The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Here's a first for me. (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/95121-heres-first-me.html)

TwoBits Fri May 24, 2013 08:24am

Here's a first for me.
 
Rec ball, 12-14 year-olds playing, NFHS rules. R1 on third, 1 out. Batter hits one hopper back to the pitcher, R1 runs home (it's rec ball), F2 has ball waiting for R1 in front of the plate. R1 raising both harms, plants them into F2's chest, and F2 goes flying backwards. I immediately signal out and eject R1. This obviously makes offensive coach unhappy who begins the typical rec ball coach question, "What is she supposed to do? The catcher was standing in the base line!" I reply she can slide, seek to avoid contact, run back to third, or not run at all.

While this conversation is occuring, the defensive coach comes out to give his opinion, a rather shocking one. He said he did not think it was malicious contact and that R1 was just protecting herself, and therefore should be allowed to continue play! :eek:

So, for better or for worse, I let her stay in the game.

Opinions or comments?

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 08:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoBits (Post 895351)
While this conversation is occuring, the defensive coach comes out to give his opinion

Where the F#$#^# was your partner?!?!?! This should never ever ever ever ever (enough ever's yet? No...) EVER happen.

Quote:

So, for better or for worse, I let her stay in the game.

Opinions or comments?
Yuck. No. You were there, you saw it, you made the call. Dipshiznit's opinion from 90 feet away is immaterial. You going to start changing other calls when the coaches disagree with you?

Rita C Fri May 24, 2013 02:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoBits (Post 895351)
Rec ball, 12-14 year-olds playing, NFHS rules. R1 on third, 1 out. Batter hits one hopper back to the pitcher, R1 runs home (it's rec ball), F2 has ball waiting for R1 in front of the plate. R1 raising both harms, plants them into F2's chest, and F2 goes flying backwards. I immediately signal out and eject R1. This obviously makes offensive coach unhappy who begins the typical rec ball coach question, "What is she supposed to do? The catcher was standing in the base line!" I reply she can slide, seek to avoid contact, run back to third, or not run at all.

While this conversation is occuring, the defensive coach comes out to give his opinion, a rather shocking one. He said he did not think it was malicious contact and that R1 was just protecting herself, and therefore should be allowed to continue play! :eek:

So, for better or for worse, I let her stay in the game.

Opinions or comments?

You should have upheld the ejection.

Rita

Manny A Fri May 24, 2013 02:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895355)
Where the F#$#^# was your partner?!?!?! This should never ever ever ever ever (enough ever's yet? No...) EVER happen.

Partner? In rec ball? ROTFLMFAO!!

MD Longhorn Fri May 24, 2013 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny A (Post 895411)
Partner? In rec ball? ROTFLMFAO!!

Adult slowpitch, I agree with you.

Youth ball? You can't call a 12-14 youth game solo with any degree of accuracy - might as well have no umpires. I believe I can only recall being asked to call 14U solo one time in my far too many years of this.

MNBlue Fri May 24, 2013 03:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn (Post 895414)
Adult slowpitch, I agree with you.

Youth ball? You can't call a 12-14 youth game solo with any degree of accuracy - might as well have no umpires. I believe I can only recall being asked to call 14U solo one time in my far too many years of this.

99% of the travel games in Minnesota, 10U - 18U, are one umpire.

Fact of life in Minnesota.

The leagues would rather put up with missed calls than pay for a second umpire.

AtlUmpSteve Fri May 24, 2013 03:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoBits (Post 895351)
Rec ball, 12-14 year-olds playing, NFHS rules. R1 on third, 1 out. Batter hits one hopper back to the pitcher, R1 runs home (it's rec ball), F2 has ball waiting for R1 in front of the plate. R1 raising both harms, plants them into F2's chest, and F2 goes flying backwards. I immediately signal out and eject R1. This obviously makes offensive coach unhappy who begins the typical rec ball coach question, "What is she supposed to do? The catcher was standing in the base line!" I reply she can slide, seek to avoid contact, run back to third, or not run at all.

While this conversation is occuring, the defensive coach comes out to give his opinion, a rather shocking one. He said he did not think it was malicious contact and that R1 was just protecting herself, and therefore should be allowed to continue play! :eek:

So, for better or for worse, I let her stay in the game.

Opinions or comments?

Two cents for two bits.

1) What others have said about a partner, agreed; if you had one, he/she needed to make sure you spoke with one at a time.

2) You made a decision based on your evaluation of what you saw. You are the only person with that authority, and the other coach's opinion is no more valuable than the child's father ranting outside the fence.

