A.D. problems

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Brett

Which case are you discussing? The OP stated the umpire got the feeling that the AD was trying to get home because it was "only" a FROSH doubleheader.

If what you're stating were the case, I'd whole heartedly agree with you.

If what the OP thought was correct and the AD was trying to cheat the players out of a double header because he wanted to get home, shame on him.

I usually work with "game management" an give their input quite a bit of weight when it comes to matters like this. However, when I get the sense that adults are putting their interests ahead of the interests of the child players involved; I have no problem taking a stand. If the AD wants to go home that bad, he can pull his team and forfeit both games.

Brett:

In the OP the author was injecting his own opinion about the AD's motives. We all know that an AD can not enter the officials' dressing room even if it is office, but the school distict responsibility for player safety is equal to the game officials and it is the game officials responsibility to make sure the school district complies with all safety rules. In the OP the school official representing the school district was erring on the side of safety (as the game officials should always, with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley, do).

In these rain during the game situations, the schools involved (coaches and AD's) resist stopping the game because they want to play the game and forget their responsibility to the safety of the players is primary.

So read my lips: When an AD wants to suspened the game because of safety concerns, thank him profusely, take your game fee check, and take your wife/girl friend/mistress (all three at once or seperately) to dinner with it.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Brett

It's common practice when quoting someone to add or modify words when necessary to give context to a quote without the surrounding context of the original quote or to help the flow of the sentence. Don't like it? Too bad.

Disagree. Words are changed in quotes when the quote is part of a larger sentence so the tense makes sense, or so that pronouns are clear, or to edit for "family newpapers".

None of those is true in your quote.

Adding the word "sole" in the quote changes the meaning of it.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Adding the word "sole" in the quote changes the meaning of it.

Bob:

I don't think it changed the meaning of the original post. I thought it provided context that the partial quote left off. If we disagree on that point, so be it. I obviously wasn't trying to trick anyone by adding it. If I were I wouldn't have indicated the editorial addition with the brackets.


Mark:

Aren't you injecting his own opinion about the AD's motives? Under the circumstances you describe, I agree with you. I thought I already said that.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by umpjong

Its the A.D. that has to explain the early end of the contest. If I got my check, bye bye.... Why the pissing match? Let him be the big shot............

Suppose the home team is up by 1 after 8. Visitors score 10 in the top of the 9th and it starts to drizzle. The AD says the field is unsafe, and you know it is perfectly fit for play. You still gonna take your check and hit the road?

It's an extreme example - I just want to know if you have a line somewhere.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Suppose the home team is up by 1 after 8. Visitors score 10 in the top of the 9th and it starts to drizzle. The AD says the field is unsafe, and you know it is perfectly fit for play. You still gonna take your check and hit the road?

It's an extreme example - I just want to know if you have a line somewhere.

Well, in most places, it would be a suspended game at that point. But it's a good scenario, nonetheless.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

In this case, it sounds like I would have gone home with no problems. But, I would let the AD know I am calling the game and not him. So, he learns that he has no control over the next umpire who comes out and he thinks he can try it again b/c I didn't make that point clear enough.

If you say "OK AD, seeya!" you are screwing the next umpire who has to come in there and make a call on a game that is not as clear cut.

"Ok Mr. AD, it's my call once the game starts. You're probably right, but lets just wait 5/10 minutes until we really lose the field."

If we were in conversation alone, maybe even note to him that he will look good to parents for trying to get the game in!

Then 5 minutes later, count the cash and throw it in the trunk

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If you say "OK AD, seeya!" you are screwing the next umpire who has to come in there and make a call on a game that is not as clear cut.

"Ok Mr. AD, it's my call once the game starts. You're probably right, but lets just wait 5/10 minutes until we really lose the field."

If we were in conversation alone, maybe even note to him that he will look good to parents for trying to get the game in!

Then 5 minutes later, count the cash and throw it in the trunk

Exactly.

[PeteBooth]

Dash depending upon one's area some High School's play in town parks.

So let's continue with your scenario. HT up by one Top 9. Visitors go ahead 10.

Now the Town Superintendent says to you - GAME OVER. Guess what - GAME OVER

I see no difference here.

IMO, the point some are missing is this:

If the AD wants to "kick the game" no matter what the circumstances, the umpires are "off the hook" Any "heat" or other "ramifications" that come from that game are on the AD.

In reality if the AD did "kick the game' using your extreme example he would no longer be AD.

Pete Booth

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Brett

Had I added it without calling attention to the fact that is was added editorially (with the brackets) for clarification to the point you were trying to make, I'd agree with you. It's common practice when quoting someone to add or modify words when necessary to give context to a quote without the surrounding context of the original quote or to help the flow of the sentence. Don't like it? Too bad.

Bullsh!t. Words are added to quotes to indicate what was being referenced when the speak omits it, such as:

According to the witness: "When I came out side (the burglar) was running down the street."

OR

"It's obvioius (Brett) doesn't know squat about writing style."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

If you say "OK AD, seeya!" you are screwing the next umpire who has to come in there and make a call on a game that is not as clear cut.

