what a cluster fcuk

[jr131981]

never again....

theres a smaller softball organization out west which i wont name, and they asked me to ump some SP games for them. ive done a few league games without any problems....

had my first tourny today, it was a coed tourny with only 3 girls required.

heres a run down of the relevant rules

no rule saying subs have to be gender for gender
batting out of order rule is same as ASA
there is a rule saying only 3 guys can bat in a row.
there is no special prescribed penalty for batting 4+ males in a row
lineup cards are filled out and given to the PU.

championship game, im the BU, its the 3rd inning and the visiting team, which has their first 3 batters as males, has their 10th batter up, which is also a male, giving them 4 males in a row...

after the 3rd male (hitter #2 in the lineup) bats, the DC approaches the PU saying the offensive team have a 4th male in a row due up.

hes talking to the DC for about a minute, and by this point in time the OC's approach home plate and they talk for about 2 more minutes, so now i realize something more than a basic sub is up and i walk towards the PU.

i figure out what the situation is, explain what my interpretation of the rules are, the PU wants to get the UIC, but he went home. now the PU wants the TD to make a decision, i tell the PU that the TD is not an ump, not affiliated with the assn and frankly has no relevancy to the discussion, but alas the PU wants the TD to make a decision. at this point in time im about ready to walk off the field, but who knows how this assn normally does things.

the TD has no clue whats going on or what the rules are, and after a few more minutes he offers up his ruling, which he basically pulled out of his *ss and the visiting team, rightfully so, "rants and raves", and during such, offer up a few substitution options they can make to appease the 3 male batter rule. i once again explain my interpretation of the rules to the coaches, i tell the OC that her plan of subbing in a female for the male batter thats due up solves the issue at hand, but the TD wont listen.

by this point in time, im thinking to myself why am i even here if no one is going to listen to me explain the rules, so i walk away from the TD and PU and the teams coaches. about 5 more minutes pass... and now one of the players calls up the UIC on their cell phone. the TD talks to the UIC on the phone, and the UIC rules that the male batter due up is to be ejected. where he got that from i have no idea, i think there was a good chance the situation wasnt correctly explained to him. now about 5 more minutes pass while the players, PU, and TD are arguing. now the dust has sorta settled, and the OC finds me and asks why the player is being ejected, i explain to the OC that there is no such rule.

now the PU wants the batter thats due up ejected bc thats what the UIC said, i tell him, if he ejects the player, im gone too. that didnt go over too well with my partner, but at that point in time, i could care less.

so now the OC is pushing the PU for an explanation why they cannot sub a female batter in for the male batter thats due up.....at this point i have my cooler in hand getting ready to walk off the field in case the PU is going to go through with the ejection. eventually the female sub is allowed, the whole fiasco lasted ~30 minutes.

i think i will politely turn down the next time im offered games from this assn.

[NCASAUmp]

These kinds of scenarios seem to be quite common in newer, less-established associations (whose names I won't mention, either) - a lot of "you know what we meant" seems to be their standard explanation when giving a confusing rule interpretation. Maybe they're just the growing pains of a green association, or maybe it might have something to do with the fact that some of these associations are the brainchildren of players who have poor misconceptions regarding the rules or some other such bad leadership. It always seems like a bad situation just waiting to happen, and I personally would avoid those organizations at all costs.

I do have a question though... In all of this mess, how did you get from having a PU being forced to make a call that the UIC told him to make, to you saying "screw this" and walking off the field?

I have a hard time with the idea of an umpire just walking off the field because of a disagreement. It's no different from any other disagreement over a call. Certainly a cluster to be sure, but I don't understand why you felt the need to interject yourself into a situation that did not involve you. This was the PU's call to make, not yours, and he was the one being forced into the bad situation, not you. I guess I'm a little dismayed at the lack of solidarity that you shared with your partner in said cluster. Walking off the field would have been more than throwing him under the bus, it'd be driving the bus back and forth.

[MD Longhorn]

While I too am bothered by BU wanting to throw up his hands and just leave, I understand it a bit. After all, it was the championship game of the tourney and the UIC himself already bailed!

Shame on UIC for leaving. Shame on PU for involving TD - if someone had the phone number of the UIC, that's your first and only call.

Next time, however, partner --- if your PU is approached by BOTH coaches, your job is to stop the 2nd one from getting there. So shame on you a bit as well.