3) You signaled an ejection; that makes that player ineligible for the rest of the game. There is no process to uneject. If that opposing coach (you know the one that told you she should be allowed to play) was truly devious, he could have played the game out, and then, before you left the field, protested the game for violation of 3-6-20.

4) If you think you possibly overreacted, maybe you did. That means you slow down and make future decisions more thoughtfully. But you cannot change this one legally, any more so than deciding you are changing any other judgment call without considering new or additional information.

5) By UN-ejecting this player, what do think the chances are that she, her coach, or anyone else out there actually learned that what she did is illegal?

Now, all that said, these are the rulings by the book (all but #5, that is philosophy, not the book); and I assume that is what you wanted. If you made both teams happy in that rec game, that may be the best solution for that day. But you also may have made life tougher for the next time and for the next ump.

AtlUmpSteve Fri May 24, 2013 03:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNBlue (Post 895421)
99% of the travel games in Minnesota, 10U - 18U, are one umpire.

Fact of life in Minnesota.

The leagues would rather put up with missed calls than pay for a second umpire.

Marketing 101. Price in a way to incentivize what you want to happen. Now, maybe you don't have the manpower to two man, but I do, and price accordingly.

This isn't intended to start a war on appropriate pricing, but here is what I charge, to incentivize two man, and minimum of two games:

Two umpires, two (or more) games = $168 ($42/umpire/game, base rate)
Two umpires, one game = $126 (150% each for single)
One umpire, two games = $126 (150% each game for solo)
One umpire, one game = $84 (200% of base rate)

I am in a market with competing umpire associations on every side of my "territory", I am at the top of the competing scale, but have never lost a customer on pricing (15+ years running my own show).

Very few rec leagues have opted for one umpire with this pricing structure after 8U coach pitch (one league I service does one for 10U, none at 12 and older). I know of zero tournaments in Georgia by any association that use one umpire; I do get an occasional request for one for "practice/scrimmage" games by travel teams.

I also make sure anyone considering one umpire understands that they may be getting the less experienced umpire that should be learning and gaining more experience from the more senior partner that night .......

Robmoz Fri May 24, 2013 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 895422)
Two cents for two bits.

.....3) You signaled an ejection; that makes that player ineligible for the rest of the game. There is no process to uneject. If that opposing coach (you know the one that told you she should be allowed to play) was truly devious, he could have played the game out, and then, before you left the field, protested the game for violation of 3-6-20.

somewhat related question....HS game, I ejected a coach but did not consider just a restriction at that moment. Prior to resumption of play, my HP partner asks me if I was restricting or ejecting. I took a moment to consider his input and downgraded my call to a restriction. I appreciated the input and felt comfortable with changing my call. Q. Is such a change acceptable?

AtlUmpSteve Fri May 24, 2013 04:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robmoz (Post 895424)
somewhat related question....HS game, I ejected a coach but did not consider just a restriction at that moment. Prior to resumption of play, my HP partner asks me if I was restricting or ejecting. I took a moment to consider his input and downgraded my call to a restriction. I appreciated the input and felt comfortable with changing my call. Q. Is such a change acceptable?

That one is more a function of management than substance. You have effectively (either way) removed the coach from active participation, just as with a player; the only true difference is if you will allow his presence as long as he behaves, and possibly what paperwork may be required in your state.

The other thing is that unless you yelled out "You're ejected" while signaling, and/or advised a game manager that the coach needed to be escorted from the premises; and since your partner asked, we can assume it wasn't obvious to ALL which of the two you have done, this is now a matter of how you are recording/reporting it, not really undoing it.

chapmaja Fri May 24, 2013 10:59pm

My two cents
 
First, I completely agree with the one umpire on Rec League stuff. For that age group the travel ball I work usually only has one umpire as well. Actually for middle school age in the Rec League I work we go two umpires. It's strange, but it is what it is.

Second, as for reversing the ejection. I think that was a mistake. My first thought reading the description of the play was malicious contact and an ejection. She may not have done it intentionally, but the act was still the act. As it was explained on a discussion previously about a play at the plate (from the person in charge of HS ball in the state), if it is significant contact such as that where no attempt was made to avoid the contact, it is malicious contact, which by rule carries an ejection.

By allowing the coach of the opposing teams input, you have allowed your authority over the situation to be weakened. You, as the lone umpire on the game, have to take control and your call needs to stand as an out and an ejection.

The part that shocks me the most is the opposing coach not coming out and trying to protect his catcher and arguing for an ejection. Granted this is WRECK ball, and many coaches at that level don't know the rules better than the players.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1