Sending a "message"

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Hey, Be carefull getting off your high horse.

I guess he's not the only one on a high horse. I totally agree with him. No way, from youth ball to upper level mens league games, with a smattering of just about everything in between, will I allow some rat b@$t@rd player to show me up like this. It's an unwritten rule in the associations I work for that a player drawing a line at the plate to show where he thinks the strike zone should be is an auto pilot ejection.


Tim.

[SethPDX]

I would dump a player who did this as well. If the rest of the players did not understand, too bad for them.

Guess I'm on a high horse like Tim.

[tballump]

Are we sending messages because we are not being "backed up" by assignors or leagues for ejections (coaches and players) in the more controversial areas like being "shown up", rather than just being "backed up" on the can of corn ones like a verbal fyou, bumping, or running out to the plate screaming about balls and strikes that everyone in the stands can hear and see?

Are we getting our schedules "pulled" or "downgraded" because we eject or are we being "blackballed" because we eject for unsportsmanlike conduct that occurs in many forms, the obvious and the not so obvious, but never the less, unsportsmanlike conduct. Seems like this might be the root of all problems. Nobody has the intestinal fortitude to back their umpires to the hilt.

Don't all the Federation and other books have a sportsmanship area in the book, including an area where if there is a problem brewing, a coach, no less, should step to the front (rather than the umpire) and take charge of unsportsmanlike behavior of his team?

So, why is there such a problem with ejection for unsportsmanlike behavior, whether it is the can of corn variety, or the more subtle and sneaky and controversial (showing up) unsportsmanlike conduct? Seems like the root of the problem of sending messages, is assignors and league officials not backing their umpires on all instances of unsportsmanlike conduct, and those umpires that do penalize all areas of unsportsmanlike conduct, face retribution in the quantity and quality of their future assignments.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I guess he's not the only one on a high horse.

Hey Queeksdraw, I theen jou are already a high horse, amigo.

Signed,

Babalooey

[jkumpire]

But, I have to disagree with some of you who think a "message" is inappropriate. There are limited situations where such an action works, and gets your point across.

Some of you guys think there is a black and white line where you need to dump a hitter who is demonstrating his dislike of your zone. Fine, if you want to put up with garbage from somebody all day until he does something you can dump him for.

But there are times when the moaning and groaning by a batter needs to end, and if I can do it by a message, better to do it that way than an ejection.

[kylejt]

I wholeheartedly agree that we can send messages.

"THAT'S ENOUGH!" with a hand toward the dugout, sends a heck of a message. It's never failed me.

Dusting off the plate, and having a man-to-man with a catcher or batter works well.

Calling time, pulling out your lineup card, and calling the manager out works wonders.

Send the catcher out to have a word with his misbehaving pitcher sends a message.

Intentionally miscalling pitches or safe/out, is also sending a message. It's saying, IMO, the umpire has lost control, and this is his only way of dealing with things.

[bluehair]

I have found that warning messages are not very effective. Penalty messages are more effective.

I teach HS math and I have a soft part in my heart for students that can’t “get” algebra. But I have little sympathy for those who can’t be bothered to “learn”. We are not abdicating our primary function by taking the time out of relatively meaningless games to teach a life lesson. We are not teaching the Pythagorean Theorem. They should be able to learn that they can only hurt their team when they act like a dick with a well placed FYC.

For those who think that I’ve become incompetent or corrupt with the rare FYC, then they are like those in my class who can’t be bothered to learn. F-them too.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I have found that warning messages are not very effective. Penalty messages are more effective.

I teach HS math and I have a soft part in my heart for students that can’t “get” algebra. But I have little sympathy for those who can’t be bothered to “learn”. We are not abdicating our primary function by taking the time out of relatively meaningless games to teach a life lesson. We are not teaching the Pythagorean Theorem. They should be able to learn that they can only hurt their team when they act like a dick with a well placed FYC.

For those who think that I’ve become incompetent or corrupt with the rare FYC, then they are like those in my class who can’t be bothered to learn. F-them too.

As a teacher, do you send a message to a misbehaving student by telling him that he incorrectly solved a problem, when in fact he solved it correctly? Or do you find a way to send a message that doesn't involve lying?

An FYC requires that the umpire, the official representative of bassball in the game, intentionally lie or misrepresent a ruling or call. If that is the only way you can get a message across, you are at best unimaginative and dishonest and at worst, incompetent and dishonest.

[TheSlav]

To those in the "anti-FYC" crowd:

Are you saying that in all your travels then you have never "given" a pitcher who is consistently hitting the black or the spot where the catcher holds his glove, even if it might be slightly outside the rule book definition of the strike zone? Never? Ever?

One of our jobs is to call balls and strikes. That's just ONE of our jobs. It's a strike when we say it's a strike and a ball when we say it's a ball. Period. End of story. That's the nexus of the conversation, what happens after one of the participants that has no business in the ball/strike decision making process, decides he wants to inject himself into that process. Anyone who does that in my opinion is already on thin ice to begin with, halfway to the parking lot.

One of our other jobs is to ensure that the standards of good sportsmanship are adhered to by the participants. Punishment/Reward. And the rulebook also give us some flexibility in this regard, it doesn't since it doesn't say you MUST eject it says you MAY eject. Or words to that effect.

Many umpires reward pitchers who are consistently "on the black" and hitters like Ted Williams with a SZ that others do not receive. Are these umpires liars, dishonest, hurting the integrity of the game?

Guys call pitches a strike for many reasons and many human factors go into it, including the rule-book definition and a punishment/reward analysis. If some of you are trying to tell me you are Robo-Ump and don't allow any of these factors influence you, let's just say I would have to see it to believe it.