That said ... once you and partner realized there was an issue, the two of you should have called UIC. If that was not an option, the two of you should have made a ruling - huddled together with no coaches anywhere near you. And then play on. Let them protest your ruling if they like and write it down if they do... but Play On. Don't involve TD. Don't include coaches in the discussion. Rule. Play On. It was you and your partner that allowed this to become a CF.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

These kinds of scenarios seem to be quite common in newer, less-established associations (whose names I won't mention, either) - a lot of "you know what we meant" seems to be their standard explanation when giving a confusing rule interpretation. Maybe they're just the growing pains of a green association, or maybe it might have something to do with the fact that some of these associations are the brainchildren of players who have poor misconceptions regarding the rules or some other such bad leadership. It always seems like a bad situation just waiting to happen, and I personally would avoid those organizations at all costs.

I do have a question though... In all of this mess, how did you get from having a PU being forced to make a call that the UIC told him to make, to you saying "screw this" and walking off the field?

I have a hard time with the idea of an umpire just walking off the field because of a disagreement. It's no different from any other disagreement over a call. Certainly a cluster to be sure, but I don't understand why you felt the need to interject yourself into a situation that did not involve you. This was the PU's call to make, not yours, and he was the one being forced into the bad situation, not you. I guess I'm a little dismayed at the lack of solidarity that you shared with your partner in said cluster. Walking off the field would have been more than throwing him under the bus, it'd be driving the bus back and forth.

after being told my interpretation (which coincidentally happened to be correct) of the rules was going to be ignored and the TD decision, who i didnt even want on the field, was going to be applied, i was already 3/4 of the way off the field. and when the UIC is just going to flat out invent a rule out of thin air, i forgot to mention earlier he wanted the male batter that was due up ejected, the spot to become an auto out, and the team to only play 9 in the field, thats when i felt it was my duty, as someone whos job it is to protect the integrity of the game and make sure the rules are followed to stick my neck out and stand up for what i felt was right.

i appreciate the playing of 'devils advocate', and there were some other factors that are way too long to get into that factored in my willingness to just 'give up'.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

While I too am bothered by BU wanting to throw up his hands and just leave, I understand it a bit. After all, it was the championship game of the tourney and the UIC himself already bailed!

Shame on UIC for leaving. Shame on PU for involving TD - if someone had the phone number of the UIC, that's your first and only call.

Next time, however, partner --- if your PU is approached by BOTH coaches, your job is to stop the 2nd one from getting there. So shame on you a bit as well.

That said ... once you and partner realized there was an issue, the two of you should have called UIC. If that was not an option, the two of you should have made a ruling - huddled together with no coaches anywhere near you. And then play on. Let them protest your ruling if they like and write it down if they do... but Play On. Don't involve TD. Don't include coaches in the discussion. Rule. Play On. It was you and your partner that allowed this to become a CF.

agreed on shame on me as well.

once i became aware of the situation, i tried to pull my partner aside, towards the middle of the field, but his first reaction was to get the TD involved, i immediately voiced my objection...

at one point in time, seeing my partners 'inability' to control the situation, i gave a ruling, but my partner and TD did not want to oblige at that point in time.

[HugoTafurst]

There are a few tournaments that I have worked that clearly state that protests are decided by the TD. That being said, they usually consult with the UIC, however if the UIC is not available, its the TDs decision.
Personally, once its out of my hands,(protest has been placed), I really don't care what the decision..... It's a chain of command thing.

Also, short of being physically attacked, I can't imagine ever walking off a field.
Maybe I wouldn't accept anymore assignments from those guys, but I wouldn't even think of walking off.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Personally, once its out of my hands,(protest has been placed), I really don't care what the decision..... It's a chain of command thing.

Also, short of being physically attacked, I can't imagine ever walking off a field.
Maybe I wouldn't accept anymore assignments from those guys, but I wouldn't even think of walking off.

Ditto.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

There are a few tournaments that I have worked that clearly state that protests are decided by the TD. That being said, they usually consult with the UIC, however if the UIC is not available, its the TDs decision.
Personally, once its out of my hands,(protest has been placed), I really don't care what the decision..... It's a chain of command thing.

