When did they change the balk rule?

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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."

[UMP25]

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.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I don't back down...

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...

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

[Kevin Finnerty]

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.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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!

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

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

My conflicts have been resolved virtually always to my satisfaction without ever having to toss a guy.

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

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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."

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

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

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.

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.

[UMP25]

The fact that KF believes ejections are ego-driven indicates that he does not understand the role of an umpire or the proper process by which baseball umpires are to handle certain situations. Baseball is unique among the major sports when it comes to doling out specific penalties to violators of rules or conduct.

We can't issue yellow cards. We can't penalize 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. We can't call a technical. If someone personally insults us, if someone swears at us, we have two choices: leave said person in the game or remove them from the game. To choose the former results in our losing control of the game and letting said violators get away with actions they are not supposed to do. It also sends a poor message to the opposition: go ahead and demean me as an official, because I lack the fortitude to deal with it.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UMP25

The fact that KF believes ejections are ego-driven indicates that he does not understand the role of an umpire or the proper process by which baseball umpires are to handle certain situations. Baseball is unique among the major sports when it comes to doling out specific penalties to violators of rules or conduct.

We can't issue yellow cards. We can't penalize 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. We can't call a technical. If someone personally insults us, if someone swears at us, we have two choices: leave said person in the game or remove them from the game. To choose the former results in our losing control of the game and letting said violators get away with actions they are not supposed to do. It also sends a poor message to the opposition: go ahead and demean me as an official, because I lack the fortitude to deal with it.

That is the problem with baseball (unless you are doing FED). There are no 2nd chances for the offenders. Baseball was designed as a "Gentleman's Game" meaning you held your tongue and played the game - simple as that! Ain't that way anymore, boys!

Oh and when a coach swears at me, as far as I am concerned, he just made it personal ------ GONE!

[zm1283]

I'm not going to judge Kevin because I've never seen him umpire. With that said, basketball is much the same way with technical fouls. I know guys who just will not T a coach because they think it will piss said coach off, they want to "keep him in the game", or some other excuse to justify not having to take care of business. It's just a foul, just like any other foul. It's also frustrating as the partner of the guy who won't take care of business because the coach thinks he can walk all over you as well, then you pop him and all of a sudden you're the bad guy because you had to do what your partner wouldn't.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I'm not going to judge Kevin because I've never seen him umpire. With that said, basketball is much the same way with technical fouls. I know guys who just will not T a coach because they think it will piss said coach off, they want to "keep him in the game", or some other excuse to justify not having to take care of business. It's just a foul, just like any other foul. It's also frustrating as the partner of the guy who won't take care of business because the coach thinks he can walk all over you as well, then you pop him and all of a sudden you're the bad guy because you had to do what your partner wouldn't.

In the last 2 months I called a technical on a head coach (basketball) and also ejected an assistant coach (baseball). Both varsity level.

The basketball technical came when a player fouled out and the coach refused to give me a sub. I started the clock, told the coach he couldn't have a time out until the player was replaced, and waited. He kept insisting he wanted a time out and refused to give me a sub. After waiting 20 seconds, I asked one more time and then issued the technical.

The baseball ejection came after I called a runner out for missing first base. It was the third out of the inning and took a run off the board. I headed to the outfield and the coach was yelling at me "you need to open your freaking eyes and watch the game." The first time I ignored the comment and walked a bit deeper into the outfield. The second time (louder), I decided I needed to put a stop to it, so I told the coach I heard him and I had heard enough (long distance, but I had actually closed the distance in a non-threatening way). The third time, he ejected himself. You can't fix stupid.

I do not understand how anyone who works a significant number of games does not have an ejection. Ejections find you -- it may only be one or two a year or it may be 2-3 years between them....or it may be three in a game like I had last year, but when a coach crosses that line I fail to do my job if I don't eject. And then others see me not doing my job and I get a reputation as someone who doesn't do his job and so on and so on....

[Durham]

A small rule of thumb; usually if saying it makes me feel good, I probably shouldn't say it.

Example,

Coach comes out on a close one and says, " you missed that!" I reply, your team has 4 erros in 3 innings and I didn't see you run out here to tell them that they missed those." Sarcasim is usually bad on the field, but that doesn't mean I sometimes don't use it.

[UMP25]

I think subtle sarcasm, if that, is one thing, but heavy sarcasm like the example you give is unacceptable. I'm sure all of us at some time in our careers has always wanted to pop off at a coach and remind him of his team's collapse, but we don't. We just smile or laugh inside ourselves when they blame us for costing them a run or the game, even though it was their 4 errors in one inning that resulted in the opposition scoring 8 runs.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Durham

Coach comes out on a close one and says, " you missed that!" I reply, your team has 4 erros in 3 innings and I didn't see you run out here to tell them that they missed those." Sarcasim is usually bad on the field, but that doesn't mean I sometimes don't use it.

Even if his team is kicking the ball around, I think he still has the right to come out and say that he thinks you missed it...it's different if he's blaming you for the outcome of the game, then you can point out the errors...but if you miss a call whether or not his team as 10 errors or zero errors, we shouldn't umpire any differently right? IMO, if we miss one, we can't illogically say, "well, your team is kicking the ball around and I don't hear you yelling at them..." while you might be right, overall, that approach isn't good coaching. If there defense is that bad, coach will let them know.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying, but there's no logic there...in comparing defensive sucess to whether or not your call was correct.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by UMP25

The fact that KF believes ejections are ego-driven indicates that he does not understand the role of an umpire or the proper process by which baseball umpires are to handle certain situations. Baseball is unique among the major sports when it comes to doling out specific penalties to violators of rules or conduct.

We can't issue yellow cards. We can't penalize 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. We can't call a technical. If someone personally insults us, if someone swears at us, we have two choices: leave said person in the game or remove them from the game. To choose the former results in our losing control of the game and letting said violators get away with actions they are not supposed to do. It also sends a poor message to the opposition: go ahead and demean me as an official, because I lack the fortitude to deal with it.

If prejudice and shallowness and lack of profound thought are part of your life, try to avoid automatically ascribing it to all others. You are not qualified to judge me as a baseball man, given your tendencies.

Work on controlling your personality (that you freely and proudly admit you fail to control) in your work and maybe you won't get sworn at so much.

And if you lack courage, don't automatically ascribe that to others, either.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

You are not qualified to judge me as a baseball man...

I forgot. Judging others is your job.



And as far as my personality, there is nothing wrong with it. It has served me well in umpiring and has earned me much respect over my 32-year career. Your allusion to it is rather bizarre, as is your excusing head coaches barreling out of dugouts swearing at umpires over balls and strikes.

If I were a head coach, I'd eat you alive on the ball field.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I forgot. Judging others is your job.



And as far as my personality, there is nothing wrong with it. It has served me well in umpiring and has earned me much respect over my 32-year career. Your allusion to it is rather bizarre, as is your excusing head coaches barreling out of dugouts swearing at umpires over balls and strikes.

If I were a head coach, I'd eat you alive on the ball field.

You play a lot of games. That's your choice.

And you choose not to control your personality when you work (like you freely admitted in starting this topic). It is your choice. It is unprofessional, but it's your choice. It results in outcomes that are unfavorable to the participants when you fail to control your personality, but it's your choice.

You would eat me alive? Stay in your little haven and play your little ego games. The big city is probably not for you.