I just read Rich Ives' article called "Why I'm in Your Face" on the paid portion of the site.

His article outlines 5 reasons he, as a coach, will come out on one of us. His premise, not all coaches are stupid. His understanding of leadership and the game should be appreciated by all umpires, who CONSISTENTLY believe that coaches are stupid. For those of you who subscribe to the "all coaches are morons" theory, Rich proves you are wrong.

For those of you who don't know, Rich is a coach who is a paid author for Officiating.com. According to his bio, he has been a baseball manager since 1974 and a member of the local board since 1978. By the way, this is LL ball.

I think Rich is the exception to the majority of coaches at lower levels. He knows the rules and understands using the rules to his advantage.

[B]Papa C [B] - if possible, this is an article that needs to make the rounds. If you can make this one free, it might be worth it. Maybe even offer a 30 membership for a reduced rate. Either way, the article needs to be read and Officiating.com is always looking for subscribers...

Huh,
 

The article is just the restatement of ideas discussed here for the last five seasons.

It is simply written in ratspeak for the uneducated to be able to understand.

Tee

Re: Huh,
 

Tee: C'mon, you're better than that.

First, Rich is a Little League coach so you shouldn't be commenting, right? You don't recognize that as baseball, right?

Second, Mr. Ives is -- like <b>everybody</b> who coaches Youth ball -- BY DEFINITION not a rat.

He is not a professional, paid to do a job. He's certainly not in the league with MLB skippers. And instead of getting $40,000 a year (like a high school coach in Texas), he's out of pocket several thousand dollars a year.

It's just wrong for you and others (names supplied on request) to lump Rich Ives together with Lou Piniella, Larry Bowa, and others of that ilk.

If Peter Osborne's taught us one thing over the years, it's that coaches ain't stupid.

For a long time I thought the repeated references of <i>amateur</i> umpires to coaches/managers as "rats" was a joke, something they said to feel solidarity with the umpires who made it to "The Show." I comforted myself by thinking that nobody really believes that.

Imagine my surprise when I finally realized, courtesy of Internet message boards like this one, that those <i>amateur umpires</i> were serious!

Thank goodness, I've never actually known someone with such little respect for the people who begin the process of teaching those players we watch on TV and at Yankee Stadium.

Jumpmster:

I had the reply below (navy font) "on the board" at 2:26 CDT. But I checked "Preview reply," looked at the message -- and never hit "Submit Reply." I guess I'm getting a little dotty (careless?) in my old age.

I wrote:

<font color=navy>Alan: We at Officiating.com certainly appreciate your comments. Rich Ives is a good read and an easy edit. So I'm particularly fond of him. (grin)

As you know, some regular posters here have criticized Mr. Ives quite harshly, mainly because he's a "rat"; that is, he's not an official but writes for an officials' magazine. It's too bad they don't see what you and I see in his work.

I'm forwarding this link to the CFO. Let's see what we can do.

Thanks again. You can email Rich at [email protected]. Why not congratulate him in person?</font>

My oath as a "non-rat" (you guys who talk about rats should see some of my partners): This was written before Tee's bash of Rich.

Now, I'm going to preview and....

Hmmm,
 

If "pigs is pigs" . . .

"Rats is Rats" . . .

Carl, there is no difference, ALL coaches simply want to manipulate umpires.

Pretty simple when you keep things straight.

Tee

Re: Hmmm,
 

Nah, Tee: to paraphrase George Orwell: "Some rats are more equal than others ..."

Now, I can't agree with CC that ALL youth coaches are selfless patriots, only on the field "for the kids". I've run into my share of cheese-sniffing rodents in youth games, right on down to the 9-10 Minors level. But B'rer Ives seems to be the sort of higher primate I don't mind dealing with: he [and anyone from the same mold] is going to be in control of himself, is going to be easy to have a "discussion" with~ he'll say what he has to say and not try to lie or twist the facts or my words, and when the discussion is over, it is going to be over - I'm not gonna have to deal with BS about the same dispute 3 innings later. That ain't a rat, in my book.

--Carter

Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

Hold on, pa'dner. I never said all coaches were on the field "for the kids." I said amateur coaches were, by definition, NOT "rats." Rats is a term invented by MLUs to define ML players and skippers.

Then, I said Mr. Ives was out plenty of money on his own.

Listen, I used to chunk out Youth Ball coaches by the bushel basket. Everybody in a 200-mile radius knows me, and so nobody much bothers me.

I'd be the first to admit (and Rich Ives would be the second) that there are some mighty poor specimens of baseball acumen ranging around on the Youth Ball fields.

But you see, there are people who post here (Tee among them) who "believes" (at least in print) that EVERY coach is a crook.

That's not been my experience and, apparently, not your either.

Thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm,
 

OK, Carl, I figured everyone would notice that I had my [digital] "tongue in cheek" with the selfless patriot/ for the kids comment. Obviously, nobody refering to "rats" on this board is likely to be using the term in the MLB context, so Tee must have been using an "alternate" definition. My point was, even using a reasonable "alt. def.", B'rer Ives don't qualify.

Like you, I've run into some fine folk in youth ball, as well as an assortment of rodents, reptiles, and other "lower" life forms.

--Carter

OK
 

Let's be clear . . .

Rich is a KING rat!

He is manipulating on an umpire board . . .

Do what y'all want . . . he is a maggot!

Let's make this clear CC . . .

Either you don't want to see the issue . . . or you are fooled.

Rich is a perfect RAT, and he has won!

