.

[DG]

Originally Posted by ChucktownBlue

Yes, as Jim Porter noted earlier. One offensive conference per inning. It's just a simple speed-up rule.

I finally found it in the old 2004 rule book I got from my son. I wouldn't charge a conference for his comment to the kid. I wouldn't have said anything to the coach either.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by DG

I finally found it in the old 2004 rule book I got from my son. I wouldn't charge a conference for his comment to the kid. I wouldn't have said anything to the coach either.

At what point would you interject?


Tim.

[DG]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

At what point would you interject?

When it is apparent to me that the player is ready, has a bat in hand, and is ready to take his spot in the box, and the game is being delayed by the coach.

It is not clear to me what happened here. Was the player on the ground when the coach made the comment or did he have a bat in hand and was ready to go? In any event a 12 year old should get the benefit of the doubt while his coach is attending to him after getting hit by a pitch and if the coach slips in a brief coaching comment while the player is recovering I am not gonna say anything to the coach.

[Interested Ump]

Originally Posted by Jim Porter

I think charging a conference would be going a step too far. But I also believe the plate umpire in this situation handled it well. Once the injury is no longer the focus of the delay, it's time to move the game along.

I would second that, Jim.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

During the first inning of the Ohio ~vs~ Georgia game tonight an Ohio batter fouls a ball off of his leg. After attending to his player who looked to be overreacting, the coach is heard on his mic coaching the kid on being sure to not let a fastball get by him when he gets back in the box. Umpire says it's time to get the game moving, to which coach rat responds rather rudely:

"Hey, he's hurt. I'm just checking on him!"


Tim.

"Coach, that's your offensive conference for this inning." Otherwise it will happen again.
Bob

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I remember this tactic from the eighth grade. When you can't win on facts, change the situation to the point of ridiculousness and position your opponent based on his answer to a previous and different situation.

Didn't work then, either.

Ridiculous my butt! In both cases the coach made a "coaching" comment during an injury check.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

"Get your head out of the way" isn't exactly something you go over in practice!!

.

It sure as hell is. Teaching how to avoid a pitch is common at the youth level. (You use tennis balls or wiffle balls, not real baseballs).

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Ridiculous my butt! In both cases the coach made a "coaching" comment during an injury check.

I knew you were a Rat, but I really didn't realize how blind of one until now.

You can't identify a lie in a four sentence post, or you condone coaches lying to umpires.

You believe apples and oranges are the same fruit.

And you can't get enough of the LL kool-aide.

Congratulations. You've joined King Rat on the ignore list.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm astonished, Rich, that an experienced coach like you seems unable to tell the difference between advice offered in passing that does not delay the game, and a charged conference. Your new case is not apposite, and tells us nothing about the OP.

You know better.

Give it up. You're giving him too much credit.

1. He equates telling a hit batter, after he checks out okay, "Don't let that fastball get by you" with telling a kid who gets clunked in the head, "Duck next time."

2. He can't determine if a coach who says he is still checking out a hurt kid, when, in fact, he no longer is, is telling the truth or not.

And, he really believes all this. (See: pathological).

No, apparently he doesn't know better.

[mbyron]

Garth, based on Rich's history of posting, I believe that he does know better.

The lie to the umpire is one issue, and incontrovertible, it seems to me, IF one admits that the coach was coaching and not merely checking on his player.

So everything hangs on whether he was coaching. To me, that question turns NOT on the content of what the coach says, but on whether he's delaying the game in saying it.

In the OP, he is: he's standing (or whatever - motionless) next to the player and requiring the game to await the end of their conversation. IIRC, in Rich's second case, the coach is already off to the dugout, and the over-the-shoulder advice will not delay the game.

Pretty heavy weather on this issue, but I think there's a valuable point here: not everything an O-coach says to his players warrants charging him with a conference. The criterion I was taught is whether he's holding up the game.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Garth, based on Rich's history of posting, I believe that he does know better.

You're confusing a Rat's knowledge of the rules, which can be impressive, with a Rat's attitude of right and wrong, which is dismal.

Rats, at times, know the black and white of the rulebook, but come time for application, they still think like a Rat.