Who becomes coach?
 

FED rules...

Who would become the coach if the head coach is ejected and there is no assistant coach available?

I don't have rules or casebook at work with me.

Thanks.

Game over by forfeit. Had one like this last year, my partner on bases EJ the HC and OC (only coach). Get on the bus gus.. The toss was well deserved.

Do you have a rule or casebook #?

BEAREF,

There is no FED rule or case play that says the game is forfeit if the HC is ejected and there are no other coaches present.

I'm guessing that's a league/conference rule in DG's area.

JM

In Ohio, in all sports, we have the same ruling as DG's. If there is not a school-board approved coach or administrator to take over, the team is done. In a two-team game like baseball, the game is done too.

In Iowa, the game is over

-Josh

Each state determines the consequences. I'm not aware of any state that allows a high school competition to continue in any sport if there are no coaches available.

Each state would also set the standards for who can become a coach. If the AD/Principal/Superintendant/Bus Driver steps up and says they are the new coach, I'll let them (on the basketball court) and assume they meet whatever qualifications are set by my state. At that point, my ejection report would include all the information and I'd let the state sort it out.

Again, that's basketball, and the custom in baseball may be different.

As mentioned, it varies from state to state. Here in Nevada, you have to have a member of the schools staff available, or it's game over by forfeit.

Thanks for the responses. I will check with our state high school league.

I have had this situation happen once. Between innings, I had the replacement "coach" write his name and phone number on the card. This information was forwarded to the state in my ejection report so they could follow up if needed.

Just wanted to elaborate on your point Snaq

-Josh

And . . .
 

In Oregon anyone who takes over must also be a Certified Graduate of the NFHS Coaching Class.

In our State the process is (let's say there are no other coaches after the HC is ejected) is "if" someone comes forward to coach the umpire is to ask: "are you certified by (insert school name) to coach?"

If the answer is: "yes" you follow the advice above get the name and phone number of the person and include it in your ejection report.

There are grave penalties if some one is not truthful when answering your question.

T

Wow. Trusting. I'm not sure I'd have done this if the guy was not in uniform. He could literally be ANYONE, him writing down his name and number is nothing - either or both could be fabricated. He could even be someone previously banned from high school sports for any number of reasons (some rather problematical). You'd never know.

Better to end it and let the state sort it out.

In CT, the game is over if there are no certified teachers in the dugout. No mommies or daddies allowed.

There has to be a reasonable due diligence in this matter. I don't ask the head coach to produce proof of state certification and three forms of identification to proof that he says who he is. Therefore, I'm going to use common sense and get the name and phone number of the guy and go from there. If something is a muck, the ejected coach isn't going to leave his team under the auspices of anyone random. He is going to tell the team to pack up and leave with him.

I don't know about you gentleman but I don't always carry my card that says I'm a state certified umpire. Maybe I should, but I don't.

-Josh

Sitting back in the dressing room (read: car trunk) right next to my rule books. :D

I think Name and phone number would be ok, I would also try to get a "normal" title from them (bus driver, groundskeeper, parent, ect.) and place that in the report as well.

A little more information in that situation could not hurt anyone.

I used to carry it but have gotten lacked about it over the past 5 years

-Josh

Well of course not, and I'm not saying anything of the sort... the HC has shown up at the game, in uniform, etc. The problem comes from when all uniformed "coach"es are ejected.

Maybe not somebody random to him... but could easily be someone who should not be there. Maybe he picks someone's dad that he sees at the games all the time ... and maybe he doesn't even know this dad is a criminal. I'm not saying it's likely ... but if you allow someone out there that you know NOTHING about, you might be liable for the consequences.

I don't either... but I wouldn't be surprised if I happened to be at a game as a spectator, and when I saw they were working one-man and I offered to help, they wouldn't let me because I didn't have my card on me.

Card?

If the coach picks someone random, that's on him (not me). I allow someone that I know nothing about in charge of the players every time I go to a new school. It's the schools responsibility to assign qualified personnel to the games to watch the players. If that coach is ejected, the ejected coach should appoint a qualified (state certified) replacement. If there isn't one available then game over. If I ask the coach-appointed replacement if he is certified according to the state association and he says yes, they it's no longer on me.

