The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 02:32pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
So was I right or wrong?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 02:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
So was I right or wrong?

Peace
You were wrong:

FED 3-3-1g-6
any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,


When assistant is tossed or benched the HC is benched. When the HC is tossed or benched, the assistant is "promoted."
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 07:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 425
Just because an AC is dumped does not automatically restrict the HC to the bench. The AC must leave the dugout or his position in the coaches box to argue a call and then be restricted/ejected. If the AC is restricted/ejected while he is in the dugout or still in the box, there is no penalty for the HC.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 08:23pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
You were wrong:

FED 3-3-1g-6
any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,


When assistant is tossed or benched the HC is benched. When the HC is tossed or benched, the assistant is "promoted."
Here is the reason I asked the question. There is no such ruling that says this is not the intent of the rule. And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout. So the position that johnnyg08 took would be wrong if you look at casebook plays that intend to restrict all coaches to the dugout if a coach violates the rule. Secondly, it is not automatic that you can restrict a coach anyway as the casebook says. There is no play that involves the actions of the head coach and what we do with the assistants, if we do anything with the assistants at all. And this rule is very similar to other rules in sports where the conduct of the assistants or people on the bench area are ultimately the responsibility of the head coach and if the head coach is not in control, the coaching staff is ultimately penalized. Even in one of the casebook plays, it gives the option to the umpire for the severity of the action before deciding if this penalty is appropriate.

Unfortunately for me I did not go to a live rules meeting and this was a question I had about this rule from the very beginning.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 08:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout.
What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 08:52pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.
You must did not read the casebook.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 09:06pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
no, i know what you're getting at...but if all are restricted, can the team put a player in the 3B coaching box?...sounds like a gong show to me.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 09:28pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyg08 View Post
no, i know what you're getting at...but if all are restricted, can the team put a player in the 3B coaching box?...sounds like a gong show to me.
That could have happened with or without this new rule. If a coach was restricted (and there were no other adult coaches present) than the coach could not be on the field. And I have seen players used as base coaches often in my years and even at third base.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 10:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 928
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
You must did not read the casebook.

Peace
Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?"
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 10:49am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.
Yep.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 08:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

Jeff,

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
...And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout. ...
Could you please clarify? I haven't the foggiest idea of what situations you are referring to or where I would find a supporting cite.

Thanks.

John
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 08:52pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM) View Post
Jeff,



Could you please clarify? I haven't the foggiest idea of what situations you are referring to or where I would find a supporting cite.

Thanks.

John
Well you can look at all the casebook plays under 3.3.1 and it is clear that the rule makes it clear that the actions of an assistant can restrict a HC to the dugout. And the intent of the rule is to make the HC restricted and not allow a coach to be on the field if such action is taken under this new rule. And there are people that have said that "It would not be a good thing to have a coach not on the field" when the rule is clear that is the result if this rule is violated.

I do think the rule is unclear on some levels, but it is clear to me the NF wanted this penalty to be severe so the HC could prevent assistants from getting out of hand.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 09:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Well you can look at all the casebook plays under 3.3.1 and it is clear that the rule makes it clear that the actions of an assistant can restrict a HC to the dugout. And the intent of the rule is to make the HC restricted and not allow a coach to be on the field if such action is taken under this new rule. And there are people that have said that "It would not be a good thing to have a coach not on the field" when the rule is clear that is the result if this rule is violated.

I do think the rule is unclear on some levels, but it is clear to me the NF wanted this penalty to be severe so the HC could prevent assistants from getting out of hand.

Peace
The gymanastics and gyrations you go through to try to avoid being wrong are incredible.

Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 10:04pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrUmpire View Post
The gymanastics and gyrations you go through to try to avoid being wrong are incredible.

Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on.
I am a multiple sport official. This rule came from other sports (basketball and football have similar rules). In basketball the head coach is the only person that has the coaching box privileged. Once those privileges are lost, no one can use them. In football, if anyone violates the sideline rules, all penalties goes toward the head coach and can result in ejection even if the head coach is not directly responsible for the specific penalized act. Most baseball coaches I know are coaches from other sports. They tend to use other sports as their way of understanding other rules. And I am waiting for a coach a restriction when the rules are not explicit for such thing at this time. And if that was the case, then the interpretations should make it clear like they do in other aspects when this rule does not apply. Right now they claim mostly when it applies and even in one case play the situation is not dealing directly with an argument, but requires everyone to be restricted to the dugout (e.g. 3.3.1 Situation T).

This is like many new rules where the intent is one thing, but what they put in writing is another. The problem is people like you want everything to be about right and wrong and do not want to acknowledge that if things were clear, someone (not me BTW) would not have suggested that a head coach would have been restricted for something that the interpretations did not address. All the NF could have done in this situation was create a play where it was clear the assistant coach is not under their jurisdiction and they would not be restricted to the dugout and all of this would be clearer. Previously when a coach was restricted it was very clear what a coach could and could not do. In this case they are making the head coach responsible, but not really responsible if they do not fit these very narrow standards.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)

Last edited by JRutledge; Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 10:21pm.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 11:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
So was I right or wrong?
Hey, you posed the question.

Don't get all defensive if somebody answers it.

The rule is clear to me, and I don't need to even consider what they do in football or basketball to muddy things up. The new rule is simple and simply written. It has been clearly and concisely interpreted in the pre-season NFHS publications.

There's no need to guess at what you think they really meant. The rule and interpretations are about as unambiguous as they could possibly be.

The case play you cite (3.3.1T) has nothing to do with this new rule and nothing to do with anyone being "restricted to the bench". This case play is referring to participants being in their required areas during the game, NOT about anyone being "restricted to the bench" as a punitive measure for some misconduct.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coaches on field- live ball foul? bossman72 Football 6 Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:34pm
Coaches on the field Ran.D Softball 2 Tue May 09, 2006 09:05am
Coaches on the field during a game alabamabluezebra Football 9 Wed Aug 24, 2005 07:09am
Field goal attempts that hit the cameras on field goal posts Barney72 Football 3 Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:21pm
Coaches on the Field Ed Hickland Football 32 Wed Dec 18, 2002 02:11pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1