To Be Mad Or Not To Be Mad?

[tankmjg24]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

The story does not keep changing.

??????

I signal safe and Team B dugout erupts.

On Friday, all of the disgruntled complaints

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.

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.

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Maybe it's me ... 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.

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?

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

...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.

... 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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

... 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.

Exactly. I'm not going to react to quiet-ish griping in the dugout -- I can handle that. When it becomes loud or prolonged, I'm stopping it. Your words are exactly the words I'll use, too.

An experienced coach will knock it off immediately unless he wants to get run. Other coaches may need to be trained by getting ejected once or twice. That's OK, it seems to get quieter once those coaches leave anyway.