Hey Carl,

Here's an idea for an article, and it's free.

After reviewing the backgrounds of some of your writers, this hit me.....

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.

In other words does a rat bring his coaching "sensibilities" with him when he umpires and how do they affect his performance.

Example: From my experience, coaches who umpire tend to be a lot slower on the trigger when it comes time to run a coach. They also are more likely to "get help" when asked, even if it's not for one of your fab five reasons.

Are these examples only anecdotal, or perhaps stereotypical or even universal? I dunno. But since you have at least three coaches now writing on the umpire paid site, and a couple of decent umpires writing there as well, one of them might be interested in such an article.



[Edited by GarthB on Aug 11th, 2004 at 08:45 PM]

Hehehe,
 

I see the "unwashed masses" from McGriff's are coming over here to ruin yet another board.

Tee

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Notitia

Quote:

Garth, the question is - would this article interest you so much that you would "steal" it?

No, I'd just visit a neighbor and read his copy. However, I have to admit one of my favorite books of all time is "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman.

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 12th, 2004 at 01:52 AM]

I'd be willing to write such an article, Garth. But would you read it?

I spend nearly as much time studying baseball tactics, strategies, drills, and instructional techniques as I do researching umpire stuff. Which do I like best? I can't really say. I love it all! That's because I love baseball. The only reason I umpire, coach, or watch it on TV is because I love *everything* about it. Baseball is my passion. It is not limited to umpiring - which is also a passion.

I would be lying if I didn't admit that being a coach effects my umpiring. It certainly does! And my umpiring equally effects my coaching. The point I've always tried to make, and one that many cannot comprehend, is that, in my opinion, the "effect" is beneficial. I can see where there is room for debate on that matter. Unfortunately, many are very closed minded on this topic. I happen to know a few in a particular private mail list who are of that mindset.

As a coach, I'm continually having to collar my fellow coaches when they say or do things that I, as an umpire, know do more harm than good. I know how to schmooze an umpire better than the average coach - and unless the umpire is really good - he won't even know he's being schmoozed. I agree 100% with everything Peter Osborne wrote in his very interesting, very controversial, and very ACCURATE article that touched upon much of this.

Example: My fellow coaches have a habit of asking our catcher "Where was that pitch, Mac?" on a close pitch. I keep telling them, "Don't put Mac in an awkward position to try to please you AND the umpire at the same time. It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of question. There's no good answer. Admit it, you are only asking him that question to let the umpire know you disagreed with the call. That's chicken sh*t and umpires HATE it. It doesn't help. Stop doing it. We want the umpire to *like* our catcher."

They still did it on occasion, however. I instructed all our catchers to simply tell the coaches that the pitch was a "little low/high/outside/inside" but NEVER say, "It looked good to me" or "Right down the middle, coach."

As a coach (who umpires), I know which battles are not worth fighting and, conversely, I know which ones are.

As an umpire (who coaches), I am well aware of their tactics and I anticipate them. So, I am seldom caught by surprise. In fact, I can't help from playing the game in my head. Is that bad? I don't know. I don't find it distracting at all. Maybe it would be for somebody else.

Remember, I also train new umpires. I get former/current coaches who enter the umpire ranks on occasion. More often than not, rookie umpires (who coached) tend to be heavy-handed initially. Coaches are frequently control freaks and they bring that into their umpiring. They try to MAKE things happen instead of ALLOWING the game to take its own course. Instead of gently nudging the "train" back on the track, they try to do everything in a grandious fashion. Too much ... too soon ... too loud ... too forceful. They learn, in time, to tone it down. They are working too hard to let everybody know they are in charge.

Do coaches who umpire cut too much slack to the coaches in the games they call - as you suggest? Not the rookie umpires (who coach)!!!! Not by a long shot! They are still trying to shirk the notion that other coaches are the enemy.

Umpires flatter themselves to think that the coaches see them (the umpires) as the enemy. That is seldom the case. The coaches seldom even think about the umpires until the umpires give him a reason. Primarily, they see their OPPONENT as the enemy. It's just that the umpires get in the way, at times.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Aug 24th, 2004 at 08:24 PM]

Interesting.
 

Enjoyed your post, David.
Thanks.
mick

David:

You continue to confuse "comprehend" with "agree". Most of us comprehend your opinion. Few of us agree with it.

GB

Oh. Well that seems to be a difference that makes no difference.

