NFHS 3' Lane Presentation

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by shagpal

common or uncommon, during a game, what is the reply to that coach? protest, or play ball.

I agree that we should keep things moving along at gametime. Our point is that this never should have been an issue to begin with. Clinicians should not knowingly give blatantly incorrect rule interpretations, as this will cause nothing but problems for us come gametime.

[shagpal]

yes, agreed, short of throwing a fellow umpire under the bus.

I just can't see how clarifying a point towards a fellow umpire in the presence of coaches, or other umpires for that matter can help. it's called professional courtesy. kindly ask for clarification, and then move on, and let the presenter finish.

demanding clarification while a presenter has the floor to me is just not right to me. I have no justification for how I feel about it, but it just seems flat out wrong.

but this is an anonymous forum. I can say what I want.

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I agree that we should keep things moving along at gametime. Our point is that this never should have been an issue to begin with. Clinicians should not knowingly give blatantly incorrect rule interpretations, as this will cause nothing but problems for us come gametime.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by shagpal

demanding clarification while a presenter has the floor to me is just not right to me.

Tangent much? How is this relevant to this thread so far?

[shagpal]

I see no tangent, I immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time, which to me is nada. this doesn't mean do nothing ever, it means, not at that time.

as I suggested from my first reply, and IMHO, this is about "saving face" vs. saving the message. the message was already out. to the OP, it might seem urgent to contain damage by putting a fellow umpire on the spot, right on the spot, meaning, the message is more important than the messenger. I don't see it that way, and that is no tangent. it is simply a point of view that might or might no differ from what you might or might not see.

Originally Posted by celebur

Tangent much? How is this relevant to this thread so far?

[bigsig]

I had a coach present this very argument to me a few years ago in a rec league game. BR hit a single to the outfield and made a wide looping turn around 1B. he wanted me to call her out for being out of the 3' line. When i told him she could run into center field if she wanted to his response was" oh yah, then why to they have a 3' foot line there!"

I told him to read the rule book again.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by shagpal

I see no tangent, I immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time, which to me is nada. this doesn't mean do nothing ever, it means, not at that time.

as I suggested from my first reply, and IMHO, this is about "saving face" vs. saving the message. the message was already out. to the OP, it might seem urgent to contain damage by putting a fellow umpire on the spot, right on the spot, meaning, the message is more important than the messenger. I don't see it that way, and that is no tangent. it is simply a point of view that might or might no differ from what you might or might not see.

The tangent is that you "immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time" based on the bias that YOU read into the OP. Without that bias, your point is unnecessary and irrelevant. . .thus a tangent.

[shagpal]

there is no tangent. you are milking it for whatever you can get.

Originally Posted by celebur

The tangent is that you "immediately and directly answered as to what might be a better course of action at that time" based on the bias that YOU read into the OP. Without that bias, your point is unnecessary and irrelevant. . .thus a tangent.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by shagpal

there is no tangent. you are milking it for whatever you can get.

It's simply not possible to milk something that's not even wrong.