-Josh

In the two state's I've worked (IA and KY), we are sent a card or print out a card to "prove" our certification as officials.

-Josh

MN used to send out a card, but now you have to go online and print it. Of course with just paper it is hard to carry on you (unless you print out a new one every time).

Iowa has gone the same route. I don't want to take the time to get it laminated.

-Josh

Close, I am not aware of a state/league/conference rule on this either, but it is an understood customary practice by all.

Of course 10-2-3g has my back also.

DG,

The only problem I have with 10-2-3g is because 4-4-1 enumerates the FED defined conditions for a forfeit - and no adult coaches ain't one of 'em.

So, forfeits ARE covered in the rules, but no available adult coaches ISN'T, so 10-2-3g has definitely got your back there.

If that's the practice in your area, I think that's exactly what you should do.

I have no idea what the "custom and practice" is around here. Generally, it seems that each conference establishes it's own "game-ending procedures" and the umpire determines whether the game continues or is halted. Whether it is a win/loss, forfeit, or suspended is not my concern.

There is no place I know of that I can go "look up" the IHSA position on any of the NFHS "by state adoption" rules, but everyone seems to agree on what they are. Mildly frustrating to me.

JM

Well,
 

I have never declared a forfeit.

I have suspended a game and allowed the proper people to decide what is apporiate.

T

This is a simple question, to me. In any youth ball, if all coaches are ejected, I'm suspending the game (absent any authoritative guidance to the contrary.) If it's determined that the game goes ahead, then that's what happens. I'm not playing arbiter of who's allowed to coach any more than I'm going to determine a starting lineup.

Plus, suspending the game maintains a level of fairness vice forfeit or allowing the game to continue with a "makeshift" coach. The visiting team isn't going to have the ability to continue a game as much as the home team if you take either of those routes.

+1

What about NCAA?

I just saw this and did some digging. Here is what I was told:

In Illinois, head coaches and assistant coaches, must be (1) faculty members who have a valid teaching certificate, (2) any non-faculty member who has a valid teaching certificate, or (3) any non-certified person older than 19 year who has completed a coach training education program as approved by the IHSA (ex. ASEP). If the head coach and all assistant coaches are ejected (or otherwise not present) any adult who is present and is a certified faculty member of that school and agrees to take on the responsibility of the welfare of all players may serve in the place of the ejected coach(es). Parents of players (who do not fall within the previously stated criteria) cannot assume that responsibility of acting as the coach, in which case the game must be forfeited. Suspend it and the conference will perform the penalty, if they have not adopted something else.

You will not find that information in the rule book. It this is located somewhere in the depths of the IHSA bylaws which you can find on the IHSA website.

The solution to this would be to restrict the HC or AC to the dugout for the remainder of the game. Many underlevel contests only have one coach, so this comes into play more often. Restricting coaches is far more prevalent at that level. I believe that has already been stated but it is offered in case a member chooses not to backread.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, but that's not what happened.

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?

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.

And, you didn't answer my question.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

You should have dumped him.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

You ****ed up hardcore. Of course he was better afterwards; you gave him a free pass. In addition, you just gave the opposing manager a free pass if he so chose to use it. Most importantly, you let them know it was okay to act the ***, and made life difficult for every umpire that came after you. People like you make my job tougher.

I will guarantee you if you had been my partner, that ***-chewing you got would not have been the last you received that day.

Umpires do not cost teams games. If one call changes the outcome, it's because that team did not execute in its 21 or more plate appearances or 21 defensive outs. That logic is from no one less important than a former manager of Team USA. If you want to believe that umpires cost games, fine, go do something else. Actually, with the amount of enabling you do, go do something else anyway.

Matt, your arrogance astounds. It must be pretty special to be a perfect umpire. In over thirty years of umpiring I have made plenty of mistakes and learn from all of them. Some of my mistakes cost teams. Ultimately they execute the game but I have seen plenty of bad calls end games. I am reminded of a game ending balk during an NCAA Super Regional that had this forum aghast a few years ago. If you choose to subscribe to the belief that our bad calls don't matter, so be it. Armando Galarraga probably feels different than you do. I know that Jim Joyce does.

I assure you that your attempt to give me an *** chewing post-game would not end well for you. I appreciate the levity though.