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

If not, exactly what <i>is</i> 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 <i>can't</i> umpire?... or, well, that coaches shouldn't be allowed to umpire ... or, just <i>what</i> are you claiming?

Or, do you just put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes real hard, stomp up and down, and say, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"? [g]

David, I'll answer it for Garth and all of us.

On the first day of Pro School, one of the instructors asked us, "How many of you play or coach baseball?" Every hand went up. He responded, "Players, forget everything you know, it will cloud your judgement. Coaches, I'll talk slow." w eall laughed but it rings true. While a cursory knowledge of the game will greatly assist us, much more and we anticipate, not react. The best coaches think strategy 24-7. That is not a good thing when you are doing this job. Second guessing decisions or applauding a terrific strategy is acceptable if you are in the stands or dugout. Also, being an active coach while officiating puts you in a precarious spot. The coaching and umpiring communities are rather small - you are certain to cross paths with a nemesis eventually. Will he begrudge you because of a bad call? Will you challenge a call because you would have hustled more or been in a better position to make the call? Will the official that was your partner now treat you like a pal when he is behind the dish?

In my hometown, the local baseball organization requires every coach/manager to umpire one game outside of their division. The thinking is that they will gain a new respect for the job and appreciate the skill it entails. Inevitably, a protest results from one of their games each year. I have been asked to resolve these issues and it is always ugly. I always suggest that they stop the practice, before someone gets hurt.

Finally, what's the old adage? Can't play anymore? Coach
Aren't smart enough to coach? Umpire

I always liked that one.

Not all of us, Windy
 

If you use the phrase "all of us" to mean you, and your ilk, you may be correct.

David is apparently a protagonist of the game.
Some umpires are protagonists of umpiring.

We may all love baseball, but it is possible to love differently.

David is not wrong.
You, and your ilk, are not wrong.
But, you, and your ilk, are different from David.

That is okay!
mick
<HR>
This remains a game.

Yeah Right,
 

"This remains a game."

It is NOT a game, it is a competition . . .

They keep score, therefore there are winners and losers.

Emerling is a loser, he tries to play both ends against the middle as a coach/umpire.

His thoughts are "ratish" at best.

Tee

Re: Yeah Right,
 

Of course, Tim C.
I agree that this game should not always be played merely for fun.
Playing for fun is playing to lose at most levels.

There are losers in this game.
mick

Mick,
May I add to this that mostly one team loses. Sometime two teams (one set of players and the umpires, eg. when they/we didn't do a good job) and that when we have to stop a game because more players are ejected than can be replaced, because we (umpires) did lose the game, everybody loses...

Alex

Good call, Alex!
But ya know, when we find ourselves in a toilet bowl, we rarely look, or smell, like roses. :cool:
mick

Re: Yeah Right,
 

Give me an example of how one who both umpires and coaches would play "both ends against the middle." How would such a thing manifest itself?

That rolls off the tongue so easily, yet, it's not clear what you mean.

Within my commmunity, how do you explain that this has not proven to be the least bit of a problem? I coach without major incidents and everybody seems content and I umpire without major incidents and everybody seems content. Nobody is complaining. Nobody even comments on it. It's no big deal, really.

I have attended both umpiring clinics (MLB umpire Andy Fletcher runs one each year here in Memphis) and I have attended some coaching clinics. I like learning stuff about the rules AND about how the game is played.

Coaches don't think about strategies 24/7 any more than umpires think about rules 24/7. There's not much new under the sun when it comes to baseball strategy. That is a much more static state of affairs than the dynamic state of rules with their ever changing and conflicting interpretations. I find even <i>that</i> fascinating.

And I take the time to teach my players the rules. We have a lot of fun doing that sometimes. I ask them questions and they compete with one another answering them. It's like Jeopardy! (We just finished a 13U season) They KNOW the infield fly rule and WHY it exists. They actually know the difference between interference and obstruction. They know WHY they take leadoffs from 3rd base in <i>foul</i> territory. Our catcher does not get confused when a third strike is not caught like I see so often with other teams. My batters do not duck and back away out of the batter's box when a teammate is stealing as is VERY common in this age group. They know they can stand there like a statue.

Many coaches at this age level do not take the time to teach baseball rules. I do!

Is this playing both sides against the middle?

Do I ever use my knowledge of the rules as a weapon? Sure!

