Who becomes coach?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

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.

Evolving threads are not the issue. Your habit of trying to appear superior by repositioning the posts and position of others, is.

For example, when did I say anything about feeling compelled to eject anyone? When did I say I was frustrated by anone? Your posts come close as close to lying as any I've seen.

If you can't honestly respond to my posts, then please don't respond at all.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Evolving threads are not the issue. Your habit of trying to appear superior by repositioning the posts and position of others, is.

For example, when did I say anything about feeling compelled to eject anyone? When did I say I was frustrated by anone? Your posts come close as close to lying as any I've seen.

If you can't honestly respond to my posts, then please don't respond at all.

Ugggh. You seem to deem anyone who doesn't simply write "+1" as being superior. Rich and Andrew wrote that coaches who cross the line deserve what they get. I don't disagree. I offered that what some coaches should get is a restriction to the dugout or simply ignored. I cited the NFHS rule that allows for this. I provided an interp from the Illinois UIC. Some of us believe that trying to extinguish fires is better than adding to them. Discretion is a learned skill. You seem to be enamored with Jim Evans. He has a bunch of videos that show him engaged in heated antics with coaches that he didn't eject. He used discretion and maturity to overcome their nonsense. Maybe his history can convince you to what I cannot.

Finally, please don't pretend I am lying. I quote the post and respond to it. The thread evolved and you want to stay static. When I offer personal experience that shows my mistakes that is hardly acting superior. You complained when I stated opinions without offering a ruling. I cited 3-3-1g Penalty long ago. Please make up your mind. The NFHS states that coaches who use "profanity, intimidating tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon another person or taunting or baiting" and "charge an umpire" can be restricted to the dugout. Argue with their 'lies' if you feel the need. They wrote them for all to read. (Page 31)

Eject if you want. Restrict if you want. Tim C. gave the best advice so far, make your calls and let the powers that be decide what happens. Around here, a coach who is restricted to the dugout will be appreciative for not getting called on the carpet. I haven't had the need to restrict a coach to the dugout or eject one in a long time. Colleagues who have relate that those dumped seem to harbor season long grudges. That is baggage most don't want. The Illinois UIC prefers it that way too.

[MrUmpire]

There you go again, Michael, pretending you know something you don't.

The only thing you can be certain of regarding who I consider superior is that it isn't you. And now that I've learned how Illinois selects, "state clinicians", and how many they select, it's clear being superior is not a requirement.

You'd have made a great case study before my retirement, but God know I don't have the time to deal with you now.

As you may have noticed, I'm not the only one on to you. Just the loudest. but that changes tonight. I've never suffered fools well, so, good bye Michael, have a great time on the ignore list. Say hi to STB for me.

As always feel free to have the last word...I know how important that is to you.. Go ahead, no one will mind. It's expected.

[yawetag]

If you want to restrict a coach, that's definitely your choice. My stance, however, is that you shouldn't make that choice on whether or not you missed the call. If you feel a coach's actions are worthy of an ejection, then eject; if they're worthy of a restriction, then restrict; if not, then do nothing.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

If you want to restrict a coach, that's definitely your choice. My stance, however, is that you shouldn't make that choice on whether or not you missed the call. If you feel a coach's actions are worthy of an ejection, then eject; if they're worthy of a restriction, then restrict; if not, then do nothing.

Andrew,
Thanks for the civil reply. I believe that if you know you missed a call that it should weigh into the latitude shown to a coach. I won't let coaches argue balls and strikes and keep them in the dugout. They know that about me. If a banger happens and they need to bark, I listen and guide the game back to play. If I blow a call and cannot get help to change it, I listen a little longer. Long ago, a veteran umpire told me this. He kicked a steal play at 2nd and the coach was livid. His response, "Skipper, if I had to do it all over again, maybe I would call it the other way. I gave you the best look I could at the time and I'm sure you saw it differently." That almost always placated the coach. It has for me. I ask them if they are done and the only response they can give is one that allows me to get the game going again.

Sometimes we simply don't have a great angle or enough information to nail the call. I saw a trapped fly ball in the outfield during a pro game a few days ago get kicked by an umpire who is much better than I am. He commented after the game that he kicked the call. He also let the coach chew on him for a while. No ejection. When I see the best umpires doing that it reaffirms the lessons I received long ago. Tolerance and discretion are just as important as confidence and commitment.

