By that logic, I should be glad there are gangbangers and dope dealers. Without them, I wouldn't have a job.

No. Without lying, sleazy coaches, I'd have no job. But there's no fear of that, is there?

Ump153,

I disagree. Heck, you don't really NEED any coaches to have a baseball game.

However, you do need at least one umpire to have an actual baseball game.

Even if all coaches were saints, you would still need umpires.

JM

Only because the players are just as ratty.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

But, again, even if all the players were saints, you would STILL need umpires.

JM

I'm in the camp of "if coaches and players didn't lie or cheat, you wouldn't need umpires."

I had inferred that.

While I certainly agree that it is an important aspect of umpiring, I believe that considering it the sole reason represents a profound misconception of the fundamental role of the umpire(s) in a game of baseball.

JM

Maybe a review of rule 1.01 would help:

"Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires.

Having coaches is part of the baseball tradition, and the rules. Coaches are there to help their team win, and umpires are there to make sure nobody gets an unfair advantage.

The first of the 200 plus errors in the rulebook.

Please enlighten me as to the error in that statement. Manager...umpire(s)...sounds accurate.

Baseball is no longer a game just between two teams of nine players each. At least half the time at the pro level it is a game between two teams of ten players each.

Even at the amateur level much of the time, if not a majority of the time, it is a game between two teams of ten players each.

(You apparently have never attended an Evans Clinc, Classic or school.)

Why don't you have a big glass of STFU?

If that same kid prepared your Big Mac without special sauce, would you say shame on him ? Or would you instead blame the manager who hired him, and put him on the clock without prior proper training ??? I'm sure when you first started umpiring, you knew all there was to know. Obviously, the kid has some learning to do, but you don't seem interested in helping him learn, just pointing out his short-comings. Did NOTHING to prepare himself for the job ? NOTHING ? I guess you know this kid pretty well to have knowledge of that. There are lots of people who insist that the hands are part of the bat. Are they making up a rule ? No, they are parroting what they've been told numerous times, and have come to believe it. Maybe that's what happened in this case. Maybe someone told the kid that that was the rule, and he's held on to it in his head. I hope for his sake he doesn't have anymore of your games.
He deserves better treatment.

I was going by the bolded statements, that managers and umpires were involved in the game. If you would care to give me a scholarship to an umpire school, I would choose Harry's.

NOTHING? yes, I think that is a little rough. He DID have an I-Phone and expensive looking sunglasses with red trim. And, he mostly tucked in some of the shirt that they gave him. So, yes! He did spend some time preparing.

I knew that there would be some comments on here disagreeing with my flippant remark. Like I said before, it would have been best for me not to have said it.

I was not prepared for the number of lunkheads who were going to try to convince me that a coach should help the umpire make calls and understand rules. And, that a coach should get his runner called out because the umpire does not know the rules.

It is the coach's job to help an umpire learn his job? That is such a load of Horse Hockey.

The coach has ZERO responsibility to help the umpire make calls or understand rules.

It is remarkable how many people believe that I should have been helping Cell Phone McGhee do his job. Those are some of the most moronic posts I have ever read.