Example: We occupied the first base dugout. One of my batters chases a curveball in the dirt and the catcher grabs it cleanly on the short hop. Strike three. Nobody reacts. The catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher while my batter walks back towards our dugout. He wasn't aware that the catcher had not caught the ball. I say nothing. As he gets closer to me, I say, under my breath, "Run to 1st, Justin." He looks at me perplexed. "Just go to 1st and do it now!" He does. He's safe. And I could tell by looking at the PU that he was extremely aware of the status of the batter the whole time, indicating to me that he KNEW that the catcher had not caught the ball. Naturally, the other team complained that the batter was "out of the baseline" but it didn't do them any good.

That kind of thing? Is this what you mean by playing both sides against the middle?

Or how about if I confidentally protest a ruling - which I've done on about 3 occasions over the years, winning all three within minutes of the tournament director's arrival?

1) Batter attempts to bunt a low inside pitch, misses, and it hits him on the foot. Umpire awards him 1st after admitting to me that the batter did, indeed, attempt to bunt it.

2) Bases loaded, 1 out. My batter hits a pop-up that is not ruled an infield fly, but it <i>should</i> have been. The defense misplays it and the ball drops. My runner from 3rd scores on the play. The umpire retroactively calls the Infield Fly and sends him back to 3rd claiming the ball was dead when it was dropped.

3) The ball slipped from the opposing pitcher's hand with runners on base. The ball never crossed a foul line. The umpire called time and ruled it a "no pitch." The umpire claimed that had it crossed the foul line he would have called it a ball (true), but since it didn't, it was a "no pitch" (not true) I had a runner on 3rd in a tied game.

A coach needs to be an advocate for his team. Coaches who don't know the rules and unknowingly allow gross misapplications of the rules to unfairly disadvantage their team are doing their team a disservice. That's bad coaching!

Do I protest everytime an umpire misapplies a rule? No. Only when it matters. Which goes back to my philosophy of: Only fight the battles that are worth fighting. Oftentimes, it's either not worth it ... or it doesn't matter. In all 3 protests above - IT MATTERED.

Do I ever put some pressure on umpires? Sure! It's all part of the game. When I umpire, it doesn't surprise me when coaches turn up the heat on me. This doesn't happen often - but it happens. I understand how it works. As long as no lines are being crossed, it's all baseball.

In games I coach, there are less conflicts with the umpires than most teams experience.

In games I umpire, I seldom have problems with the coaches (or players, or fans, or other umpires) and have one ejection of a coach in my 9-year umpiring career.

So, I'm not so sure what god-awful thing is going to befall me as a result of playing a dual role. I don't think I'm doing a disservice to my players. I don't think the participants of the games I umpire are being cheated. And, I'm quite certain the game of baseball is not worse off as a result.

My free time has taken a huge hit, however. [g]

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David:

To quote Horton: "I meant what I said, I said what I meant."

I believe, and you have provided much of the raw data that I have seen most recently, that there is a difference between coaches who umpire and umpires who coach when it comes their umpiring. You must be the one with fingers in your ears. I have made this very simple statement to you before, several times.

This has nothing to do with firemen, pilots, nurses, college professors, music teachers, bankers or whores. (Although that last one might pertain.)

Admittedly, I have the same amount of scientific data as Peter collects on many of his studies, or as you have offered. None. I have only anecdotal data, but I have seen enough to convince me that it reveals the truth.

Coaches, or Rats as they are known by some, bring to their umpiring the same instincts, quirks, habits, beliefs and character that make them good coaches, bad coaches, indifferent coaches, but coaches none the less. These effect the way they see the game, make their calls, treat their parnters, undestand the rules, manage situations. And, from my experience and that of many others with whom I have shared this opinion, the effect of all this on their umpiring is not positive.

It is very hard for coaches, Rats, if you will, to leave behind that which makes them succesful in their primary world. (And "primary" has nothing to do with percentage of time of involvement.) You, yourself, on a private list have described numerous instances in which your coaching instincts have interfered with your umpiring duties. You even have the honor of a having a game management technique, of lack thereof, named for you. Additionally you have described how you have, when acting as a coach, berated and baited umpires. You have said you have done this because you "are an umpire" and knew whatever the situation was, better than the umpire on the field.

I submit that one who is an umpire first would not behave that way when coaching. I submit that one who is a coach first will behave that way.

Successful coaches are first and foremost, at game time, lobbyists. They always want something from the umpire. If they don't they aren't good coaches. They're just filling space until a real coach shows up.

Despite some coach-writers plea to the contrary, there is damn little a coach can do to make his players play better during the game. A college Rat explained to me once at a clinic, "Basically, in an average game, each team will get 50% of those calls that can go either way. My job during the game is to do what I have to do to get 52% or 55% of those calls. Even 52% can tip the game my way."