Being a perfect umpire, you shouldn't have to worry about others like me who use discretion making your life tougher. I wish you well.

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.

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.

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.

Point 1: You've been umpiring longer than I have been alive, yet I have done games with far more import than yours.

Point 2: It must be nice to be so delusional to misread any criticism that anyone says. I never said "calls don't matter."

Point 3: That game-ending balk did not have this forum aghast.

Matt,

1. It's clear you have no idea of my resume or experience. Your need to 'brag' tells me all I need to know. Sad.

2. You wrote that umpires calls don't cost teams games. I provided an example where it did. Further, I remind you that our blown calls have consequences too.

3. Yes, it did. Do you even know which game I am discussing? Plenty of comments were made about how he should never have made that call. And no, I wasn't one of them.

To get you back on topic, some coaches deserve to be ejected. They break rules and act poorly. I addressed a blanket statement regarding the need to eject coaches who behave badly. I cited the NFHS rule for handling problem coaches. Handle them as you see fit. I haven't had the need to discipline one in a long time. Maybe that is my umpiring, maybe it is luck. I take no glee in dumping a coach or player. It's just part of the job and thankfully I don't see that many problems on the field. I wish you well.

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.

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

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

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.

That NCAA game ending balk call was a good call. The pitcher had been warned earlier to come to a complete stop. That was the pitcher's boo-boo, not the umpire's.

JJ

I agree, JJ. As stated, I was not one of those who was aghast. A number of umpires here felt he messed up. At the time, even John Bible was on the record that it was booger picking though and not the way to end that game. The next year, rolling balks were a point of emphasis at the annual meetings.

I agree with allowing a little more jawing if I blew a call, but once that coach threw the water bucket, you should have made him gone! I don't care what the circumstances are, throwing objects because you are mad equals a bye-bye!

Ozzy, in retrospect, I probably would have been a bit more aggressive in handling the coach. A number of fellow umpires were there and wondered why I let him behave like a child in the dugout. When I admitted the kicked call a few veterans nodded knowingly. One of them went so far as to say that the coach wasn't halting the game by destroying his gear so he would have played on and ignored the nonsense. I wasn't at that point of bliss just yet.

Ever had a kicked call gnaw at you? A short memory is important but I used that experience as a valuable lesson. Since then I work hard to give each pitch, play and game the attention it deserves. Yeah, I still miss some but it is not from a lack of effort. I try to treat each game as if it is Game 7. That is the advice I was given a long time ago. I'm still working at it. Take care.

Just out of curiosity ... have you ever had a question from a coach where you knew he was right and you were wrong? Your advice of being lenient when you've kicked a call is frankly asinine ... if you knew you kicked it, you wouldn't have called it that way.

Apples and tractor-trailers.

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?

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?

You change strike calls after making them? (sigh and roll eyes)

Have I ever had a question made by a coach where he was correct and I wasn't? Sure. Plenty of major league umpires can say the same thing. That is why instant replay and umpire conferences are now in play. Umpires used to be able to swear at coaches and argue in ways that were pretty comical. That era has passed and we are expected to evolve. An aggressive display by an umpire in NCAA ball will probably get your schedule pulled or at least diminished. You may even make it to the web bulletins and that's not a good thing. In pro ball they have adopted the tact of having two umpires be present for heated exchanges in an effort to be more careful. Yes, some of those involve exchanges with umpires who blew calls. Ask Jim Joyce if he ever kicked a call. He was big enough to admit he did and how he regrets it.

If you have no room for discretion in your umpiring then I pity the athletes you serve. I remind you that Fed rules allow for discretion or leniency as you put it. Deal with them instead of whining here.

It must be incredible to be a perfect umpire, since you've never kicked a call. (sigh and roll eyes)

If your intent is to malign me by lying and misrepresentation, it won't work. Move along.

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

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

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.

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 apologize or tell me where I lied.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ignore.

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?

WTF does any of the last 40 or so posts have to do with the OP? All of us are capable of reading the posts and deciding whether someone is "lying" (or lying about someone else lying) and, if so, how to deal with it.

I don't really GAF whether you put someone on ignore or just decide to read past the posts but this back and forth (and back and forth and back and forth) just degrades all of you.