Got to vent.

[Manny A]

Sounds like you only had one umpire, correct?

Obviously, the guy was a rules nazi, which you typically find in the lower level games where the umpires are relatively new to the program. They focus more on trying to find rule violations than they do on just calling the game, perhaps to impress people on their rules knowledge. Unfortunately, they make up a few to demonstrate their true lack of knowledge. I've worked with a couple of them in my local area. They are the ones who will call a half-dozen illegal pitches, twice as many obstruction calls, a couple of leaving base earlies, and maybe even a uniform violation. When I see them on my assignments, I know I'm in for a long game with a couple of pissed off coaches.

In HS games, I rarely see multiple coaches attend the plate conference. I see it more often at ASA tournaments, for whatever reason. What's the purpose of the second coach standing there listening in? Obviously there is no rule against it, but perhaps your umpire was told in a clinic that only the head coach should participate in the conference. Heck, he may have even brought that from his days of umpiring Little League; who knows. I just wonder why you felt compelled to be out there with your daughter.

For the IP calls, if this umpire was solo, then the missed foot violations are understandable. From his angle, would he have been able to tell the righty pitcher had her pivot foot behind the pitcher's plate? Could he have thought she was in contact with her toes on top?

Not that I'm trying to defend this guy...

[RKBUmp]

In HS games, I rarely see multiple coaches attend the plate conference. I see it more often at ASA tournaments, for whatever reason. What's the purpose of the second coach standing there listening in?

Yes, one umpire. Why wouldnt all coaches want to hear what the umpire had to say first hand? That way there is no translation issues passed down the line. Especially in this case when as I turned to walk away he tells the captains they need to pay close attention becase "we have a lot of stuff to go over" and then proceeds to have a 5 minute pregame.

As I said, it was also my daughters first game as a head coach and I am doing what I can to assist her in learning as quickly as possible. I am not going to be available to her much during the season and she is going to be dealing with trying to coach 19 kids all by herself.

[CecilOne]

Ref: Manny, 9:04 today

Maybe not relatively new, maybe JV for ability or history.

If RKB is trying to help his daughter coach, then why not be with her as much as possible; maybe help clarify a plate conference item. If she accepted the BOO call, then she apparently need his help with rules.

There are games when it is better for more than one coach to hear the ground rules, time limits, etc.

Did the ump only half hear the "head coach must attend" rule? Not an excuse, just another case of mislearning (is that a word?)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Ref: Manny, 9:04 today

Maybe not relatively new, maybe JV for ability or history.

If RKB is trying to help his daughter coach, then why not be with her as much as possible; maybe help clarify a plate conference item. If she accepted the BOO call, then she apparently need his help with rules.

There are games when it is better for more than one coach to hear the ground rules, time limits, etc.

Did the ump only half hear the "head coach must attend" rule? Not an excuse, just another case of mislearning (is that a word?)

I personally don't have a problem with multiple coaches at the pre-game, as long as they stand there and are quiet. When these "extras" start carrying on extensive conversations with everything that is put out during the ground rules, run limits, time limits, etc., is when I have a concern. After all, if they're the ones asking all the questions for clarification, then they should be the ones representing the team as head coach, and let the newbies stand quietly and learn.

[Rich]

I'm reading this thread as someone who's about to be a coach for the first time.

It's a team playing in 8U and 10U tournaments this summer (my daughter is one of the players). I can only imagine the (semi?) warm bodies we'll get as umpires.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm reading this thread as someone who's about to be a coach for the first time.

It's a team playing in 8U and 10U tournaments this summer (my daughter is one of the players). I can only imagine the (semi?) warm bodies we'll get as umpires.

It was bad enough just making the bad calls and really not knowing the rules. What really about put me over the top was when he told me I didnt want to get into a rules discussion with him because he knew all the rules. I just had to walk away, nothing I was going to respond with was going to come out well. And it wasnt like he had a partner he could go verify anything with, so it would have been like arguing with a wall.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

It was bad enough just making the bad calls and really not knowing the rules. What really about put me over the top was when he told me I didnt want to get into a rules discussion with him because he knew all the rules. I just had to walk away, nothing I was going to respond with was going to come out well. And it wasnt like he had a partner he could go verify anything with, so it would have been like arguing with a wall.