Now none of this is to say that I have no respect for coaches. And certainly I do not accuse them of being stupid. I respect good coaches. I respect quality at any job. I just remember that even good coaches, no, make that <i>especially,</i> good coaches, are Rats. I always understand their motives. I alwasy remember a quote I heard at a pro clinc years ago. It might sound familiar to you Dave, Tony has a similar version: If coaches and players were honest and had the Game's best interest at heart, there'd be no need for umpires.

Dave, you, Chad and Rich Ives are very good Rats. One could make a case that you have prgressed to Weasels. As Tee has alluded, you not only get to lobby umpires at an umpire site, you have managed to get paid to lobby umpires at an umpire site. Amazing. This is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the paid portion of this site. Why should I pay to be lobbied?

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 25th, 2004 at 01:47 AM]

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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

Peter,
Makes sense, ...again.
Does MLB teach this?
Is it after the strike three signal?
Is it verbalized?
Thanks.
mick

Not where I work, but maybe elsewhere...
 

No.

HHH,
I have to disagree with you, just a little...

I know you are a good umpire and enjoy reading your advice, but I travel all over the West and Midwest for my college ball and have never encountered another umpire signal an uncaught third strike. (Am I to assume you are making the "Safe/No Catch" signal?)

At this level, we rarely encounter the guy that is unaware of the drop or the catcher that won't fire it to first.

On a swinging third strike that is not caught, signal it and take your mask off. That is all that either team needs to know. Most of us remove our masks anyway when a ball is in the dirt and a play will ensue. Witha called third, hopefully our younger umpires aren't calling it until a second after it hits the mitt, you'll have a different approach to your "Punch out". Signal the call like a swinging third strike - i.e. closed fist up and out. Take yur mask off and watch what happens.

Much like we don't call "Ball Four, take your base" or "Strike Three, You're Out!", we shouldn't do too overt of an action to assist a player.

I'm sure that you meant well with this and maybe I'm missing something, but a lot of our younger members might get the wrong idea. (Especially with leagues that wish they had catchers who could hold a pitch!)

All the best to you and if you want a laugh or two, check out the latest soap opera on the Football Board about overruling your partner. He just couldn't let it go.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

I've seen it at the MiLB level, and I've used it at the HS, JuCo and D-III level. I only use it when the drop isn't obvious (skip into the glove, or hit the glove and drop straight down -- was that a catch or not?) --if the ball is back to the screen, everyone knows it wasn't caught so there's no signal or verbalization. There is a verbal, but I can't remember if mine is "no catch" or "on the ground" or "dropped" or something else -- it's probably been all of those at one time or another.

Re: Not where I work, but maybe elsewhere...
 

WCB;

Yes, I give the safe/no catch signal. So do most of the top umpires in the area in which I work. (Their signal may vary, but they announce their decision.) Some, like me, verbalize it as well. We only do this when there is some doubt such as when the catcher short hops the ball. Likewise, when he catches it on the fly but there is some doubt, I verbalize "That's a catch."

I am not assisting the player. I am telling everyone on the field what I have, even if I am wrong. It is no different than a shoestring catch in right field. As the base umpire, I tell the players "Catch" or "No catch."

Suppose I think that the catcher short hopped the ball when he thinks that he caught it. If I signal no catch, he makes a simple throw to first or tags the runner and there is no crap house. OTOH, if he thinks that he caught it and I disagree and do not make a call, now we have a third world play on our hands.

Preventative umpiring, that's all. Your method, Windy, was popular here until about ten years ago. Then, at the directive of umpire big dogs. we were told to inform the players of what we had. Even if they disagreed with us, they had plenty of time to make a play and therefore we did not get into an argument.

Peter

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah Right,
 

Thanks, bob.
So, the verbalization is a courtesy to the batter, since the catcher already knew he did not make the catch cleanly?
That doesn't seem exactly fair.
Where's the trade off for the defense?
Thanks.
mick

Thanks Mick, that was my point.

It was and is still being taught at the two major schools.
It was also used in the CWS by the entire crew.

We all have idiosyncracies that we pick up from talented partners and then other glean them from us. Pretty soon, everyone in our area is doing it.

