Who becomes coach?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Which is fine if the ejection wasn't based on his behavior. I couldn't care how many coaches are on the bench; if a HC wants to act like a rat, he's not sitting on the bench the rest of the game.

Exactly. Actions have consequences. If you're the only coach, don't get ejected -- simple as that.

[MikeStrybel]

It's not as simple as that. Underlevel ball, at least around here, often employs umpires and coaches that aren't stellar. They make mistakes and I have seen coaches react to them in ways that are warranted but often end in an ejection. As an example, I was sent to watch an underlevel umpire and he had a rough game. With the game tied, he missed a play at the plate. He called the runner out when the catcher tagged him with an empty glove. The coach cam out to contest the call and was promptly dumped for arguing. In our post game, the umpire explained that he doesn't tolerate coaches who question his judgement calls. Should the coach have been dumped when you bungled the call so badly?

Now, the material I posted was given directly by the UIC for Illinois. He encourages discretion and I agree. A better tact would have been to restrict the coach to the dugout. He has to be silent and then you have the opportunity to finish the game. You kicked the call and the players deserve the chance to play. Forfeiting a game because you messed up is, well, messed up.

I want to reiterate, if a coach crosses the line and you are solid on your call, dump him and file the report/call the admin. I am not advocating tolerance of bad behavior. I'm just saying that sometimes, their actions are a direct result of ours. That lesson was learned on collegiate ball fields over the past twenty years. Give your best effort and expect it in return. Most of you are veterans who know when and how to react. We do see a number of rookies and they deserve to learn that this is not always a simple decision. Most of the time it is but there are plenty of times where discretion is the better tact. Earning a reputation as quick on the trigger is difficult to live down, if possible at all. We teach Conflict Resolution in our clinics in Illinois. We are trained to lower our voices, adopt a non threatening body position, listen and ask questions. Yes, the person asking is in charge of the dialogue. We use those interrogatives to deflect the situation and maintain control. I can't think of a better way to control a coach than restricting him to a dugout where all can see that he has to behave. Most likely he and his AD will appreciate the discretion.

[yawetag]

Mike, you're saying that you should restrict a coach when you kick a call, but eject them when you know the call is right? You can't be serious.

I'll stand by my previous comment. If the coach's actions warrant an ejection, I find it difficult to believe that he's going to sit on his bench and keep his mouth shut.

Yes, if his restriction is due to something beyond his control (such as the actions of an assistant coach), he's probably going to behave on the bench. But if he's already mad enough at you for a call, whether you're right or wrong, he's not going to turn into a choir boy the second you tell him he's going to sit on his bench and be quiet.

YMMV.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Forfeiting a game because you messed up is, well, messed up.

Yes, but that's not what happened.

[MikeStrybel]

I responded to Rich's comment that ejecting a coach for bad behavior is simple. It is not. His statement was all encompassing and reality isn't.

Do you eject a player who curses when he is injured, say a batter is popped by a fastball in the ribs and utters a curse too?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Do you eject a player who curses when he is injured, say a batter is popped by a fastball in the ribs and utters a curse too?

No, but if I did, I wouldn't equate that to a coach charging out of a dugout to argue a judgment call.

Apples and oranges.

[yawetag]

And, you didn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

A better tact would have been to restrict the coach to the dugout. He has to be silent and then you have the opportunity to finish the game. You kicked the call and the players deserve the chance to play. Forfeiting a game because you messed up is, well, messed up.

I want to reiterate, if a coach crosses the line and you are solid on your call, dump him and file the report/call the admin.

You are, in effect, saying that when 1) There's only one coach, 2) You miss a call, and 3) The coach acts in a way that warrants an ejection, then you should simply restrict him to the dugout.

Then, you say that when 1) There's only one coach, 2) You don't miss a call, and 3) The coach acts in a way that warrants an ejection, then you should eject.

Is that correct. If so, are you serious? Is there anyone else here that subscribes to this thought?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by yawetag

But if he's already mad enough at you for a call, whether you're right or wrong, he's not going to turn into a choir boy the second you tell him he's going to sit on his bench and be quiet.

In Ohio he might, because getting ejected will cost him $100 fine plus a $50 online coaching ethics course. Restriction is free.

From what I've heard, ejections are way down in Ohio this year.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I responded to Rich's comment that ejecting a coach for bad behavior is simple. It is not. His statement was all encompassing and reality isn't.

Do you eject a player who curses when he is injured, say a batter is popped by a fastball in the ribs and utters a curse too?

Rich was speaking of consequences for a coach acting like a rat an your example, in disagreement, regards a player swearing after getting hit in the ribs.

Rich is right in his example, you are right in yours. They are not, however, related.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

And, you didn't answer my question.

I stated, clearly, that ejecting a coach is not as simple as dumping him for bad behavior. I offered an example of a kicked call that earns his wrath.

You are, in effect, saying that when 1) There's only one coach, 2) You miss a call, and 3) The coach acts in a way that warrants an ejection, then you should simply restrict him to the dugout.

Actually, I stated that and it was reaffirmed by the UIC for Illinois. we both know that an umpire who winds up dumping a coach may have let things get out of control. We see it happen. Rookies pull the trigger because they think they have no alternative. They do. Restricting a coach to the dugout is far worse than ejecting him in many situations. He cannot say a word and his team is on guard. Dumping him, especially when it was caused by your error, usually elicits the eact opposite response. The team gets emotional and the game becomes secondary.