Also, short of being physically attacked, I can't imagine ever walking off a field.
Maybe I wouldn't accept anymore assignments from those guys, but I wouldn't even think of walking off.

there was no protest. ive never worked a tournament where the TD made a decision on an appeal.

just going to an extreme, would you want to be part of a game where the decision was so egregious that its insulting to anyone affiliated with the game? what if the UIC decided he was going to eject not only the batter who was due up but also the 3 previous male batters, and not allow any subs to take their place, thus the team has to play with 6 fielders and 4 'auto outs'?

or to an even more unrealistic extreme, what if the UIC said anytime a minority was due up, they are ejected? thats certainly something i hope no one wants to be a part of. so technically there is a scenario in which you would leave the field, we just differ on where that line is. if players are held accountable for "making a travesty of the game" then so should umpires.

having some time to reflect, while i was definitely upset at the decision the UIC tried to render, which probably was the result of being misinformed of the situation, i was more upset at the process of coming to the decision.

just to recap, how can someone be punished for something they havent done yet, this isnt the minority report? how can one umpire be unwilling to talk to his partner first before involving other parties? how can a TD make a decision on an appeal? how can the UIC leave? how can my correct rules interpretation be completely ignored? how can the teams solution to the problem being ignored by the PU and TD? how can the UIC invoke a rule that doesnt exist and then forbid a substitution rule that does exist? how can this whole fiasco last ~30 minutes?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jr131981

just going to an extreme, would you want to be part of a game where the decision was so egregious that its insulting to anyone affiliated with the game? what if the UIC decided he was going to eject not only the batter who was due up but also the 3 previous male batters, and not allow any subs to take their place, thus the team has to play with 6 fielders and 4 'auto outs'?

I'm just an umpire. If some other idiot makes a stupid decision, it's not the end of the world.

In other words, "Lighten up, Francis."

[MD Longhorn]

jr - even in the ridiculous extremes (which you must admit were WAY beyond what actually happened to you), finish the game, go home, don't work for the guy again. Eventually he'll chase everyone off and have no one to work for him, or will piss off enough TD's or HS's that no one asks him to schedule their games for them. In your case, you should have never gotten anywhere near thinking of walking off - and your insistence that you were right to do so tells me you might get there again. Don't. That gets around - and regardless of circumstance, I'd be reluctant to schedule someone that left the field mid-game because they didn't like what was going on ... EVEN if they were right.

That said... you say there was no protest. Why were you talking to ANYONE not on the field then? You guys need to work on protocol. First - YOU should have never let a 2nd coach anywhere near the discussion. Second - after PU talked to coach, he should have either made a ruling and moved on (ON HIS OWN) or talked with you and the two of you make a ruling and move on. If a coach doesn't like it, he has the magic word to use and THEN you bring in external help - don't EVER EVER EVER do it on your own. If he doesn't use the magic word, play ball.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

jr - even in the ridiculous extremes (which you must admit were WAY beyond what actually happened to you), finish the game, go home, don't work for the guy again. Eventually he'll chase everyone off and have no one to work for him, or will piss off enough TD's or HS's that no one asks him to schedule their games for them. In your case, you should have never gotten anywhere near thinking of walking off - and your insistence that you were right to do so tells me you might get there again. Don't. That gets around - and regardless of circumstance, I'd be reluctant to schedule someone that left the field mid-game because they didn't like what was going on ... EVEN if they were right.

That said... you say there was no protest. Why were you talking to ANYONE not on the field then? You guys need to work on protocol. First - YOU should have never let a 2nd coach anywhere near the discussion. Second - after PU talked to coach, he should have either made a ruling and moved on (ON HIS OWN) or talked with you and the two of you make a ruling and move on. If a coach doesn't like it, he has the magic word to use and THEN you bring in external help - don't EVER EVER EVER do it on your own. If he doesn't use the magic word, play ball.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

jr - even in the ridiculous extremes (which you must admit were WAY beyond what actually happened to you), finish the game, go home, don't work for the guy again. Eventually he'll chase everyone off and have no one to work for him, or will piss off enough TD's or HS's that no one asks him to schedule their games for them. In your case, you should have never gotten anywhere near thinking of walking off - and your insistence that you were right to do so tells me you might get there again. Don't. That gets around - and regardless of circumstance, I'd be reluctant to schedule someone that left the field mid-game because they didn't like what was going on ... EVEN if they were right.

