A good umpire would have nipped this in the bud on Friday.

If an encore performance by said team occurred on Sunday, then they have established the pattern of poor behaivor, not the umpire.

+1

The purpose of the OP was NOT about SDS's opinion, but what should have happened in the first place by tank. You are now putting blame on a post instead of the original poster. I just lost ALL respect for you! I know, you don't care, but I've always found you're posts entertaining and interesting, but now I just see them as vindictive.

The fact of the matter is, we not only officiate our games, but for those who come after us. We need to be on the same page so we are consistent with our approach. 12U coaches, especially, need to be held accountable for their actions, because those same 12 yr olds will soon become 18 yr olds. We have an obligation to not only call a good game, but have one as well.

Coaches at that level, who act like this, will never be a V coach. We have more knowledge than they will ever have. Don't let them think otherwise.

I will be damned if a coach at that level even throws his hat in the dugout about a call I just made. He would have my immediate attention. I am not saying I would show him up, but believe me, he would have a good talking to between innings.

We are all here for the kids, remember that!

And BSUmp16, let it go, you only have steven t on your side:eek:

I really hate this phrase. I'm there for many reasons -- the kids are probably on the list, but nowhere near the top.

My personal take on the thread was, drum roll please, that SDS and mbcrowder were ganging up on BSUmp16. An all too common occurrence from a few posters around here. Respectively, disagree. If you can't see eye to eye, say your little piece, and head to the showers. Umpiring with hindsight is easy. I would think that Mr. Tank would learn from his experience, and handle the situation different next time.

I think we've all had situations that if seen again, we will learn from our mistakes, and handle it much better the next time. There was no need to go off on one poster who disagreed with the verbiage of another post. It's not good for business.

Anybody even remember what the original post was about? PS~It had nothing to do with SDS reliving his glory days. My parents always told me, "If you're good, you don't have to tell anyone. Others will say it for you".

It shows!

I've been with this thread since the beginning, and Mr. Tank didn't seem to take his lumps. The story kept changing and we all got confused. You came in as soon as Mr. SDS voiced his opinion. Look, I'm not taking sides, but we have to stay focused on the matter at hand. I do understand your point as to umpiring with hindsight, but that's what this board offers. Obviously we are not all out there at the same time situations occur.

I just wish you and SDS would kiss and make up:cool::)

I'll still tune in to the morning show!

The story does not keep changing. It has been the same from the beginning. I never stated that the coaches kept running out on the field to argue calls or that the coach threw his hat onto the field of play. My words might have been misinterpreted the way I initially wrote the post and I have tried to clarify multiple times.

On Friday, all of the disgruntled complaints came within the dugout and were not directly said to me but more in a way so that I would hear. When the coach tossed his hat within the dugout and acted the way he did this got my attention to the point of issuing a team warning. It worked for the day as I did not hear anything else come out of their dugout.

I post here in order to try and get advice on how to become a better umpire and how to interpret unique plays that happen to me. Within my initial post, I was not asking anything about how to handle the situation with the coaches, but asking about what the UIC did.

??????
Maybe it's me ... but erupts and disgruntled complaints are two completely different things. You got reaction to "Erupts" and "Throws his hat on the ground". Surely you can understand how the latter was not taken as being in the dugout.

But when you got advice (albeit not regarding what you THOUGHT you were asking for, but rather the coaches situation ... how were we to know you only wanted advice on one and not the other, especially since in many of our opinions, they are related), you rejected it and argued with it.

What you may be missing is that the poor handling of the coaches situation on Friday is exactly what got you into trouble on Sunday. Had Friday been handled properly, if Sunday even happened, you'd have coaches that shows an obvious pattern of behavior and your UIC might have acted more appropriately.

That said (and back to what you were actually asking initially) - I don't think ANYONE here disagrees with you that the UIC's actions were completely and wholely wrong. To the point that many here have stated they wouldn't work for such a person if they had the choice. Most UIC's (obviously not Steve or BS) would make a point of refusing the coach's demands and putting you back on their field on purpose. Your UIC did the opposite.

Agreed ... I'm tired of refereeing you two ... about to be some ejections!! :D

You need to quit working games with a one man crew. ;)

And for the record, I neither responded to nor addressed him in a post.

Yes, it is you. Read post number two in this thread. I never stated I approved nor sided with Tankman's UIC. The point I am trying to make is that the both you and Steve started riding BSU16 when he stated that "relishing" getting back out with the same team, and his former assigner was all too happy to put him back out there even if he wasn't scheduled. If you are scheduled in that slot to work their next game, fine. But don't go saying you "relish" getting back out there with that team again. It makes it sound like you want try to induce controversy again. I understand how the system works. From past experiences, Tourney directors and UIC's bow to the masses because they want things to run as smooth as possible.

Personally, It gets old listening to SDS behave like a rooster with his chest puffed out in the barnyard. It also get old with Steve talking to posters in the same manner that he objects to. Tanker asked for advice on what he should have done at the time. Now that he has experienced the situation, with some advice from others, he should be able to it handle in a matter that is more appropriate. No need to berate Tank. Savvy?

But you did lay it down hard on BSU16. I'm not trying to argue with you. Just treat others in the same manner that you expect to treated. I've been saying that for years.

It's always do as I say, not as I do. Take the blinders off for once. The change would do you good.

... which is a chicken$hit way of saying it directly to you. If you eject or warn in this situation, of course their retort will be, "I wasn't even talking to you!!" The best response to that is, "I know who you were talking to." It's not argumentative and it almost sounds as if you're agreeing with him. It avoids you getting into a pi$$ing match with an upset coach. All it says is, "I know what you did and in my opinion you did something worthy of an ejection/warning."

"I wasn't talking to you" is an attempt to deflect responsibility and/or guilt.