Thanks again for being civil.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I saw a trapped fly ball in the outfield during a pro game a few days ago get kicked by an umpire who is much better than I am. He commented after the game that he kicked the call. He also let the coach chew on him for a while. No ejection.

After disputed call, Mattingly, Uribe ejected | MLB.com: News

That one? Both the coach and the batter were ejected between innings.

[MikeStrybel]

Nope. I watch QuickPitch each morning with my son as he eats breakfast. He is learning the game and the highlights are a great resource for him. It was in the past two weeks or so, I'll dig a bit to recall it. I saw the Uribe one too. Wild play to say the least. In real time it was a great steal of an out by the fielder. Some would claim he is a rat for pretending to catch the ball but I thought it was a terrific example of why our job is so tough. I plan to use that play when teaching. If the best of the best can be fooled then we all have hope.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Eject if you want. Restrict if you want. Tim C. gave the best advice so far, make your calls and let the powers that be decide what happens. Around here, a coach who is restricted to the dugout will be appreciative for not getting called on the carpet. I haven't had the need to restrict a coach to the dugout or eject one in a long time. Colleagues who have relate that those dumped seem to harbor season long grudges. That is baggage most don't want. The Illinois UIC prefers it that way too.

You seem to be one of those people who, when confronted with 99 people telling you the sky is blue, insist the sky is grey because that's what they initially said, and don't bother to actually look at the sky. 99 people tell you that what you are espousing is bad umpiring (and not just on this thread), yet in your mind it's the 99 that are insane. And you call US arrogant? Yeah, ok.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You seem to be one of those people who, when confronted with 99 people telling you the sky is blue, insist the sky is grey because that's what they initially said, and don't bother to actually look at the sky. 99 people tell you that what you are espousing is bad umpiring (and not just on this thread), yet in your mind it's the 99 that are insane. And you call US arrogant? Yeah, ok.

I still don't get why I should be worried about a coach harboring a grudge. THEY'RE the ones who crossed the line and got run, after all. Why are we catering to them anyway?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

You seem to be one of those people who, when confronted with 99 people telling you the sky is blue, insist the sky is grey because that's what they initially said, and don't bother to actually look at the sky. 99 people tell you that what you are espousing is bad umpiring (and not just on this thread), yet in your mind it's the 99 that are insane. And you call US arrogant? Yeah, ok.

I really wish you wouldn't lie. The act diminishes your integrity. Please show me where I said you are arrogant?

Read post #60 and see how I admit that I probably should have been more assertive towards that coach. Further, I admitted that I kicked a call and it gnawed at me while some here pretend that they have never. Sad.

It's ironic that posts regarding preventive officiating and talking to players to get them to change things that will require tough calls are not considered an exhibition of "leniency". "Catch, tell you pitcher not to do that." "Skipper, tell 22 to watch his mouth." "I don't care about Phiten or PowerBalance necklaces." (Fed rules) are just such examples. Tolerance of a rule violation in one place but not another is acceptable to many umpires here. Why the duplicity, Mike?

Please stop lying.

"I have looked back on situations and thought that I could have handled a few differently and probably better."- Jim Evans

I guess JE is wrong too, huh?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I really wish you wouldn't lie. The act diminishes your integrity. Please show me where I said you are arrogant?

Pot, meet kettle. Post 48. Speaking of diminished integrity.

Read post #60 and see how I admit that I probably should have been more assertive towards that coach. Further, I admitted that I kicked a call and it gnawed at me while some here pretend that they have never. Sad.

If you're making such calls routinely, slow down. My point was on a banger, the umpire is making the call he thinks is correct. You want the umpire to now base his treatment of the now irate coach on whether he kicked the call or not. That's asinine. Maybe he did kick it... but surely, unless he's truly green and still making calls too fast, he doesn't THINK he kicked it.

It's ironic that posts regarding preventive officiating and talking to players to get them to change things that will require tough calls are not considered an exhibition of "leniency". "Catch, tell you pitcher not to do that." "Skipper, tell 22 to watch his mouth." "I don't care about Phiten or PowerBalance necklaces." (Fed rules) are just such examples. Tolerance of a rule violation in one place but not another is acceptable to many umpires here. Why the duplicity, Mike?