That said... you say there was no protest. Why were you talking to ANYONE not on the field then? You guys need to work on protocol. First - YOU should have never let a 2nd coach anywhere near the discussion. Second - after PU talked to coach, he should have either made a ruling and moved on (ON HIS OWN) or talked with you and the two of you make a ruling and move on. If a coach doesn't like it, he has the magic word to use and THEN you bring in external help - don't EVER EVER EVER do it on your own. If he doesn't use the magic word, play ball.

point taken from the 1st paragraph.

i admit i should have stopped the OC from approaching the PU. but the PU wanted to involve the TD right away instead of first discussing the situation with me.

one of the reasons why the assn wanted me, among other ASA umps, involved is bc their umps arent very good. my partner that day had already blown a few rule interpretation calls and quite frankly i dont think he knew how to remotely rule on this situation, which probably was his rationale for immediately involving the TD. hes good at making judgment calls, just not as good with rules as he could be.

but all in all, i appreciate the discussion. if i knew i was 100% correct in my threatened actions, i wouldnt have posted for others to critique. while i can see how one would read this and think i was insistent that i was right, heres what pretty much verbatim what i told the PU and TD after the TD pulled some ruling out of his *ss, the 4th male batter has not come to bat yet, correct? there is no rule saying a female cant sub for a male, correct? if the team subs a female in for the male thats due up, there wont be 4 male batters in a row, correct? so why are we punishing an action that hasnt occurred yet? even after agreeing with me on those questions, another ruling was going to be invoked. then after the UIC was conferred with an offered his ruling, the OC asked me if that was a rule, i replied there is no rule that calls for the ejection of the batter due up, and furthermore there is no rule saying once a player is ejected, the team has to play with 9 on defense and an 'auto out' on offense. once the PU said thats what the UIC wants, i told him, if thats whats going to occur, theres no need for me to be here and i will leave.

to me, its not a matter of me being right, its a matter of the integrity of the game being right.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by jr131981

point taken from the 1st paragraph.

i admit i should have stopped the OC from approaching the PU. but the PU wanted to involve the TD right away instead of first discussing the situation with me.

one of the reasons why the assn wanted me, among other ASA umps, involved is bc their umps arent very good. my partner that day had already blown a few rule interpretation calls and quite frankly i dont think he knew how to remotely rule on this situation, which probably was his rationale for immediately involving the TD. hes good at making judgment calls, just not as good with rules as he could be.

And I hate to say it, but you sometimes have to let your partner handle things in his own without you swooping in to help him, even if it means they're put in a tough spot with a coach for a game. It's the only way some of these guys are going to learn to fend for themselves out there. By swooping in to save him like that, you teach him that someone else will always come and make it all better.

You're also taking away every ounce of authority that he had left. You might as well announce, "this umpire is clueless, and he needs me, the veteran, to fix everything for him." Don't do that. Teams listen to and respect our calls because we make them believable. They need to trust that each umpire knows what s/he should call, even if s/he doesn't. They need that believability. Swooping in to help a rookie umpire without him asking you for your opinion takes all that away. Next time, put a sign on his back that says "Student Umpire" like we do with high school kids taking driver's ed.

I'm 34 years old, so I know people look at me as a "young umpire," despite the fact I've been calling games for 19 years. I had a partner try to pull that crap on me at a National a few years ago, specifically coming to talk to me about a call I'd just made in order to "make sure" I got it right. After the game, I made it clear that in no uncertain terms was he to never pull that s*** on me again. It comes off as "rescuing" a lesser umpire, and I wasn't going to effing having that.

Originally Posted by jr131981

but all in all, i appreciate the discussion. if i knew i was 100% correct in my threatened actions, i wouldnt have posted for others to critique. while i can see how one would read this and think i was insistent that i was right, heres what pretty much verbatim what i told the PU and TD after the TD pulled some ruling out of his *ss, the 4th male batter has not come to bat yet, correct? there is no rule saying a female cant sub for a male, correct? if the team subs a female in for the male thats due up, there wont be 4 male batters in a row, correct? so why are we punishing an action that hasnt occurred yet? even after agreeing with me on those questions, another ruling was going to be invoked. then after the UIC was conferred with an offered his ruling, the OC asked me if that was a rule, i replied there is no rule that calls for the ejection of the batter due up, and furthermore there is no rule saying once a player is ejected, the team has to play with 9 on defense and an 'auto out' on offense. once the PU said thats what the UIC wants, i told him, if thats whats going to occur, theres no need for me to be here and i will leave.

to me, its not a matter of me being right, its a matter of the integrity of the game being right.

I understand and appreciate you wanting to "get it right," especially for the teams' sake. That's always a good goal. Just make sure you do it the right way without throwing your partner under the bus.

[CecilOne]

Can we all agree that although I object to the term of the title, this might be what it was derived for?

I think all of us, including the OP, know that correct protocol is necessary and that there is no other way out of a situation where someone continues to object to the ruling.

I also agree to most of the post that brought out the applause.