Wow; and He was a Coach?

[Adam]

I don't work any games on a diamond, but I can't imagine allowing a coach to address the opponents like he does here. Doesn't that warrant intervention even if it was the only thing he had done wrong?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't work any games on a diamond, but I can't imagine allowing a coach to address the opponents like he does here. Doesn't that warrant intervention even if it was the only thing he had done wrong?

That was my thought. I would have made it very clear the moment he started talking to the other team about "she can't do that, it's unsportsmanlike" that he would NOT be addressing the other team's coach during the game... ever.

And like Mike, I would have insisted he be in the dugout after establishing himself as a coach, however temporary.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That was my thought. I would have made it very clear the moment he started talking to the other team about "she can't do that, it's unsportsmanlike" that he would NOT be addressing the other team's coach during the game... ever.

And like Mike, I would have insisted he be in the dugout after establishing himself as a coach, however temporary.

Context: fall rec, 18U. This is about as far from Championship Play as it gets, I suppose.

In this context, on addressing the other team, chances are they saw him as the same doofus I would have, and chances are they would ignore him. IOW, if they ignore him, so would I. If there was any response from the other team, then I would intervene. No need to make silliness into something.

Same with keeping him in the dugout after he leaves. He apparently was a dad filling in until the regular coach arrives (or until the head coach becomes too embarrassed and replaces him at 1B with a player). Either way, there is nothing to be gained by a literal enforcement of the rule. The rule is there to prevent coaches from doing their coaching from behind the backstop, I suppose, not to force a team to own an idiot for the entire game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Same with keeping him in the dugout after he leaves. He apparently was a dad filling in until the regular coach arrives (or until the head coach becomes too embarrassed and replaces him at 1B with a player). Either way, there is nothing to be gained by a literal enforcement of the rule. The rule is there to prevent coaches from doing their coaching from behind the backstop, I suppose, not to force a team to own an idiot for the entire game.

Love this.