That's a very liberal and biased interpretation of those discussions, Garth. I've never characterized my instincts for either umpiring or coaching as "interfering" with the other. What I <i>have</i> said is that I use the knowledge I've gained from one to aid my understanding of the other. That's quite different than the way you've characterized it. But I can see how convenient that is for you.

Also, how convenient it is for you to characterize those threads in this manner to those who have no way of judging for themselves. That's kind of sleazy.

This urban legend that I have severe problems in my games because of my lack of game management skills is a conconction created by yourself and like-minded individuals based soley on the principle that anybody who has the extremely low ejection rate that I have must be doing something wrong. This criticism coming from those in a discussion group who count their ejections like a gunslinger puts notches in his belt. When they eject somebody, they can hardly get to their computer fast enough to tell all the other hatchet men about it. And then everybody extends him laurels for ejecting another "rat." What some call professionalism, I call childish and, at the same time, Machiavellian.

In many instances, the need to eject indicates a game that has already been allowed to get out of control, for whatever reason. Not always.

There are far too many gunmen on your grassy knoll, Garth.

You truly think we're trying to manipulate you, don't you? And other umpires? Lobbying? Pft! Get real. You're seeing things that aren't there, partner. It might be said that you truly have A BEAUTIFUL MIND.

Yes, we're sending coded messages to one another through the things we write. I'm sure you've been dissecting the articles looking for patterns.

This is for Rich: XKNO 4TG7 MODC 87Y3

I wouldn't expect you to understand, Garth. It's a secret code that only coaches know. [g]

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Dave:

1. I said you described instances in which your instincts interfered i didn't say or mean to imply that you necessarily agreed that they intefered. Many other came to that conclusion after reading your stories.

2. The number of your ejections had nothing to do with the criticism. It is that you allow behavior that is more than deserving of an ejection go "unrewarded" that is criticized.

3. Childishness doesn't become you. No one claimed a consipracy. In fact I thought I was being quite complimentary about the success coaches were having in writing on an umire site. To regard this as a conspiracy would require the three of you to be able to get together and agree on a goal. Like that'll ever happen.

4. Dave, you asked a question. In good faith, I answered it. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. I have admitted this is all opinion, just as your statements are. We have a difference of opinion, live with it.

5. Just becasue you're a Rat doesn't make you a bad guy.

Oh - OK. Fair enough. I think we've gone down this path before and we always end up in the same place. We'll just agree to disagree. I can live with that.

Somehow, I think both our lives will go on. You'll continue being an outstanding umpire and somehow, I will find a way to manage my seemingly (to you) complex existence.

* * *

BTW, the very first post in this thread was by <i>you</i>.

<font color=blue><b>Garth</b>: "What is the difference, if any, in attitude and performance between and umpire who coaches, acting as an umpire, and a coach who umpires, acting as an umpire?"</font>

So I don't really understand how you can say that *I* asked the question and that I shouldn't ask it unless I don't want to hear your good faith answer. I believe I was answering YOUR question.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 02:42 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

BTW, the very first post in this thread was by <i>you</i>. <font color=blue><b>Garth</b>: "What is the difference, if any, in attitude and performance between and umpire who coaches, acting as an umpire, and a coach who umpires, acting as an umpire?"</font> So I don't really understand how you can say that *I* asked the question and that I shouldn't ask it unless I don't want to hear your good faith answer. I believe I was answering YOUR question. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 02:42 AM]

You don't understand? Short term memory problem, Dave? This was your post to me:

<i>Just for the record, Garth. You're saying that an individual who coaches is necessarily going to bring attributes into his umpiring that will not serve him (or the game) well. Is that correct?

If not, exactly what is your position on this? You throw around the phrase "coach who umpires" in an unmistakably denigrating way. If I were a fireman, would I be a "fireman who umpires?" Should stockbrokers be allowed to umpire? Should baseball fans be allowed to umpire?

At least I'm making a case for my opinion. What's YOUR case? What kind of reasoning goes behind your opinion that coaches make bad umpires? ... or, that coaches shouldn't umpire ... or, that coaches can't umpire?... or, well, that coaches shouldn't be allowed to umpire ... or, just what are you claiming?</i>

Unless the rules of language have changed drastically, there are a few quetions there. And they seem to be directed at me. If I'm wrong about this I certainly apoloize.

You are speaking for <b><i>"all of us?"</i></b> A little presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

Your little Pro School anecdote sounds like a tongue in cheek thing intended to knock the pins out from under any student who may have the notion that he has an advantage over others because of his previous baseball experience. That's the way I see it.