See if you can apply your logic, ethics and standards to the above questions and get back to me if you will. I'd be interested in the responses.

Just as each individual umpires SZ is different so too is each umpires interpretation of the concept of ethics.

Some of the responses are a bit surprising to me in that if I were standing behind the fence with the batters Dad and he questioned a ball/strike call in a manner that would not draw an auto-heave-ho (drawing a line in the dirt, etc.) but clearly required a response from the ump, if the ump ejected him, I would say to the Dad, "He had it coming, he can't react like that." If the ump talked to him or warned him, same thing. If he gave him a FYC call, no problem. The only action I would have a problem with is if he clearly did nothing about it.

I think I would have my partners back on this regardless.

The question of ethical concerns are a bit overdone and maybe somewhat misplaced in this discussion IMO. I'm fairly certain that my occasional and judicious use of an FYC call is not even going to be in the conversation with St. Peter. What the fans/coaches/players opinion of my strike zone is a non-issue. Pandering to that crowd is a zero sum game you cannot possibly win.

Fire away.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by TheSlav

To those in the "anti-FYC" crowd:

Are you saying that in all your travels then you have never "given" a pitcher who is consistently hitting the black or the spot where the catcher holds his glove, even if it might be slightly outside the rule book definition of the strike zone? Never? Ever?

That's not an FYC.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by TheSlav

To those in the "anti-FYC" crowd:

Are you saying that in all your travels then you have never "given" a pitcher who is consistently hitting the black or the spot where the catcher holds his glove, even if it might be slightly outside the rule book definition of the strike zone? Never? Ever?

As kylejt has pointed out, that's not an FYC and not what we are talking about.

We are talking about calling a pitch right down the middle, jock high, a ball, to send a message to someone. We are talking about knowingly and purposefully calling a pitch or a play, that you would otherwise call as you had the entire game, incorrectly to send a message.

We are not talking about "your" strike zone, or the neighborhood play or anything else you vary at different levels of play. We are talking about lying about a specfic pitch or play to a specific player or coach to "teach them a lesson."

Do you really believe the best way to send a message about sportsmanship is to falsify a call?

Tell me, when you call a dead-on strike a ball, what do you tell the skipper when he asks where that was? Do you continue the lie, or do you admit you lied as the MiLB in that video did?

[TheSlav]

Originally Posted by kylejt

That's not an FYC.

I'm aware of that. I'm not asking if they are the same, I'm trying to find out why one form of deviation from the rule book is acceptable to you and one is not.

[TheSlav]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

As kylejt has pointed out, that's not an FYC and not what we are talking about.

We are talking about calling a pitch right down the middle, jock high, a ball, to send a message to someone. We are talking about knowingly and purposefully calling a pitch or a play, that you would otherwise call as you had the entire game, incorrectly to send a message.

We are not talking about "your" strike zone, or the neighborhood play or anything else you vary at different levels of play. We are talking about lying about a specfic pitch or play to a specific player or coach to "teach them a lesson."

Do you really believe the best way to send a message about sportsmanship is to falsify a call?

Tell me, when you call a dead-on strike a ball, what do you tell the skipper when he asks where that was? Do you continue the lie, or do you admit you lied as the MiLB in that video did?

If you go back and read my responses on the topic, what I tell the coach that is that clueless enough to come out and ask is "He can't act like that" whether it's the pitcher or the hitter demonstrating. Therefore, IMO there is no lying to the coach/player involved and I sleep very well at night thank you. Further, I don't have to worry about lying to or fooling myself, which is more important.

Look, only the most clueless of coaches would question it under the circumstances, and only the most boneheaded would not support it. But if that happens at least I know where the kids get it from.

Nobody I know calls one right down the middle a ball to penalize the pitcher or one that hits the backstop a strike to penalize the catcher. NOBODY. That would be a pretty bad time to introduce the FYC.

Nobody I know makes the call and then lies to anyone about it. NOBODY. That defeats the purpose of sending a message.

The YouTube video and your examples are extremist and don't bolster your case that much IMO. That umpire in the video was not only making an FYC he reinforced it with an FY explanation to the coach and the circumstances surrounding the call are not presented in the video. Maybe he should have tossed the player, who knows?

I've think I've answered your questions regarding the knowingly and purposefully angle as it relates to the FYC. How about addressing my questions?

Sorry, but the general principles are the same. Why would one case be cheating and the other(s) acceptable baseball practice. Tell me where line is drawn? Why wouldn't pitch off the the black be even a greater lie in that it occurs much more frequently. The FYC happens at best, as has been discussed maybe once or twice a season, how often does the pitch on the black occur? At least once or twice an inning.

Is "knowingly and purposefully" not in play here on pitches in the black? Don't try to sell that one, I'm not buying.

[TheSlav]

This guy does a much better job communicating the issues we seem to be discussing.

Umpire Ethics

So I'll tap out and leave you to read and comment on the opinions raised here. He does get into the SZ and the retaliatory call (FYC) about half way down, however you probably need to read the whole article to understand his perspective.

Happy reading.

[kylejt]

This is not a rule discussion, it's one about ethics. Try this:

A BR is jawing about your strike zone. He hits a bullet to right, but you stick your foot out and trip him up. He gets thrown out from R9. The ol' FY foot, of you will. IMO, it's no different than ringing him up on one around the chin.

It's anger management issue. You're mad, and you want to get back at someone. It's natural. Now, how you act on it is the issue. We've all seen umpires handle things improperly. Heck, even the World Series some clown had to rip off his mask and yell at the dugout.

We are supposed to be the keepers of the game. We should be above the FYC. Call it a high horse if you wish, but it was how I was raised.