This is most certainly not a positive statistic, and it's not something to brag about, for sure. Show me an umpire with no coach ejections over a long period of time, and I'll show you an umpire who isn't doing their job right.

Coaches often times eject themselves, with absolutely no input from the umpire. I guess all of your games have gone perfectly, with no abusive language or personal comments directed toward you by any coaches, and I find that extremely hard to believe.

I'm with Kevin on this one. I used to give coaches short, sarcastic answers and ran them when they blew their fuse.

Over time, I've learned to use my occupational training to defuse the situation. I still have an occasion ejection, but now it is after a coach has made up his mind he's ready to hit the gate.

I call with guys who get pleasure from ejection stories. It doesn't do much for me anymore, whether it's h.s., legion, or college.

I'd say a head coach who's had a poor season, is frustrated, and comes running out of the dugout yelling over a simple no-stop balk call has already blown his fuse and is just looking to blame the umpire for his team's poor performance. He's also looking for a quick exit. I simply showed him the door.

(Having said that, I certainly don't hold a grudge against him and would not treat him any differently because of my having ejected him.)

Your sig seems to lie with your umpiring philosophy. He didn't show himself the gate, you pointed to it, opened it, and nearly kicked him through it IMO.

What would you have said had the roles been reversed? Would you have been able to keep a cool head if someone was throwing nothing but sarcasm at you?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Remember...
 

Umpires don't eject players or coaches. Players and Managers eject themselves

I don't consider what UMP25 said to the coach as baiting. Being a smart a$$, maybe but I would have probably gone the same way with this conversation. I have to be honest, I liked the response!

To each his own, Ozzy. If I've learned one thing in this forum, it's that no matter what I may have said to the head coach, there'd be SOMEone here to criticize me for it under the category of "unprofessional" or something similar. After all, it's much easier to be an Internet umpire and pretend to tell real veteran umpires what they ought to do on the ball field.

My abilities are well-known by many who have worked with me, so I'm not worried about a couple people claiming they know what's best.

I never said I know what's best. Just different philosophies, which we're all entitled to.
I think ejections are a good thing. The first 15 years I called, I tossed a lot of coaches & players. Maybe that's why I don't have to anymore.

BTW, since my first post in this thread, I do remember tossing a coach in a Legion game last summer. Didn't have to bait him into it. 1st base coach made a comment about my partner's strike zone. I told him I'd heard enough. He didn't listen. Next time I dumped him.

That is nothing to be proud of. Any wimp could go around and not eject anyone; that isn't hard at all. Something to be proud of would be handling as many situations as possible correctly. Many times that means ejections.

So that's it, huh? Must not be doing their job. Or I'm a wimp. You shouldn't have such a narrow-minded view of umpires who solve (and win) conflicts without any coach ejections. Nor should you, LDUB.

My conflicts have been resolved virtually always to my satisfaction without ever having to toss a guy. I just don't let it get out of hand. I gain control of situations quickly with as few words as possible. And I also set it all up well at the plate meeting. There are many benefits to avoiding the ejection. I gain better results from these guys later in games or down the road when I don't toss them when they know I could or should. It's the way I do things. I don't back down, and I don't throw it around, either. All of my background and training have been put to use in my on-field conflict resolution actions. It's easy to win a conflict with an ejection. It's difficult to win a conflict without the use of that particular tool.

But there's just been no need to toss a coach ... yet.

The first time I decided not to toss a guy who crossed the line, I told him, "Mel, I know you think you're gone, but I'm going to make you stay and sit on that bench with your mouth closed and watch the entire game."

Then you must be special to never have had a coach without notice leave the dugout to argue balls & strikes and yell, "Where the phuck was that pitch?"

Leaving the dugout to argue balls & strikes is grounds for an immediate ejection in NCAA. One need not have to issue a warning, either; and to leave the dugout with the aformentioned comment sure isn't gonna earn a wimpy warning.

The first time? How many times do you bend over like that?

I rise above it out of respect for the game without the ego-driven spectacle of the ejection. You should try it.

And no, I have not had any coach come out and yell profanely about balls and strikes.

And lacking in courage, I am not. I just don't ever lose my cool in public---especially on a baseball field when I am in charge. And when someone is losing it with me, I can always cut it off quickly. It's just the way I am. I know how to take charge of a baseball situation in particular. I've done a lot of baseball jobs, and I usually know the game from more different directions than any coach I deal with. That helps.

I've even been a coach for many years ... one that never argued with umpires.

I, too, do not see this as baiting, and furthermore, I don't see it as necessarily being sarcastic.

I will. As a law-enforcement and military professional, I will always have a negative assessment of someone who refuses to consider using all available options when faced with conflict. It limits your ability to resolve it satisfactorily.

"Virtually always?" That's an oxymoron. Wordsmithing like this is a sign of someone attempting to convince himself what he says is true.

Here lies your problem--you view an ejection as a negative act, one that you must initiate. It is not. It is nothing more than a tool that is needed and proper for game management.

Think about police officers and arrests. The arrest is merely the logical end result of a series of actions, of which at least one is negative--it's not the negative action itself. We wouldn't praise a cop that has no arrests, and we shouldn't praise the umpire that keeps participants around at all costs.

This part has already been addressed. If someone has crossed the line, there is a need to toss him.

I will say this--anyone who talks about "the game" as some sort of revered entity has a misplaced sense of reverence.

Furthermore, ejections are a part of baseball, and anyone who dismisses them as "ego-driven" really should reconsider being an umpire.

Again, you conflate an ejection with ego. It's not about personal issues, it's simply a necessary part of baseball. Don't read more into it than what is there. Just like my police officer analogy--sure, there are times where cops take personal satisfaction in removing a less-than-productive member of society from the rest of it. However, the majority of times, an arrest is nothing more than an affirmation that a person has to account for his or her behavior.