You viewed it as a sweeping condemnation of previous baseball experience. That's a pretty naive interpretation. I'll bet if you took the instructors out of the learning environment, bought them a beer, and sat them down quietly, they would confess that they would rather *not* try to make somebody an umpire who has very little experience with the game of baseball.

Your experience was similar to that scene from "An Officer and a Gentleman" where Lou Gosset, Jr, says:

"The only two things from Oklahoma are steers and queers, and I don't see any horns on you boy."

I sincerely doubt whether the drill instructor gave a crap what state he was from. It's theater! And you can always tell it's theater when the instructor's comments are heavily ladened with sarcasm and humor.

That was a point that apparently went over your head.

C'mon, face it, it's fun to poke fun at coaches! I do it at times. They poke fun at the umpires. That's the dynamics. Most of it is in good fun. It's when you start truly <i>believing</i> those jokes and start developing a deep layer of cynicism that it no longer becomes funny. When you start losing respect for one another - you create an unhealthy situation.

When I coach, I respect the umpires until they do something that *specifically* destroys that respect.

When I umpire, I respect the coaches until they do something that *specifically* destroys that respect.

When somebody who has coached or has played decides to throw their hat into the ring to umpire, I respect their previous baseball experience and try to build on their already-obtained knowledge.

Example: I was once discussing with a bunch of new umpires about where the best place to stand when preparing to call a play at plate. We talked about the advantages and disadvantages of the 3rd-baseline-extended and the 1st-baseline-extended. We talked about various circumstances that may dictate where one is better than the other. One of the things I mentioned is that when choosing the 3rd-baseline-extended, you may often find the on-deck batter crowding you. He may even be in your way. Don't be shy about pushing him aside.

To that, one student asked in a <i>very</i> perplexed manner, "Why would the on-deck batter be by the plate? Wouldn't he be in the on-deck circle?"

There was a pause in the class. Everybody looked at him with a strange look.

He didn't know. He wasn't aware that it was a very common (and acceptable practice) for the on-deck batter to approach the plate and give instructions to his teammate. He had never played baseball ... hadn't seen many games ... and, I guess, the few games he had seen he had never noticed this occurring.

This would be just the tip of the iceberg of the countless other "insider" things he is probably unaware of that he'll have to learn for the first time while umpiring. There is certainly no time to teach him the natural flow of a baseball game *and* umpiring. He'll have to get the first part OJT ... as through <i>fire</i> as the Bible says.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 10:56 AM]

All;

When one enters the NCAA arena, it helps immensely to have played the game. The coaches respect umpires who appear to have knowledge of the game. Regrettably, only about a third of NCAA umpires that I know have NCAA or minor league playing experience. So while it is not prerequisite, it certainly helps. Those that do not have the experience can acquire some knowledge and fake it.

The former players/coaches have a leg up on those that have no experience at that level. I have stated in the past that I believe the reason that we do not see women umpires at high levels is that women have no experience in high level baseball and cannot fake it. I believe that it is no accident that the only women officials in pro sports are basketball officials. Women play high level basketball (NCAA and pro) on TV, unlike baseball, football, or hockey. Women have credibility with the coaches in basketball, which they can never achieve in baseball or football. True, many of the officials in pro baseball or football never played the game, but at some crucial stage of their careers they were able to convince someone otherwise.

One thing that you cannot do in NCAA baseball is coach and umpire at the same time even if it is in different divisions and different places. After one graduates above the level of 15 year old ball, one must choose, coach or umpire. The fraternities are simply too small to allow you to do both. Look at the animosity just in this thread. The same prejudices exist outside of the Internet as well.

Peter

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

Originally posted by David Emerling Quote: BTW, the very first post in this thread was by <i>you</i>. <font color=blue><b>Garth</b>: "What is the difference, if any, in attitude and performance between and umpire who coaches, acting as an umpire, and a coach who umpires, acting as an umpire?"</font> So I don't really understand how you can say that *I* asked the question and that I shouldn't ask it unless I don't want to hear your good faith answer. I believe I was answering YOUR question. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 02:42 AM] You don't understand? Short term memory problem, Dave? This was your post to me: <i>Just for the record, Garth. You're saying that an individual who coaches is necessarily going to bring attributes into his umpiring that will not serve him (or the game) well. Is that correct? If not, exactly what is your position on this? You throw around the phrase "coach who umpires" in an unmistakably denigrating way. If I were a fireman, would I be a "fireman who umpires?" Should stockbrokers be allowed to umpire? Should baseball fans be allowed to umpire? At least I'm making a case for my opinion. What's YOUR case? What kind of reasoning goes behind your opinion that coaches make bad umpires? ... or, that coaches shouldn't umpire ... or, that coaches can't umpire?... or, well, that coaches shouldn't be allowed to umpire ... or, just what are you claiming?</i> Unless the rules of language have changed drastically, there are a few quetions there. And they seem to be directed at me. If I'm wrong about this I certainly apoloize.

