Was I Trigger Happy?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mark I respect your background and your opinion, but you did not answer the question.

Were these USSSA teams really playing under FED rules, or did you just think they should be?

He answered it in post #42.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mark I respect your background and your opinion, but you did not answer the question.

Were these USSSA teams really playing under FED rules, or did you just think they should be?

Yes he did. Read higher.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Mark I respect your background and your opinion, but you did not answer the question.

Were these USSSA teams really playing under FED rules, or did you just think they should be?

Read Post #42 for my answer.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Thanks guys for defending my answering the question.

MTD, Sr.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE=Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.;678189]Mark, Jr. (MTD, Jr.)

and I umpired a USSSA boys' 12U travel league game (NFHS rules) this afternoon and fun was had by all, .

From my experience coaches at this level 12U have NO Clue what HS rules are about.

In addition to the DB appeal, just look at the expression on the coaches faces when you invoke the FPSR. They give you that "deer in the headlights" look.

Normally my Plate conference is short and sweet BUT whenever I get travel leagues even in the 14U-15U range that say they play by HS rules I ask them a second time - Are you certain?

Your OP is a CLASSIC example of coaches that do not have a CLUE what HS rules are.

Also, whay was the coach who got dumped in yesterday's game allowed to coach the next day? I beleive USSSA and most FED states have an automatic 1 game suspension attached when you get EJ'd

Pete Booth

[SouthGARef]

I've had fun the past couple of weekends myself. USSSA 16U ball. Same teams play every week, and about 6-8 of our umpires work the games every week. We get to know each other rather well. OBR rules with USSSA mods.

Last weekend I'm the field umpire in a bracket game. Runner at 2nd, one out. Dribbler to the shortstop, and the runner takes off for third. The runner is in the basepath, and the ball, fielder, and runner all converge in the same general area at one time. However, the runner never made any contact with the fielder and never made any other actions that could be classified as interference. Team A's (the fielding team) HC wasn't there the day before, so one of the parents has been filling in, but the HC is there this day just not in the dugout. The parent coaching the team calls time, and respectfully asks why I did not call interference -- saying that the baserunner has to avoid contact with the fielder. I concur, but disagree that any contact was made and add that there were no actions by the runner that could be construed as interference. He seems somewhat upset, but understands and walks back to the dugout. No biggie. Happens all the time.

Next thing I know the Team A HC is yelling "You don't have to have contact to call interference." I of course don't grant him with any type of response because, since he's not a coach in this game -- he's nothing more than a spectator. Plus, he missed 95% of the conversation I had with the acting-coach that day.

This past weekend, Team A's HC is acting as coach. I have the team in a pool play game. I'm in the field again, with a runner on 3rd and one out. Team A is batting. Soft liner right to the pitcher, who makes the catch. Everyone just kind of pauses, then F1 throws the ball to F5 in an attempt to catch R3 off the bag. R3 is clearly out, and I call him as such. It wasn't really that close. Since this is the third out of the inning, I leisurely jog to my mid-inning position towards RF. Team A's dugout is on the 1BL. After I get to my position, I see Team A's HC at the edge of the grass. He says "That wasn't even close." I respond "You're right Coach, it wasn't." He just kind of stands puzzled, then says "Your timing is awful." I just ignore him. He's about 20-25 feet from me, so his dugout can of course hear him. "You need to stop anticipating calls." I say "OK Coach, that's enough." He then says "Your timing is awful." At this point I restrict the coach to the dugout (which I know isn't in OBR rules but the TD has allowed us to do because often times these teams only have one coach). After a couple of minutes, I hear him say something to the effect of "I'm not going anywhere." Should have tossed him. Don't know why I didn't. He just stands there outside of his dugout. I leisurely walk up to my partner, tell him Team A's coach is restricted, and he puts him in the dugout. Wish my partner would have done that on his own, but alas.

The next day I'm scheduled to work his bracket game as the PU. No problems through six innings. In the bottom of the seventh and final inning, he's down 7-6. First batter comes up and works a full count. Pitch comes right across the outer third (not corner) and I ring him up. Kid takes three steps towards the dugout, then turns looks at me and says "WHAT?! THAT WAS THREE FEET OUTSIDE!" Loud enough so that everyone could hear him. I dump him. Then Team A's coach wants to argue about the ejection. Asks what he's ejected for, I said yelling at an umpire about balls and strikes. He then says "Well, what's he ejected for?" I tell him that I've already explained it, and he knows players are not allowed to yell at umpires. He then tries to accuse me of baiting him and his team into ejections. Of course, nothing is further than the truth. My partner (different one) ushers him away. The last two outs are made, and his team loses 7-6.

