|
Wed Aug 11, 2004, 07:10pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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]
__________________
GB |
|
Thu Aug 12, 2004, 12:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Notitia
Quote:
[Edited by GarthB on Aug 12th, 2004 at 01:52 AM]
__________________
GB |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 04:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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] |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 07:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting.
Quote:
Thanks. mick |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 07:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You continue to confuse "comprehend" with "agree". Most of us comprehend your opinion. Few of us agree with it. GB
__________________
GB |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 07:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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? 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] |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 07:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 08:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not all of us, Windy
Quote:
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 This remains a game. |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 08:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 08:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Yeah Right,
Quote:
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 |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 09:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
Tue Aug 24, 2004, 09:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But ya know, when we find ourselves in a toilet bowl, we rarely look, or smell, like roses.  mick |
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 12:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Yeah Right,
Quote:
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 that 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 foul 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 should 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 |
|
Wed Aug 25, 2004, 12:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 especially, 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]
__________________
GB |
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