Tee





[Edited by Tim C on Aug 20th, 2004 at 10:45 PM]

Re: OK
 

Gosh, Tee: There is no issue. We like him, you hate him. Would you be interested in debating him on this topic? I'm not kidding, now. I think it would make great theater.

(Off the topic: Bush won't be able to hide from Kerry, you know.)

Here's the syllogism we'll work with:

All coaches are rats.
Rich Ives is a coach.
Therefore, Rich Ives is a rat.

Now, the logic there is clear; it is a valid syllogism in that the conclusion flows correctly from the premises.

The minor premise is, <i>a priori</i>, true: Rich Ives is a coach; nobody disputes that.

But the major premise (All coaches are rats) is not self-evident and must be proved. As they would have put it in the subjunctive in the old days, if that premise be true, then Rich Ives IS a rat.

The gauntlet has been thrown.

Tee wrote: "Carl, there is no difference, ALL coaches simply want to manipulate umpires."

Actually, that's only a very small part of our job. ;-)

It IS part of our job because our job is to get our team into the best possible position to win the game. As we can sometimes succeed, we shall continue to do so.

Most of the job is manipulating the game and the players. Plus, depending on the level, we also have to deal with the parents, ADs, alumni, etc. And, dear sir, dealing with "Mom" is a LOT more stressful than dealing with you.

The "need" to attempt to manipulate an umpire arises SIGNIFICANTLY less often than the need to deal with the others. That's because most of the time you are doing your job well. Just as we make coaching mistakes, unmpires make mistakes too. You need to own up to it.





BTW Tee, I'm curious. A strongly held position such as yours usually comes from either one significant event or a series of small events. Which is the source of your position, and would you care to relate any of the story?

Bingo! This article will be making the rounds. There is good information all around. New for some, a refresher for others. Either way, after dealing with the plethora (that means a lot) of rats in teenage summer league, it was nice to see a coach that understands strategy...

Carl, your stock just went down...:D Send me a note and I will be happy to share my reasons why, as a decorated combat vet, why I am voting anti-Kerry (not pro-Bush)

Sorry, jumpmaster: My stock is not publicly traded. (grin)

All I meant was: The Republican strategists I see on FOX News are saying that Sen. Kerry is a formidable debater. So Bush will HAVE to face him, unlike Tee, who may (gracefully) decline my offer.

Not all coaches are rats.
Not all LL coaches are rats.
Some HS and collage coaches are serious rats, even in football and basketball.

I personally have come across more rats coaching summer ball with HS aged kids than spring LL baseball.

I don't look at a coach as a rat if he is simple trying to defend his player(s). If he gets to acting like an a&&, especially repeatedly, it is easier to feel that way. However if the umpire goes out looking the part and properly calling the part, rats rarely seen and those that are, are really obvious.

JMO

Well, I'm a little ticked off. (grin) My nice post demonstrating that I know something about syllogistic logic (the major term is the predicate of the conclusion) is gone, deleted by ... who knows.

At any rate, I kept a copy so I can repost it at any time.

In the meantime, I set out to reply to a post by Peter Osborne, but that post was part of the deleted thread.

So I'm posting Peter's message and my reply, and only a moderator (or me) can delete this part of the thread.

Ain't life interesting these days?

Peter Osborne wrote:

Carl;

Shortly after I stopped writing for officiating.com, I was asked to rejoin a private list serve for umpires of which Tee is a member. (I do not know if there was a link between my severing of ties with you and being asked to rejoin. )

This group has two mantras. The first is that all coaches are rats. Tee is a member of this group and I can assure you that the group as a whole harps on the rat issue day in and day out. Dave Emerling is a member and he takes unbelievable abuse because he also coaches. On a certain level, that abuse could be considered equivalent to the abuse that Rut takes here. It is all the worse because there is more intimacy in a private group than on the more anonymous public forums.

In my usual tactful way, I pointed out this hypocrisy and was promptly booted out. If I told you exactly what I wrote, it would certainly be censored. This will probably be censored anyway since at least on of the moderators here is also a member.

The other mantra of this group is their hatred of you. I will enclose one message about you that will give you a flavor. I have replaced parts of the profanity with "$" signs but other than that the message is exactly as written and I left off the signature block. I do not believe that the writer posts on this forum. The message was written in response to a posters message where he mentioned EWS. I am sure that you remember this group.

_____________________
EWS???

It just took you longer to get burned by that egomaniac xxxx.[referring to CC] I neither read what he writes any longer (over two years now) nor do I give a xxxx about him. The day he dies I'll lift a glass, dance a jig and piss on that xxxx grave.
_____________________


When I joined, I told Garth that he should start a pool on how long I would last before being booted out. If he bet on one week, he was the winner. I took too strong an exception to the thought process that labels all coaches as rats. (in my usual diplomatic way, of course. )

Peter
_____________________

My response:

Peter:

I am once again flattered that I can arouse such feelings of love in umpires. Imagine: The gentleman you quote wants to life a toast in my memory. Dancing at my wake? What higher praise can one have?

Of course, I am sorry he doesn't read any of my stuff. Likely he would have had plenty of material for his email group if he had.

Probably your relationship and mine can be characterized as disagreeable more than agreeable though the last two years have been relatively amicable.

One thing's for sure: Nobody can accuse you of being a rat. Or me. And we agree: Not every coach is a rat.

My new syllogism (valid but as yet unproved) is:

No amateur coach can be a rat.
Rich Ives is an amateur coach.
Therefore: .....



[Edited by mick on Aug 23rd, 2004 at 09:07 AM]