He's a pretty prominent HC in the area (his team's not all that great, but he's been around here a while), and I'm new here. Only been calling in this area for about a month. All of our umpires in the association agree that we generally don't have any major problems with anybody but this one team and their fans. Their fans are generally terrible and want to chase you off the field. We've come to the determination that it's all because the HC gives the example that any problems that the team suffers (they went 2-20 last year) can be blamed on umpires. Even the kids are starting to bicker now. It's just a shame.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

Last weekend I'm the field umpire in a bracket game. Runner at 2nd, one out. Dribbler to the shortstop, and the runner takes off for third. The runner is in the basepath, and the ball, fielder, and runner all converge in the same general area at one time. However, the runner never made any contact with the fielder and never made any other actions that could be classified as interference. Team A's (the fielding team) HC wasn't there the day before, so one of the parents has been filling in, but the HC is there this day just not in the dugout. The parent coaching the team calls time, and respectfully asks why I did not call interference -- saying that the baserunner has to avoid contact with the fielder. I concur, but disagree that any contact was made and add that there were no actions by the runner that could be construed as interference. He seems somewhat upset, but understands and walks back to the dugout. No biggie. Happens all the time.

Apart from putting up with all the BS, you might have missed this one.

1. You don't say so, but presumably the defense did not get an out on this play. I'm assuming that because otherwise they wouldn't have complained.

2. I'm concerned with these parts of your post. I think that you're giving the offense too much benefit of the doubt.

The defense has absolute priority on a batted ball. If the runner's presence caused the fielder to hesitate or otherwise disrupted the play, that's sufficient to call INT here.

As you note, contact is not required for INT here. But neither is intent: on a batted ball, the runner might simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, his intent might have been obviously to AVOID interfering, and he could still be guilty of INT on this play.

So it's hard to know based on what you posted, but I suspect that the defense had a legitimate gripe here.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Read Post #42 for my answer.

MTD, Sr.

My apologies. I only had two cups of coffee when I posted that. Two more cups later, and by golly, there it was.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

He says "That wasn't even close." I respond "You're right Coach, it wasn't."

Why would you say this? I'm sure we've all thought that in our heads... but you don't say it."

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

He just kind of stands puzzled, then says "Your timing is awful." I just ignore him.

Kind of funny here... guess we're just different. I think you should have ignored the first comment. But then he made it personal and was showing you up by continuing to shout at you. I would have ignored the first and given a short concise, "That's enough coach" to this one.

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

He's about 20-25 feet from me, so his dugout can of course hear him. "You need to stop anticipating calls." I say "OK Coach, that's enough." He then says "Your timing is awful." At this point I restrict the coach to the dugout (which I know isn't in OBR rules but the TD has allowed us to do because often times these teams only have one coach).

I wish all jurisdictions had this. There are times where an ejection might not be warranted yet but you need to do SOMETHING to head things off - restriction would be perfect for that. Alas...

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

After a couple of minutes, I hear him say something to the effect of "I'm not going anywhere." Should have tossed him. Don't know why I didn't.

OMG, absolutely. You can't restrict the guy and then put up with ANYTHING. You just castrated yourself.

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

I leisurely walk up to my partner, tell him Team A's coach is restricted, and he puts him in the dugout. Wish my partner would have done that on his own, but alas.

Worser and worser... you ABSOLUTELY should have dumped him ... but you didn't... and now your dumping the problem on your partner, who had nothing to do with this situation, and you wish he'd have handled it for you? Egads man.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Apart from putting up with all the BS, you might have missed this one.

1. You don't say so, but presumably the defense did not get an out on this play. I'm assuming that because otherwise they wouldn't have complained.

2. I'm concerned with these parts of your post. I think that you're giving the offense too much benefit of the doubt.

The defense has absolute priority on a batted ball. If the runner's presence caused the fielder to hesitate or otherwise disrupted the play, that's sufficient to call INT here.

As you note, contact is not required for INT here. But neither is intent: on a batted ball, the runner might simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Indeed, his intent might have been obviously to AVOID interfering, and he could still be guilty of INT on this play.

So it's hard to know based on what you posted, but I suspect that the defense had a legitimate gripe here.