"Ok Mr. AD, it's my call once the game starts. You're probably right, but lets just wait 5/10 minutes until we really lose the field."

If we were in conversation alone, maybe even note to him that he will look good to parents for trying to get the game in!

Then 5 minutes later, count the cash and throw it in the trunk

What is wrong with some of you people. How many times have there been threads the game officials have erred on the side of safety and have been crucified by the coaches and game administration for being more concerned about being sued than letting the game continue. In the OP we have an AD who is doing the correct thing: erring on the side of safety and some of you guys are getting bent out of shape because this AD is stepping up to the plate and taking the position that the safety of the players come first and not trying to get a game played. GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS!!

MTD, Sr.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What is wrong with some of you people. How many times have there been threads the game officials have erred on the side of safety and have been crucified by the coaches and game administration for being more concerned about being sued than letting the game continue. In the OP we have an AD who is doing the correct thing: erring on the side of safety and some of you guys are getting bent out of shape because this AD is stepping up to the plate and taking the position that the safety of the players come first and not trying to get a game played. GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS!!

MTD, Sr.

1) Because it is not within the rules of the game.

2) Who said the umpire was trying to get the game played in unsafe conditions? Nobody here is arguing to play the game, we are arguing how to deal with an AD who wants to call it, which, by rule, he can't.

------------------

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

In reality if the AD did "kick the game' using your extreme example he would no longer be AD.

For some schools, it would be WHY he is the AD.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What is wrong with some of you people. How many times have there been threads the game officials have erred on the side of safety and have been crucified by the coaches and game administration for being more concerned about being sued than letting the game continue. In the OP we have an AD who is doing the correct thing: erring on the side of safety and some of you guys are getting bent out of shape because this AD is stepping up to the plate and taking the position that the safety of the players come first and not trying to get a game played. GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS!!

MTD, Sr.

The only one in a pi$$ing match now is you. The point is to not let the AD think he can do things as he wants at anytime. This is especially important for the next crew that comes in. And, an example would be as Dash said to prevent. The game was still called but not by the AD so he knows he can't do that anytime he wants for those who do NOT treat the AD with equal jurisdiction as the umpire for field conditions. If they do, then just make sure it is known as to who is calling the game.

That is the only point. To make sure he doesn't try to overstep his bounds in a situation where he needs to stay out of it. That is all at this point. Just walking off at the drop of a hat in a situation where the AD doesn't have business doing so is a bad idea. And, if you just walk off in something like that, make sure someone knows the AD just called the game and not the umpire. To make sure he is being held accountable for it and not the umpire.

And, this was a DH. If at all possible, I am for getting the second game in. You don't get paid if you don't do the game. First one is paid for. What about the 2nd one? I would be thinking about the 2nd one myself. I don't care what the AD's motives are. I know what mine are. And, I won't sacrifice safety for money by no means. B/c I will also be thinking about my own.

[umpjong]

So if a school administrator tells you, the umpire in chief, that the grounds are unplayable and unsafe for the student athletes, you will allow them to continue just because you have the "sole" authority to "call" the game?

Better get your bank book,house title, and car title out, because my kid, the next batter, is going to sprain his ankle while trying to run out a grounder..........

(school has no liability as its all yours now)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

What is wrong with some of you people. How many times have there been threads the game officials have erred on the side of safety and have been crucified by the coaches and game administration for being more concerned about being sued than letting the game continue. In the OP we have an AD who is doing the correct thing: erring on the side of safety and some of you guys are getting bent out of shape because this AD is stepping up to the plate and taking the position that the safety of the players come first and not trying to get a game played. GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS!!

MTD, Sr.

I do not know the motivation of this AD, but I'm willing to bet that the best interest of the athletes' safety was not it.

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

1) Because it is not within the rules of the game.

2) Who said the umpire was trying to get the game played in unsafe conditions? Nobody here is arguing to play the game, we are arguing how to deal with an AD who wants to call it, which, by rule, he can't.

------------------

Thank you! The voice of reason has spoken (oh, that's what we've all been saying...never mind).

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

The only one in a pi$$ing match now is you. The point is to not let the AD think he can do things as he wants at anytime. This is especially important for the next crew that comes in. And, an example would be as Dash said to prevent. The game was still called but not by the AD so he knows he can't do that anytime he wants for those who do NOT treat the AD with equal jurisdiction as the umpire for field conditions. If they do, then just make sure it is known as to who is calling the game.

That is the only point. To make sure he doesn't try to overstep his bounds in a situation where he needs to stay out of it. That is all at this point. Just walking off at the drop of a hat in a situation where the AD doesn't have business doing so is a bad idea. And, if you just walk off in something like that, make sure someone knows the AD just called the game and not the umpire. To make sure he is being held accountable for it and not the umpire.

And, this was a DH. If at all possible, I am for getting the second game in. You don't get paid if you don't do the game. First one is paid for. What about the 2nd one? I would be thinking about the 2nd one myself. I don't care what the AD's motives are. I know what mine are. And, I won't sacrifice safety for money by no means. B/c I will also be thinking about my own.

I agree. Imagine that, agreeing with GA Umpire...who'da thunk it!