Federation ambiguity w/ "Distraction"

[johnnyg08]

I've had problems with this part of the rule for a long time, esp when referring to the pitcher. Why don't they simply make the rule something that removes the "if deemed to be a distraction." I've found myself saving everybody the headaches and simply telling F2 to go out and tell his pitcher to x,y,z because the other team will say something anyway. When really what I'd like to tell the offense is to get up there and hit the ball as opposed to whining that part of the pitcher's batting glove is sticking out of his pocket.

To those of you who work FED ball, have you ever told a coach..."no, I don't think it's distracting, you'll have to deal with it."

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2009/02/2009...s_interpr.aspx

Specifically the first few dealing with the "white" I can understand the rule portion of the white not extending below the elbow...but I just dislike administering the "distraction" portions of the rule.

Your thoughts and advice:

[Welpe]

I think a simple "Skip, in my judgment it is not distracting" will suffice.

[johnnyg08]

Easier said than actually done on the field, don't you think? I guess my point is why fight the battle? I'm not disagreeing with you...after all, I asked for the advice...but from a game management standpoint, if you know coach is going to come out anyway...you now are calling time, going to talk to coach, then telling him that "it's not distracting when he says it is" now, in his player's minds...they're convinced that they're all distracted so he tells his on deck hitter to ask the umpire to x,y,z because he's distracted.

I guess I just don't think it's that easy. Esp here in MN where coaches are rating you as part of the State tournament selection process.

[MrUmpire]

One difference is that if you enforce it without being asked, you're an OOO in the eyes of the other coaches; whereas, when you enforce it at the the request of a coach, the coach takes the heat from his brethern.

That said, I tend to agree Welpe and decline the invitation to be part of the complaining coach's game strategy as much as possible.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

you enforce it at the the request of a coach, the coach takes the heat from his brethern.

That's an interesting take. Is keeping the game moving on something inevitable considered OOO? I guess I don't really care what the coaches think of each other when if the shoe was on the other foot, they'd probably do the exact same thing?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

That's an interesting take. Is keeping the game moving on something inevitable considered OOO?

That's not what I meant to suggest. Sorry if I wasn't clear. In this area, taking it upon one's self to enforce BS trivial "distractions" is considered OOO by many in both the umpiring and coaching ends of the business.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Easier said than actually done on the field, don't you think? I guess my point is why fight the battle? I'm not disagreeing with you...after all, I asked for the advice...but from a game management standpoint, if you know coach is going to come out anyway...you now are calling time, going to talk to coach, then telling him that "it's not distracting when he says it is" now, in his player's minds...they're convinced that they're all distracted so he tells his on deck hitter to ask the umpire to x,y,z because he's distracted.

I guess I just don't think it's that easy. Esp here in MN where coaches are rating you as part of the State tournament selection process.

They're part of the process here, too. Stop letting it affect how you umpire, it isn't worth the aggravation.

[johnnyg08]

points well taken fellas. the candid, constructive posts are appreciated. thanks!

[DG]

I don't think it is OOO to tell the catcher while dusting off the plate to go out and tell his pitcher to tuck the batting gloves in and thus head off the pending complaint. And I don't think it is fair to the offense to tell the coach it's not distracting when they clearly think it is.

[ozzy6900]

I've been pretty much line Rut in that if the coach comes to me complaining, I am going to give it a good look and tell him that I do not find it distracting.

However, if the coach comes to me (as SMART coaches have) stating that their batter finds it distracting, the distraction will disappear very quickly!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I wouldn't say constantly by any means, not even seldom...but the crappy coach's rating is worth just as much as the great coach who "gets" how the game is played. I haven't had to eject, nor do I think this would ever escalate to a situation where a coach would eject himself, he'll just take it out on me in my rating and in MN, where rating does matter whether I like it or not, I feel like I need to consider that in how I approach things.

Bob J. I understand that they can never make a rule for every color combination but the rules specifically deal with "white issues"...my argument would be that if those who argue the ticky-tack would worry more about hitting than the hint of white somewhere, they'd be better off, but you can't get in that discussion on the field.

Thanks for offering your thoughts on this...keep 'em coming

You also have to remember--it's one game. If a coach lowballs you on a rating because of a conflict you had with him, it's a) going to stick out when the opposing coach submits his ratings, b) going to stick out in comparison with your other ratings, and c) not going to affect your overall rating much.

If any of those three things are not true, then your rating for that game from that coach is not your biggest problem. I got rated a 3 from one coach last year--it was quite obvious that low of a score was an anomaly and didn't affect my overall score by more than a tenth of a point. Also, the guys at state know who rated you what, and while I can't say this with 100% certainty, I think that they hold certain coaches' ratings in much higher regard than others.

The one thing I would like to see in MN is the overall ratings of those eventually selected--not by name, but just as a gauge for each individual umpire to see where he compared to the state crews. I really want to know if the grading system actually reflects reality, and that it's not a right-skewed distribution, as I suspect.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

They're part of the process here, too. Stop letting it affect how you umpire, it isn't worth the aggravation.

Exactly.

[johnnyg08]

I would also like to see the ratings of the state tournament crews. Like you said, I don't need to see names, just the ratings...it would be a nice gauge...or a crappy gauge based upon what we would see...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I think a simple "Skip, in my judgment it is not distracting" will suffice.

It does not get much more complicated than that.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I've had problems with this part of the rule for a long time, esp when referring to the pitcher. Why don't they simply make the rule something that removes the "if deemed to be a distraction."

Because there's no possible way to list all the items / color combinations / locations that might be distracting.

Sometimes you just need to umpire.