Smart move on your part

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I personally don't have a problem with multiple coaches at the pre-game, as long as they stand there and are quiet. When these "extras" start carrying on extensive conversations with everything that is put out during the ground rules, run limits, time limits, etc., is when I have a concern. After all, if they're the ones asking all the questions for clarification, then they should be the ones representing the team as head coach, and let the newbies stand quietly and learn.

So I looked up the rule: (from the definition of conference)
ART. 2 . . . Pregame Conference. A pregame conference is a meeting involving
the umpires and head coaches near home plate. (4-1-2). Team captains may
also attend.

So the clown may have something of a point. The rule says that the head coach and team captains may attend. Team captains aren't defined by rule so I will continue to assume that everyone attending the meeting is either a team captain or a head coach unless I receive local direction to the contrary.
I guess you could use that rule definition to go the way you're saying Manny, but from my perspective I think it's taking the hard way out of the problem. If the problem is you're getting too many interruptions from coaches, just seems you should take more control of the conference. Coach, we're not going to have a rules clinic today. It seems to me that would give you less trouble than announcing that so and so is not entitled to attend the meeting and has to leave.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

So I looked up the rule: (from the definition of conference)
ART. 2 . . . Pregame Conference. A pregame conference is a meeting involving
the umpires and head coaches near home plate. (4-1-2). Team captains may
also attend.

So the clown may have something of a point. The rule says that the head coach and team captains may attend. Team captains aren't defined by rule so I will continue to assume that everyone attending the meeting is either a team captain or a head coach unless I receive local direction to the contrary.
I guess you could use that rule definition to go the way you're saying Manny, but from my perspective I think it's taking the hard way out of the problem. If the problem is you're getting too many interruptions from coaches, just seems you should take more control of the conference. Coach, we're not going to have a rules clinic today. It seems to me that would give you less trouble than announcing that so and so is not entitled to attend the meeting and has to leave.

But, the rule does not say who may not attend. The implication I have always taken from this rule is that the head coach is required to attend (due to 4-1-2d).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But, the rule does not say who may not attend. The implication I have always taken from this rule is that the head coach is required to attend (due to 4-1-2d).

Yes, but if they intended anyone to be allowed to join in, they wouldn't have specifically mentioned one other (captain) who may attend.

HC MUST attend, Captain may attend.

[RKBUmp]

So, under 3-1-2 "One or more players may be designated captain", a team can designate every girl as team captains and send them all out for the pregame meeting, but an assistant coach is specifically banned?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes, but if they intended anyone to be allowed to join in, they wouldn't have specifically mentioned one other (captain) who may attend.

HC MUST attend, Captain may attend.

If I remember correctly, this was either a change or made a priority a few years ago meant for the purpose of requiring the head coach to attend.

I couldn't care less who is at the plate, I'm the only one talking until I ask a question or for any questions.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

But, the rule does not say who may not attend. The implication I have always taken from this rule is that the head coach is required to attend (due to 4-1-2d).

It does sort of imply it by authorizing the captain(S). If anyone could attend, then what would be the point of saying the captains may attend.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

It does sort of imply it by authorizing the captain(S). If anyone could attend, then what would be the point of saying the captains may attend.

I always took it to mean that a rep of the players may also attend (i.e., the captain).

I think we need to be careful about assuming something is illegal merely because it is not specifically stated that it is legal.

[MD Longhorn]

I generally don't care who comes to the conference as long as only one is talking. However, I HAVE worked in areas where due to some sort of prior problem they enforced this strictly - HC and captain only. Perhaps either the area this game was in was one of those areas, or the umpire had just come from one.

Then again, given the amount of idiotry he displayed during the rest of the game, I suspect he has no real idea that he was technically right here - but was instead just being "that guy".