Well, that's definitely over-officious
 

Of course this was sarcasm on your part, Mike.

If I felt that this "Old MacDonald" was a deliberate act of taunting, I would do something about it to keep the peace. As you well know, those subtle, unsportsman-like, within the rules, kind of actions can lead to volatile responses that are well beyond the rules.

What if the words to her song were "your Moma's a piece of crap, and you are too, and my pitcher's gonna shove this ball up your rosy red..."

You tell the catcher to stop. And she says "WHAT? I'm just singing a song. There's no rule about singing is there?"

Do you now turn to the batter and say, "Suck it up. That's part of the game."

Maybe in the major leagues but not in any game I work. In fact if I got the above response I might well reply with "Coach, I need a sub for your catcher because I just ejected her. If the coach didn't want to respect my decision, I would likely eject him too.

Of course this is a HTBT situation... and I wasn't. One can't judge intent and severity/effect without being present.

What do you do if the battery is unhappy with the calls and the catcher starts singing "Three bind mice"?

Tell her that there are only two blues on the field today!

Re: Well, that's definitely over-officious
 

Only somewhat. Read those specific rules. They instruct the umpire to eject the player. That is why I suggest you not "cite" those rules unless you are willing to follow them. That doesn't mean you cannot use a little preventive umpiring in conversing with the players and coaches in a proactive manner.

Quote:

If I felt that this "Old MacDonald" was a deliberate act of taunting, I would do something about it to keep the peace. As you well know, those subtle, unsportsman-like, within the rules, kind of actions can lead to volatile responses that are well beyond the rules. What if the words to her song were "your Moma's a piece of crap, and you are too, and my pitcher's gonna shove this ball up your rosy red..."

Now who is being sarcastic? Or would that be an argument? I know it isn't contradiction! (unless you're in a Monty Python skit) :)

Yes, there is no doubt that this scenario is a HTBT, but unless I feel one team is attempting to incite another, I'm not worrying about it.

If a catcher wants to talk, sing, hum, and they are not directing their comments toward or refer to the opposition, that is not my problem. And, yes, if it happens to distract the batter, they are going to have to "suck it up" and concentrate on their job of putting the ball into play. If the coach tells you the noise is distracting his batter, what are you going to do, throw out any fan making noise? What happens if the catcher screams "right side" as the pitch is approaching? Are you now going to tell the catcher they cannot give direction to their teammates?

Quote:

You tell the catcher to stop. And she says "WHAT? I'm just singing a song. There's no rule about singing is there?" Do you now turn to the batter and say, "Suck it up. That's part of the game."

I'm not telling the catcher or batter anything. The coach can tell them after I conference with the coach. The last thing an umpire needs is for a player to misunderstand an umpire's comment, only to have them repeat what they believe it meant to a coach. That is one of the quickest paths to an ejected coach you can find.

Quote:

Maybe in the major leagues but not in any game I work. In fact if I got the above response I might well reply with "Coach, I need a sub for your catcher because I just ejected her. If the coach didn't want to respect my decision, I would likely eject him too.

Well, that's why they have rule books. That way the teams are supposed to know what they are getting, not waiting to find out what this umpire or that one is going to call in "their" game or on "their" field. Both belong to the players, not the umpire.

JMHO



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Sep 4th, 2004 at 11:00 AM]