Got to love the coach

[BuggBob]

Runner on first attempted steal of second, I call her out. Head back to the A position. The first base coach is suddenly in my face asking me what was that. I pay no attention to him, just set up getting ready for next pitch. The coach goes on for a few more rants and gives up, I didn't even look at him. The head coach in the third base box asks for time, and trots out to ask me about the call. I tell him the tag was here the player was there the runner was out. He is okay with that, because that is also what he saw, (I think he came out to save his coach from an ejection) but he ask me to ask PU for help. Okay I ask go ask PU did you see anything different, nope she is out. Game goes on.

Later in the game runner on third, foul ball. As we are waiting for some balls, a bench coach runs on to the field and yells at me the offensive coach is touching the runner. I did not see any touching now or during live ball play, so I ignore this guy. He runs in to the playing area yelling he touched her, he touched her. I calmly and loudly tell him Sir I can not hear you. He get right up to me and tells me again about the coach touching the player. I tell him that I can not hear him means that while I hear him I will ignore him and if there is a problem the head coach can ask me a question. Another foul ball another delay getting a ball back in play same guy starts with the touching thing again. This time I tell him if you want me to hear you, you will miss the next game, do you want me to hear you? The light goes on, he says no. Game goes on.

Man I love the play offs.

[gsf23]

Thanks for posting about your experiences. I love reading these because I feel they can provide great learning for both old and new umpires alike and I also like to see how different umpires handle different situations.

Now, I’d like to offer a little constructive criticism if you don’t mind. I, in no way consider myself a great umpire, but I also don’t consider myself a very bad one either so take this for what it is worth and I think you probably know some of what I am about to say.

First, I think that this assistant coach needed to be run. I think you made it very clear to him after the first outburst that he was to be seen and not heard and you let him get away with too much. By not running him, you are going to make it harder on the next umpire that has this team because he is going to be doing the same thing and probably won’t really learn until he gets tossed from a few games. Or you may have even mentioned to the head coach when he came over that he needs to get his assistant under control or he will be tossed, if not by you then by the next umpire.

Next, about going for help, I don’t think you should have done that. I can see doing that if you had some doubts about the play, but you seem to be pretty sure that you saw everything clearly and made the correct call. I think I might have told the coach something to the effect of “Coach, I was in proper position and saw the entire play clearly, I don’t think that the plate umpire standing 60 feet away will be able to offer anything that would change my mind.

Like I said, I’m not saying I am a great umpire, but just some things that I may have done differently. Thanks for the post and good luck in the rest of the playoffs.

[BuggBob]

Thanks GSF,

I did tell the head coach, who is a class guy, that I would talk to him any time he asked. I did goto my partner because the tag was on the upper chest area, and I need time to figure out how to tell the coach where exactly the girl was tagged. Your right when the assistant coach suddenly matieralized in front of me, I could have run him, but kick out here and your done for the rest of the season. I though ignoring him would hurt more, kind of my way of saying you don't matter.

Bugg

[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 ejected regardless of their title.

JMHO

[azbigdawg]

Ladies and Gentleman, we are getting ourselves into trouble here. I dont know where this attitude abut coaches comes from..I can understand it in other sports, but in baseball and softball there is NO reason NOT to listen to a PROPER question or objection by an assistant coach. If you're in C position in a FP game, and have a call at first where the first base coach asks you to go for help, are you going to ignore him because hes an ASSISTANT coach who may have had a GREAT look at it? I hate to sound harsh,,,but if thats your only reason..you are a FOOL.

Please rethink this attitude about assistants..... they are NOT always wrong.....they DO deserve respect if they ask respectful questions.

[Blu_IN]

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.

JMHO

Agreed, you just made matters worse for yourself.

I would suggest that the berating you took earlier, and doing nothing firm about, is the reason you got yourself into that issue with the assistant coach. Always play nice and give the coaches and players as much room as possible, but when a coach steps on that line, snap his butt back into place as firm as possible. Or else, you end up digging yourself a hole for the rest of that game.

Blu

[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.