I work with a few guys that work a lot of Minor League ball. They started announcing "Time..Ball's Dead" when signalling it. I argues that it was repetitive and they countered that it was proactive umpiring (where did I hear that before?), especially in loud ball parks. The "Ball's Dead" part is audible but not loud. Anyway, I started saying it and pretty soon a number of us were. Nothing wrong, just a different mechanic.

Uh, oh!
WindyCityBlue, could you please talk sl-o-w-ly for me? :)
(<small>I am in my all too familiar state of confusion.</small>)

<LI>So, like bob and Peter, you do verbalize.
<LI>Why is the ball declared dead on a dropped third strike? I know I'm missin' sumthin'.

mick

Mick, you might be a moderator, but it is a slippery slope you're treading. But then again, I'm only speaking for me, not all of us, in the colloquial sense.

The "Time...Ball's Dead" reference was an allusion to HHH's reference that certain areas of the country adopt certain patterns of mechanics. I do not kill dropped third strikes.

And, yes, it seems that you are missing something. It seems that you want to parry instead of discuss.

[Edited by WindyCityBlue on Aug 25th, 2004 at 05:44 PM]

Okay, thanks.

And no, I am not looking to parry.

Like I said I was confused.
Simple as that.
mick

The s-l-o-w-l-y comment was straight from my battle on the Football Board and your comment about not speaking for us was a touch snappy, as well. But, Mick, I will try to offer some thoughts.

You have been around long enough to know when someone actually knows what he/she is talking about and not picking a personality war. You have also seen enough of my posts to know when I'm adding to a topic or chastising/baiting a weaker official. I have thick skin and a sharp tongue, but I also offer 25 years of baseball experience with most of my replies.

I am sure that you've probably read my previous post again. I hope you recognized the change in paragraph as a change in subject. I wasn't trying to be cute or punish HHH. The simple fact is that the mechanic that began this decision is still not being taught at the professional schools. The one I prefer is the one most observed by professional umpires. Is it better? I don't know. Is the mechanic Pete utilizes absurd? By no means; on the contrary, if it works for him and those in his area - terrific. It makes little difference how you make the call, as long as we don't allow a coach to take advantage of his knowledge of our mechanics.

I used to have the habit of subtly pointing at a base when I saw a runner touch it (on a multi bag hit). A few coaches caught on and one day when I acknowledged first, looked hard at second and then pointed to third, the coach requested immediate time and appealed the play at second. I was amazed that he was so aware and dutifully rang him up. After the game, he said that he had been watching me for a while and knew the time would come when he would be able to use it. My signal, as unobtrusive as it was, gave one team the advantage. Now, Peter could argue that anytime he sees me take my mask off on a dropped third strike, I am doing the same as his "No Catch" signal. He would not get an argument from me. My tact is less visible and seems to be preferred by the guys way up there. (No, I don't mean the U.P.)

By the way, Peter, I just saw the Cubs-Brewers game. One dropped third, no signal. But of more importance, you've got to see the ninth inning lead off hit by Mark Grdzulenak (sp?). It tickled the right field foul line and got Yost tossed for arguing. It sure looked like it got one thread of a seam on the chalk. I'm sure it will be on SportCenter tonight and Milwaukee fans will be crying foul, for real!

Now, I understand.
 

WindyCityBlue,
That's what I'm talkin' about. Thank you! :)

First off, I do respect knowledge. Thus, I was curious as to why Peter and bob, both of whom know more about baseball than I ever will, gave the tip-off to the batter, because all I do is take off my mask after making the strike signal and observe.

(<I>I once spent an after-game-drink with bob and tripled my baseball savvy.</I>)

Secondly, I am most pleased that you, with your experience, have reinforced my mechanics, right down to that dang point at bases that I stopped several years ago.

I really try hard to be correct, but since cats may be skinned in a number of ways, what is of more importance to me while officiating any game is <U>to not be wrong</U>.

I think that in some lower levels of ball making a statement indicating the ball was dropped, can, in fact, subtly make the game better for some players. (<I>Here, I am thinking 13-yr.old-15-yr.old ages</I>) Yet, I haven't used the "uncaught signal" ever that I remember.

I think the reason I do not use that signal is for the same reason that my plate meetings are so short, because I believe everyone in the game already knows the old rules and the new rules.

Anyway, thanks for your reponse on this. I appreciate it. ;)
mick

And you got ZERO years of basketball and football experience too. However, that doesn't stop you from offering your ZERO year's worth of knowledge to their debates though, does it?

Don't mind me. I like baiting weaker officials too. :D

LOL!!!
 

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif' alt='' border=0></a>