Duplicity? Me? Show me a post where I said any of these things. I don't accept rules violations unless I've been told to issue warnings in a particular league or age group differently than the book says. (This actually happened this year... rang up a strike on a 10U who wouldn't get in the box, and was told to be a little more lenient next time).

Please stop lying.

Please apologize or tell me where I lied.

"I have looked back on situations and thought that I could have handled a few differently and probably better."- Jim Evans

I guess JE is wrong too, huh?

No ... but this proves you completely missed my point - which was not that we never kick calls, but that we never THINK we kicked a call, at least right then in the heat of the moment - so basing your actions toward a coach who is trying to eject himself on whether you think you kicked it or not is just dumb.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Pot, meet kettle. Post 48. Speaking of diminished integrity.

Now that was funny. I told Matt that he was arrogant because he told me he would give me an *** chewing for not being a perfect umpire. Thank you for making the case that I did not call you or the rest of the board (remember, you wrote 'US'?) arrogant. Your lie again unravels.

If you're making such calls routinely, slow down. My point was on a banger, the umpire is making the call he thinks is correct. You want the umpire to now base his treatment of the now irate coach on whether he kicked the call or not. That's asinine. Maybe he did kick it... but surely, unless he's truly green and still making calls too fast, he doesn't THINK he kicked it.

Wow. You change my missed strike call to a banger? I'm sorry but I am not clairvoyant. If you intend to change the topic please alert the board.

Jim Evans spends an inordinate amount of time preaching that the biggest problem umpires have is rushing the call before the information processes. He has admitted to making mistakes involving as much. Are you suggesting that he is wrong to qualify his reaction to an irate coach too?

Duplicity? Me? Show me a post where I said any of these things. I don't accept rules violations unless I've been told to issue warnings in a particular league or age group differently than the book says. (This actually happened this year... rang up a strike on a 10U who wouldn't get in the box, and was told to be a little more lenient next time).

So, you didn't involve yourself in any preventive umpire discussions here? (roll eyes)

Maybe this is part of the problem, I don't work 10U ball. Enjoy, those kids are fun to watch.

As stated, the NFHS has a policy in effect that allows umpires to exercise discretion. Also stated, if you don't like it, too bad. Take it up with them. I merely reported the rule.

Please apologize or tell me where I lied.

I already did. You claimed that 99 people told me that I am wrong. You claimed that I said that all of you are arrogant (don't use 'us' and you won't look silly). You claimed that my advocacy of discretion is asinine and I showed you the rule that allows for it. Are those enough examples of your misrepresentation of the truth?

No ... but this proves you completely missed my point - which was not that we never kick calls, but that we never THINK we kicked a call, at least right then in the heat of the moment - so basing your actions toward a coach who is trying to eject himself on whether you think you kicked it or not is just dumb.

That's bull. I knew immediately that I missed that strike. I have had far too many post games with guys who admit the same thing. Before conferences were allowed, I can remember partners who called outs only to see the ball on the ground and the inability to change their call. I have seen foul balls called fair only to hear my partner claim that he wasn't sure because a player straightlined him at the last instant.

Finally, I provided a quote from Jim Evans that illustrates that we make mistakes and they have consequences. Yes, a coach can cross the line and the rules allow for us to handle it. I have watched really good umpires toss away careers because they didn't want to be big-leagued by a coach, even though they blundered. They may have won the battle but lost the war. It makes little sense to insist you should be a hardass when your error caused the coach to react.

[MikeStrybel]

This is getting old. If you are working Fed ball, you have an option to ejecting. You don't hae to use it. In some other leagues, they have warnings and policies to assist you. Do what you must. Be safe and enjoy your game.

I'm done trying to convince the board that the rule exists and discretion is a valuable part of umpiring. Call the NFHS and complain to them.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Now that was funny. I told Matt that he was arrogant because he told me he would give me an *** chewing for not being a perfect umpire. Thank you for making the case that I did not call you or the rest of the board (remember, you wrote 'US'?) arrogant. Your lie again unravels.

Interesting how you insist someone else is lying in the same post that you do actually lie (actually, the second; I let the first one go.)

Project much?