Ohhhhh ... those were <i><b>answers</b></i> to those questions! Oh, OK.

I guess I just didn't interpet your continuing mantra as an answer because, in my opinion, it is so poorly reasoned. Then I guess you're right - I don't like your answers because they are really BAD ones.

It's like asking a school child what 2+2 is. He says 5. So you ask him again and hope he reconsiders. He repeats 5. You tell him he's wrong. So the child says to the teacher, "Stop asking me if you don't like my answer."

Your primary premise seems to be that *I* have difficulties in being both an umpire and coach. You don't seem to bring up much else of substance.

"DAVE - your coaching interferes with your umpiring." (And yet, you've never seen me umpire.)

"DAVE - your game management is poor." (And yet, you've never seen me umpire.)

"DAVE - you allow people to remain in the game when they should be ejected." (And yet, you don't know how those games continued in peace.)

You're part of a little cult of like-minded people, trapped in a little umpire discussion forum, and you have deluded yourself into thinking your views represent the majority. And, if you haven't noticed, there are those in the forum who conspicuously do not jump on your bandwagon, preferring to abstain instead of enduring the wrath of the more vocal and vociferous.

I, on the other hand, am not afraid to take a position even though I know that the likes of you find it so distasteful.

There are some in the forum that have asked the moderator to have me kicked out on the sole basis that I also coach. True? True?? They've said exactly that! "Coaches should not be allowed to be in this group." And then when the moderator didn't come to the same conclusion, some lashed out at the <i>moderator</i>. Childishness!!!

Others are reading this now. What do you think THEY are thinking about that?

There's a <i>certain type</i> of umpire who is uncomfortable around coaches. I'll allow others to draw their own opinions about what the characteristics of such an umpire would be.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

There's no doubt one could not both coach and umpire at the NCAA level. Both are far too time consuming. If for no other reason, it's a logistical impossibility - not that that would be the primary obstacle.

Everybody in this debate is well aware that I help coach my twin sons baseball team. They're young boys, not even in high school yet. The community needs experienced coaches to help work with the kids. So I help. The head coach is a good guy, a good administrator, but often needs help on the more technical aspects of baseball. I help him with that.

Also, our community, like many others, is desperately short on umpires. I help in that area as well. I frequently DONATE my umpiring time to fund-raising tournaments.

Both the coaching community and the umpiring community in this area have no problems with what I'm doing. And, by the way, I'm *not* the only coach who umpires. It's just not a big topic around here. I guess that's why I have a difficult time agreeing with some who think it can't/won't/shouldn't work.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 11:38 AM]

Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

I'm amazed that the umpire didn't declare that the batter had given himself up -- I know it's not right, but I've seen it so many times from uneducated umpires it's not funny.

My partners and I will watch the batter walk in the dugout and shoot each other a little fist at that point -- our little secret since we're the only ones on the field that know what's going on.

Secretly, this is one of the things I've always wanted to see, but from the third base dugout -- wait until the batter is one step outside the dugout and then have him run straight to first right over the mound. Then watch the defensive coach's reaction when I let the runner stay at first base.

Then how do you explain Ria Cortesio Papageorgiou and the other four females who umpire or have umpired in the minors?

[Edited by Skahtboi on Aug 25th, 2004 at 12:14 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Emerling

