OT-Different approaches between sports officials?
 

I was having this discussion earlier tonight with a friend of mine who umpires baseball, and thought it might be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on this. The discussion went like this...

I brought up the observation that when it comes to "disagreements" between coaches/players and officials, it seems (to me at least) that baseball umpires appear to be more confrontational than officials in other sports. Basketball officials try to defuse situations when they arise, whereas baseball officials seem more apt to become belligerent and argumentative. As officials, are we not supposed to be held to a higher standard and be the voice of reason? However, I don't mean to speak disparagingly of baseball umpires, they still do a heck of a job.

My friend swears that baseball umpires are not instructed to argue or anything of the sort, but I still can't help but notice the difference. I could be way off base here with this observation, but I'm still curious. What do you guys think?

Of course there are different approaches. But they not designed that way - they're just the different evolutions of the culture of the games. Baseball seems slower in changing. (I'm not saying that this is either good or bad - just that's it's still somewhat acceptable for a U to "confront" back "if necessary".)

I'm a baseball umpire, and I can tell you that training at every level involves standard dispute resolution techniques.

Other than NFHS games, the only penalty available to umpires is ejection. Most experienced umpires recognize a coach who is intent on being run, and see no point trying to keep him around. Is that belligerence, or a proper self-respect on the part of the umpire? I know that I don't go looking for a fight, but I know when a coach has crossed the line and don't tolerate it. I had zero coach ejections last season.

So your perception might stem from the fact that coaches who insist on being jackåsses leave the game in short order. In basketball they get a second chance to eject themselves.

A big difference is the coaches are permitted onto the playing field to have their shouting match. A certain amount of this is allowed by baseball tradition but umpires can get ramped up by all the shouting.

Basketball referees can stand away from the coach if necessary because he can't cross the line. Umpires don't have that luxury.

And, in different situations, basketball officials can stand closer to the coaches and have a conversation instead of shouting across the field. so, some game management techniquest that work in basketball, don't work in baseball.

Plus, baseball has many "dead ball" periods when the coach (and umpire) can take time to have a visit. In basketball, play is (more) continuous so the coach yells soemthing and then has to get back to coaching.

As a football official the wings have an extensive opportunity to interact with coaches and as a result I think football officials take more "crap" because often the complaints are about things that official is not involved in. Also the conversation can only last so long as the next play is soon to start.

Basketball officials cannot pass the buck on discussions as easily. We are all involved in many of the same plays and see what a coach is talking about. Also we can hear more of the complaints from coaches. But the problem is there is little time to have much of a discussion about anything. I think officials have to come up with ways to diffuse the conflict sooner as we might only have a couple of seconds to respond.

Baseball umpires do not have to deal with most conflict until there is a problem and a dead ball. And then umpires get the chance to have an extensive conversation with a coach and give an extensive explanation.

The structure of these sports is the reasons there are different approaches. I have learned from each how to deal in my other sports. I do not think one is better than the other, they are just different.

Peace