The Official Forum
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   2010 Rules Changes (NFHS Document) (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/53878-2010-rules-changes-nfhs-document.html)

johnnyg08 Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ (Post 612938)
Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ
If you're a head coach it sounds like it would be a good pre-season conversation to have w/ your assistants to make sure it doesn't happened. The rule appears to give more responsiblity to the head coach. This is a good rule.

Rich Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:32pm
Except it almost sounds like it's OK for the assistant to argue calls if they don't leave their position (dugout or coaching box). I guar-ON-tee it's not going to be interpreted that way by this umpire.

The best part is that even if an assistant coach gets ejected under this rule, the HC will also get restricted.

LDUB Tue Jul 07, 2009 01:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ (Post 612938)
Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO
Ok so you eject him; the head coach is still restricted to the dugout. Why do you care so much about who gets to coach a base?

Rich Tue Jul 07, 2009 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ (Post 612938)
Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ
Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jul 07, 2009 01:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 613020)
Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.
Rule 3-3-1g6 prohibits any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach from leaving "the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire." The penalty for this infraction is that both the head coach and the offending coach will be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.

If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

umpjong Tue Jul 07, 2009 02:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 613029)
If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.
I agree with you.

Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....

DonInKansas Tue Jul 07, 2009 03:43pm
Quote:
If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.
This is the only part I needed to hear. Dump the fool.

Kevin Finnerty Tue Jul 07, 2009 03:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpjong (Post 613041)
... Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....
Watching a coach sit in the corner of the dugout silently moping like a child is often more satisfying (and more appropriate) than dumping him.

Steven Tyler Tue Jul 07, 2009 05:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 613029)
This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.
Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.

JRutledge Tue Jul 07, 2009 05:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ (Post 612938)
Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ
Is that not what already happens often? At least at first base there are a lot of players at that position. At least in my experience.

That being said, the ruling does not say that the umpire cannot dump the assistant. It just says that "if" they are restricted, the head coach must go to the bench. That is all.

Kevin Finnerty Tue Jul 07, 2009 05:48pm
Agreed. (As I read it.)

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jul 07, 2009 05:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler (Post 613107)
Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.
Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.

Steven Tyler Tue Jul 07, 2009 06:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 613121)
Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.
Again, let me be clear. It was your bold statement. I just asked where you got your information from. I believe FED has taken sportsmanship up a notch. Rules aren't made because an umpire is weak. There has to be a better reason than what you suggest.

SanDiegoSteve Tue Jul 07, 2009 07:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Tyler (Post 613123)
There has to be a better reason than what you suggest.
Pretty sure it isn't to take "sportsmanship up a notch." That's not what the memo said. Here is what it said, and is more in line with what I was saying, which is that umpires have been lax in dealing with unruly assistants. Which is weak.

The intention of this change is to cut down on the disruptive and counterproductive behavior of assistant coaches. It also reinforces to head coaches that they are responsible for their staff and players.

"The committee found that assistant coaches were taking license with their roles and becoming disruptive," Hopkins said. "By
doing that, they're sending the wrong message to their players. It's one thing to ask the official for a clarification, but it's another to challenge and charge an umpire. We cannot and will not allow that."

Sounds like some umpires have let behavior slide and did not send the proper message.

DonInKansas Tue Jul 07, 2009 07:21pm
If sportsmanship had been taken up a notch, rules like this would not be neccessary.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27pm.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1