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB Quote: Originally posted by David Emerling Quote: BTW, the very first post in this thread was by <i>you</i>. <font color=blue><b>Garth</b>: "What is the difference, if any, in attitude and performance between and umpire who coaches, acting as an umpire, and a coach who umpires, acting as an umpire?"</font> So I don't really understand how you can say that *I* asked the question and that I shouldn't ask it unless I don't want to hear your good faith answer. I believe I was answering YOUR question. David Emerling Memphis, TN [Edited by David Emerling on Aug 25th, 2004 at 02:42 AM] You don't understand? Short term memory problem, Dave? This was your post to me: <i>Just for the record, Garth. You're saying that an individual who coaches is necessarily going to bring attributes into his umpiring that will not serve him (or the game) well. Is that correct? If not, exactly what is your position on this? You throw around the phrase "coach who umpires" in an unmistakably denigrating way. If I were a fireman, would I be a "fireman who umpires?" Should stockbrokers be allowed to umpire? Should baseball fans be allowed to umpire? At least I'm making a case for my opinion. What's YOUR case? What kind of reasoning goes behind your opinion that coaches make bad umpires? ... or, that coaches shouldn't umpire ... or, that coaches can't umpire?... or, well, that coaches shouldn't be allowed to umpire ... or, just what are you claiming?</i> Unless the rules of language have changed drastically, there are a few quetions there. And they seem to be directed at me. If I'm wrong about this I certainly apoloize. Ohhhhh ... those were <i><b>answers</b></i> to those questions! Oh, OK. I guess I just didn't interpet your continuing mantra as an answer because, in my opinion, it is so poorly reasoned. Then I guess you're right - I don't like your answers because they are really BAD ones. It's like asking a school child what 2+2 is. He says 5. So you ask him again and hope he reconsiders. He repeats 5. You tell him he's wrong. So the child says to the teacher, "Stop asking me if you don't like my answer." Your primary premise seems to be that *I* have difficulties in being both an umpire and coach. You don't seem to bring up much else of substance. "DAVE - your coaching interferes with your umpiring." (And yet, you've never seen me umpire.) "DAVE - your game management is poor." (And yet, you've never seen me umpire.) "DAVE - you allow people to remain in the game when they should be ejected." (And yet, you don't know how those games continued in peace.) You're part of a little cult of like-minded people, trapped in a little umpire discussion forum, and you have deluded yourself into thinking your views represent the majority. And, if you haven't noticed, there are those in the forum who conspicuously do not jump on your bandwagon, preferring to abstain instead of enduring the wrath of the more vocal and vociferous. I, on the other hand, am not afraid to take a position even though I know that the likes of you find it so distasteful. There are some in the forum that have asked the moderator to have me kicked out on the sole basis that I also coach. True? True?? They've said exactly that! "Coaches should not be allowed to be in this group." And then when the moderator didn't come to the same conclusion, some lashed out at the <i>moderator</i>. Childishness!!! Others are reading this now. What do you think THEY are thinking about that? There's a <i>certain type</i> of umpire who is uncomfortable around coaches. I'll allow others to draw their own opinions about what the characteristics of such an umpire would be. David Emerling Memphis, TN

Dave:

2+2 is a problem based in fact. What you asked for and what I gave you is OPINION. It is my opinion. I don't give a fig if it is shared by you are anyone. You asked for my opinion, you now have it.

I don't care if you disagree. You and I will never work together. It matters not to me what you think.

Contrary to your overblown opinion of yourself, I did not begin this thread by asking you a question. I know better. I posed an idea to Carl. Plain and simple.

You then interjected yourself and demanded answers to questions that you have posed before and had answered before.

Again, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the question.

Have a good day, coach.

Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

I've seen it -- at a JuCo game. The batter reached nearly the dugout, then ran to first when F2 tried to "throw it around" and threw it over F5's head.

When the coach came out:

C: "Bob, how far does he get?"
B: "Until he reaches the dugout.
C: "I've never heard that before."
B: Silence. (After all, the coach didn't ask a question.)
C: "Are you sure."
B: "Yes."
C: Walks back to dugout.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

Heck, I saw it in Little League Senior games 10 years ago.
Then it went away.
mick

There have been no women officials in Major League Baseball or the National Football League. I could be wrong, but I do not believe that there have been any women officials in the National Hockey League. There have been none in the NCAA CWS and I do not recall any at the regionals either. Likewise, I have seen no women in any of the NCAA bowl games. (I don't know of any working in the regular D1 football games but they might be there.)

On the other hand, there have been at least two women in the NBA and several women have called playoffs in NCAA basketball.

I explain the four women in minor league baseball as pro ball covering their behinds against a lawsuit.

Peter

Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

Rich;

If this were to happen in one of your games, it is probably your fault. Third world plays only happen to third world umpires.

Good umpires take proactive measures to prevent third world plays. A simple no-catch signal on the plate umpire's part alerts everyone to the fact that you know that the catcher did not catch the ball. The players respond accordingly and you are not left with cleaning up a manure pile.

Peter