And I knew that, and the parent-coach and I had that conversation out on the field in a very cordial manner. I didn't mention many of the specifics of our discussion or the play in question because the main point of my post was the Team A coach. The play was just backstory.

This is undoubtedly one of those HTBT plays. There was very definable space, in my opinion, for the fielder to make the play even with the runner in the vicinity. In fact, F6 fielded the ball cleanly but simply didn't make a really strong throw to first so the batter-runner was safe. The bad throw can not be blamed on the runner either, as by this point the runner had already cleared the premises.

I don't think you can stretch "absolute priority" of F6 to such a limit that you completely impede the runners opportunity to make it to a base safely.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Why would you say this? I'm sure we've all thought that in our heads... but you don't say it."

Kind of funny here... guess we're just different. I think you should have ignored the first comment. But then he made it personal and was showing you up by continuing to shout at you. I would have ignored the first and given a short concise, "That's enough coach" to this one.

I wish all jurisdictions had this. There are times where an ejection might not be warranted yet but you need to do SOMETHING to head things off - restriction would be perfect for that. Alas...

OMG, absolutely. You can't restrict the guy and then put up with ANYTHING. You just castrated yourself.

Worser and worser... you ABSOLUTELY should have dumped him ... but you didn't... and now your dumping the problem on your partner, who had nothing to do with this situation, and you wish he'd have handled it for you? Egads man.

All worthy constructive criticism. I completely agree that I should have dumped him when he said he wasn't going anywhere. I'm human, I make mistakes. But I don't think hoping my partner would have helped me is out of line. Just because I made a mistake means my partner has to be of little/no help? Isn't part of being a partner being there to back you up when you make a mistake?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

All worthy constructive criticism. I completely agree that I should have dumped him when he said he wasn't going anywhere. I'm human, I make mistakes. But I don't think hoping my partner would have helped me is out of line. Just because I made a mistake means my partner has to be of little/no help? Isn't part of being a partner being there to back you up when you make a mistake?

I see your point. Honestly though, I think most umpires would be rather upset if their partner inserted themselves into a situation where they were dealing with a coach. Partner's duty is not to tag-team the coach in this situation... really his only responsibility would be to keep OTHER coaches away should you get approached by more than just the coach you're addressing. Assuming we're not talking about a complete rookie here... and I KNOW you're not ... I think your partner would have been WAY out of place nosing into this situation.

(In fact, I'd go one step further and say that the 2 worst ejections I've ever witnessed both involved a coach "interacting" with one umpire and the OTHER umpire ejecting him.)

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I see your point. Honestly though, I think most umpires would be rather upset if their partner inserted themselves into a situation where they were dealing with a coach. Partner's duty is not to tag-team the coach in this situation... really his only responsibility would be to keep OTHER coaches away should you get approached by more than just the coach you're addressing. Assuming we're not talking about a complete rookie here... and I KNOW you're not ... I think your partner would have been WAY out of place nosing into this situation.

(In fact, I'd go one step further and say that the 2 worst ejections I've ever witnessed both involved a coach "interacting" with one umpire and the OTHER umpire ejecting him.)

Understood. We agree on a lot. I agree, if I hadn't already enforced some sort of penalty on the coach and we were just debating, I would have been upset had my partner stepped in.

It's actually been a point of emphasis in this area that once one official (this goes in all sports beyond baseball) initiates a restriction/penalty on a coach such as restrction, technical foul, etc. that the other officials then begin to work with the coach to assess the penalty and to make sure he complies. For example, when one official gives a technical foul he should move away from the coach while another official is entrusted to make sure the coach complies with the seat belt rule. This was mentioned to us as a way to insure that one official can't be seen as the only one that had a problem with the coach. Crew unity, I suppose.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE=SouthGARef;678337]

Isn't part of being a partner being there to back you up when you make a mistake?[/

QUOTE]

Your OP is NOT the same thing as YOU mis-interpretting a playing rule or you asking for your partner's help.

You had a problem with the coach so why do you expect your partner who has NOT even entered the conversation to restrict him.

here is what I was taught.

When the coach is arguing with my partner walk towards the conversation - DO NOT ENTER it but simply be an observer. If your partner dumps him then you make certain the coach leaves.

RE: If there is a report written it could be a he said she said situation so to back up my partner I want to make certain what was said so that the EJ report (if it comes to it) is accurately written.

Also, If the coach is hot it's best that you simply tell the coach to leave etc.

HOWEVER,

Do not expect your partner to DUMP OR RESTRICT the coach. That is your job if you so warrant it.

Pete Booth