Then, you say that when 1) There's only one coach, 2) You don't miss a call, and 3) The coach acts in a way that warrants an ejection, then you should eject.

No, I did not write that. I specifically stated that some ejections are earned. When a coach violates a rule, you have options. Ejecting him is one. If you caused his response it may be in your best interest to toss some water on the fire rather than gas.

Is that correct. If so, are you serious? Is there anyone else here that subscribes to this thought?

Ad populum debating? Seriously Andrew, that is unnecessary. You need to take a step back and note that I specifically responded to you and Rich asserting that bad behavior warrants an ejection. That is not always the case, the NFHS rule book has it in place for a reason. They recognize that amateur umpires kick calls, coaches sometimes bring emotional baggage to the game and that even the best make mistakes that don't merit ejection.

I will give you another example. Many years ago, I worked an American Legion tourney. In the championship game, I missed a 2-2 pitch on a batter. It was a cock high fastball on the outer edge and I simply kicked it. The pitcher was walking off the mound when I called it a ball. The defensive coch was livid when the catcher shook his head in response to "Was it outside?" I could have been a prick and told the catcher to agree with my call or scold teh pitcher for walking off and showing me up. Instead, I got set for the 3-2 and the batter punched it over the right field fence to take the lead. The defensive coach was insane in the dugout, he tossed the water jug and was yelling about how I just cost him those runs. The opposing fams were on their feet shouting for me to dump him. The other team's fans were screaming at me like sailors. I watched the HC wind himself up, took off my mask, stood behind the catcher and said, "That's enough!" We had a few WWII vets in attandance and they chided him for behaving so poorly and he cooled down. They said that the umpire doesn't cost teams games. I knew better. My blown call did cost him those runs. Yes, his guy threw the next one down the pipe for the home run but it was me who caused him to have another pitch in the first place. The rest of the game was tense, I slept poorly that night and all these years later I knew that my mistakes are costly sometimes. I became a better umpire because of mistakes like this.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Rich was speaking of consequences for a coach acting like a rat an your example, in disagreement, regards a player swearing after getting hit in the ribs.

Rich is right in his example, you are right in yours. They are not, however, related.

Sure they are. Discretion is involved in determining umpire response to bad behavior. I have seen umpires eject players who cursed when injured.

If a coach curses because his pitcher just balked, I may not hear it. If he curses at me in response to a call, I probably will. I have heard the f-bomb in games and it doesn't bother me if it is internalized by a participant. i.e. bases loaded and a gapper breaks open a tie. The shortstop gets the ball in from the outfield and mutters it. I don't dump him. On the other hand, I have seen umpires eject players and coaches for saying "Jesus Christ!" or "God damn it." Eject how you see fit. I learned to differentiate between the important and trivial long ago. I haven't ejected a coach or player this year but I like to think that has more to do with my calls being correct than my tolerance.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Dumping him, especially when it was caused by your error...

If you caused his response...

No. I know what you mean, but coaches dump themselves.

I will give you another example. Many years ago, I worked an American Legion tourney. In the championship game, I missed a 2-2 pitch on a batter. It was a cock high fastball on the outer edge and I simply kicked it. The pitcher was walking off the mound when I called it a ball. The defensive coch was livid when the catcher shook his head in response to "Was it outside?" I could have been a prick and told the catcher to agree with my call or scold teh pitcher for walking off and showing me up. Instead, I got set for the 3-2 and the batter punched it over the right field fence to take the lead. The defensive coach was insane in the dugout, he tossed the water jug and was yelling about how I just cost him those runs. The opposing fams were on their feet shouting for me to dump him. The other team's fans were screaming at me like sailors. I watched the HC wind himself up, took off my mask, stood behind the catcher and said, "That's enough!" We had a few WWII vets in attandance and they chided him for behaving so poorly and he cooled down. They said that the umpire doesn't cost teams games. I knew better. My blown call did cost him those runs. Yes, his guy threw the next one down the pipe for the home run but it was me who caused him to have another pitch in the first place. The rest of the game was tense, I slept poorly that night and all these years later I knew that my mistakes are costly sometimes.

You should have dumped him.

I became a better umpire because of mistakes like this.

I hope that means you dump the coach if he acts like that again for any reason, including reacting to one of your mistakes.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

No. I know what you mean, but coaches dump themselves.

It is important to distinguish between coaches who are out of control and need to be dealt with and ones who react to your blown call - the one that just put their team in jeopardy - and your fast trigger.

You should have dumped him.

Most spectators saw him acting like a baby in the dugout. They never saw him step out of it and heard only a limited bit of his rants. They saw me act professionally. In the end, I looked better than he did but still knew that the center fielder, pitcher and catcher saw me kick a call that cost them.

I hope that means you dump the coach if he acts like that again for any reason, including reacting to one of your mistakes.

No, actually it means that I work harder to make the proper call and respond accordingly. I defuse situations, even those I may have brought about, because as has been fodder here, coaches often don't know why we made the calls we did. I find that with emerging grey hair comes an ability to placate coaches. So far, so good.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Sure they are. Discretion is involved in determining umpire response to bad behavior. I have seen umpires eject players who cursed when injured.

Again, that has nothing to do with RichMSN's post to which you responded. Can you please stay on topic with a response?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Again, that has nothing to do with RichMSN's post to which you responded. Can you please stay on topic with a response?

I am sorry that an evolving thread confuses you.

High school rules allow for you to restrict a coach to the dugout for a reason. I see no need to repeat why that may be a better option for some umpires. If you feel compelled to eject any coach who frustrates you, go ahead.