Got to love the coach

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I have a problem with the attitude that ONLY a head coach can talk or question an umpire. Like it or not, part of every coach's job is to act on behalf of their team. I believe that ignoring a coach solely because s/he is not the head coach is arrogant and counterproductive. That particular coach may be the one who saw the play and could actually be correct.

I'm not talking about a coach acting like an idiot. That person should be ignored or rejected regardless of their title.

JMHO

Mike,

I agree with that to a point. In the posted situation though, we first have a play at second, where the first base coach couldn’t have seen the play any better than the third base coach and probably had an even worse angle being straight-lined by a sliding runner. Then he comes out from the dugout into the playing area. I’m sorry there, but I just don’t feel that there is any reason for anyone but the head coach to come from the dugout into the playing area to argue a call.

Now, as AZBIGDAWG mentioned on a play at first if I am in C and a coach asks me to go for help, if the play warrants it, then yes I will go for help. Very seldom though am I going to have an extended conversation with an assistant. I will give him/her a quick explanation and won't go much further than that because it has just been my experience that as soon as I get done with the assistant, I have to turn around and go through the same rig-a-ma-roll with the head coach. To me, that is counter-productive.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by gsf23

Very seldom though am I going to have an extended conversation with an assistant. I will give him/her a quick explanation and won't go much further than that because it has just been my experience that as soon as I get done with the assistant, I have to turn around and go through the same rig-a-ma-roll with the head coach. To me, that is counter-productive.

On many teams, the "head coach" is more an operations manager than a game manager. Some teams have coaches with specialty areas. In your case, you would refuse to discuss a pitching issue (say, an illegal pitch call) with the pitching coach? That is, IMO, counterproductive.

To the contrary, I will have one conversation when appropriate; it is up to the team to send the most appropriate representative, because we won't go through the same conversation twice. If the head coach wants to participate he needs to 1) control his assistants, 2) be the one who does request time and approach me, or 3) he can get the explanation from the assistant who did.

[mcrowder]

Mike ... I agree with your sentiments regarding assistants, as long as they are assistants and not ASSistants. Surely if you were to change the original situation to the manager being suddenly "in the face" of the umpire, he was, if not already ejected (depending on this guy's definition of in his face), at least on very thin ice. There's no place for coaches acting this way.

OP - as to your local rule of eject and he's done for the season, I believe a penalty of that severity actually has a negative impact, in that umpires are not willing to enforce it. You yourself seem reluctant to eject for extremely ejectionable offenses, solely due to this rule. This should be revisited.

We have a similar local rule in football where they require a 15 yard penalty for certain actions by coaches - the result being that NO ONE calls this penalty, because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. If it was a 5-yarder, it would be called, and the actions the league wants to put a stop to would actually stop.

[Dakota]

I have actually received training at rules clinics and instruction at tournaments that we are to speak to the head coach only.

I usually ignore this, , but I just wanted to mention that umpires do not necessarily make this up out of whole cloth. It does seem to be a baseball mentality, though.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Please note that I was basically speaking in generalities based on some recent posts in a couple different threads about only talking to the HC. It just happened to be that this post hit the "time to reply" button in my head.

As noted, I wasn't referring to someone acting the ***. I will state, as I did in the Women's Open SP final last year, only talk to one team representative on any given situation. If that individual cannot pass along any information concerning our discussion, the team is just SOL

[fastpitch]

As a long time coach and rookie umpire I still like the "keep the coach in the game philosophy". As a coach, there was nothing I hated worse than an umpire refusing to ask for help. I learned pretty early to treat the umpire with respect and formulate whatever question would lead the partners together. I totally agree with ignoring the charging, loud coach and have no patience for coaches that do not know how to ask for help even after it is explained in the pre-game conference. If the coach cannot call time, and approach at least somewhat calmly without shouting across the field then I believe we should listen. I used to hear the phrase "try to keep the coach in the game", "ask for help if the question warrants it" Now the phrases seem to be "don't embarrass your partner", "don't make another umpire have to throw him out later"

I still do not see what is wrong with a conference with your partner to defuse an emotional coach. I really don't care what the fans are saying: we deal with the coaches and if a conference will defuse the situation and keep the coach in the game I am in favor of having the conference. I disagree with this "it's my call, I saw it and am not going to ask for help philosophy" Yes, I've heard the don't make your partner the bad guy response. As a team on the field, if asking for help keeps the coach in the game, I do not care if my partner makes me the bad guy.

Many of the responses here are very helpful to me seeing how other umpires handle the situations, the sequence of asking the coach what his question is and examples of questions that warrant asking for help are great. Even though I disagree with the "don't ask for help", I abide by it since our association teaches that response when we know we've seen the play. imho

Of course as a rookie it could be argued that I do not know when I've seen the play

[IRISHMAFIA]

"keep the coach in the game" isn't the umpire's job, it's the coach's job.

That said, it doesn't mean the umpire should accept abuse or any type of "misbehavior" from a coach. As it refers to umpiring, "keep the coach in the game" actually means an umpire should be receptive to A (as in one, singular, alone, solo, etc.) coach with a question or disagreement. The umpire should listen, explain the call/ruling to the coach and move to their position in preparation for continuing play. It is now up to the coach as to whether they want to stay in the game.

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by fastpitch

I still do not see what is wrong with a conference with your partner to defuse an emotional coach. I really don't care what the fans are saying: we deal with the coaches and if a conference will defuse the situation and keep the coach in the game I am in favor of having the conference. I disagree with this "it's my call, I saw it and am not going to ask for help philosophy" Yes, I've heard the don't make your partner the bad guy response. As a team on the field, if asking for help keeps the coach in the game, I do not care if my partner makes me the bad guy.

But there are instances when you have to use the "It's my call and I'm not going for help".

For example, in the case from the original post, we have a runner stealing second. The base umpire rules the runner out, coach comes over and asks you to go for help. Now, what could the plate umpire possible offer you? He/she is standing 60+ feet away and has a catcher, batter, pitcher, and probably another infielder standing in his/her line of sight. I'm sorry, but unless they want help for a dropped ball they are stuck with my call no matter how irate the coach gets. It's not my job to keep the coach in the game, it's their job to keep themselves in the game.

Let's say you do go for help in this situation, and your partners says "looked to me like the tag was way late and the runner beat it easily". Are you really going to change your call? If not then why even go for help? To calm the coach down? Sorry but I'm not going to have coaches running out on every banger asking for a conference. If you are going to change that call, well you might as well walk off the field and let your partner work the rest of the game solo because on every close play a coach is going to be out asking you to go to your partner. If you don't then they are going to want to know why you did it last time and not this time.

Now I am not saying you should never go for help. There are certain situations when it is apporpriate to go for help such as pulled foot, dropped ball, missed swipe tag and the such. But if the coach wants me to go for help just because he thinks his runner got under a tag, beat a throw or got the tag down in time, well, sorry but I'm not getting help on that no matter how irate they get. I'm not going to conference just because a coach is mad about a call. If they can't accept a call I make standing a few feet away, in good position and seeing everything clearly, they they don't need to watch the rest of the game.