The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 01:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
The problem is that there has to be a reason to eject. Being a pain all day, while annoying, is not in and of itself a reason to eject a coach. She never acted in an unsportsmanlike manner, but came out to question almost every close call or situation she did not like.

If I spoke Spanish I may have had reason to eject, because I suspect I was sworn at in Spanish a few times. Since I don't speak it I cant be certain if it was swearing or not.
Assuming this was a Fed game, you might want to re-read Rule 3-6-15.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 01:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Well... first - coming out to question almost every close call is unsportsmanlike.

It's not our job to entertain this nonsense from a coach. If someone comes out to dispute something, it had better be, "Blue, I think she pulled her foot on that one - can you ask your partner".

Just coming out to remind you how much he disagrees with a particular call is not acceptable. We might entertain it once, let them go. 2nd time out there, "Coach, we aren't going to argue every single judgement call today." At most, on the 3rd, "Coach, that's enough". Then eject if he goes again.

You SERIOUSLY do not have to deal with this kind of nonsense. And if you do put up with it, that's really on you as the umpire.

I suspect he wasted more by continually coming out than the 2 minutes he was complaining about during the injury you discussed in the OP.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 09:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
Well... first - coming out to question almost every close call is unsportsmanlike.

It's not our job to entertain this nonsense from a coach. If someone comes out to dispute something, it had better be, "Blue, I think she pulled her foot on that one - can you ask your partner".

Just coming out to remind you how much he disagrees with a particular call is not acceptable. We might entertain it once, let them go. 2nd time out there, "Coach, we aren't going to argue every single judgement call today." At most, on the 3rd, "Coach, that's enough". Then eject if he goes again.

You SERIOUSLY do not have to deal with this kind of nonsense. And if you do put up with it, that's really on you as the umpire.

I suspect he wasted more by continually coming out than the 2 minutes he was complaining about during the injury you discussed in the OP.

Again, the wording of 3-6-15 is key. Questioning a call is not a prohibited act. Arguing the call is. There is a difference and we have been instructed to be mindful of this difference.

With all of that said, yes, she likely did waste more than 2 minutes questioning calls.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri May 08, 2015, 09:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
Assuming this was a Fed game, you might want to re-read Rule 3-6-15.
You may want to read the wording in 3-6-15. The word I used was question, not argue. There is a difference, and it is a fine line of difference, but it is a difference.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 09, 2015, 08:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
You may want to read the wording in 3-6-15. The word I used was question, not argue. There is a difference, and it is a fine line of difference, but it is a difference.
The word is not limited to vein-popping, red-faced, dirt kicking arguing. Continually disputing or questioning is arguing.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 09, 2015, 08:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
You didn't answer my earlier question... was there a time limit on this game?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 09, 2015, 11:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
The word is not limited to vein-popping, red-faced, dirt kicking arguing. Continually disputing or questioning is arguing.
Now you sound like my GF. Stop.

No time limit on the game. If there was, it may have impacted a decision on how much time to give, then again maybe not.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 10, 2015, 06:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
Now you sound like my GF. Stop.

No time limit on the game. If there was, it may have impacted a decision on how much time to give, then again maybe not.
If you don't want advice, don't post. Stop.

If it was not a time limit game, then the coach had no basis for questioning how long the injury timeout was. That was the reason for my question.
__________________
Tom

Last edited by Dakota; Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:50pm.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 11, 2015, 02:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 359
And if it was a time limit game the umpire should be able to suspend time for a lengthy injury time out.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 11, 2015, 03:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota View Post
If you don't want advice, don't post. Stop.I was JOKING.

If it was not a time limit game, then the coach had no basis for questioning how long the injury timeout was. That was the reason for my question.
I had no problem with you asking about a time limit, I think it is a fair question to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 09, 2015, 04:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
You may want to read the wording in 3-6-15. The word I used was question, not argue. There is a difference, and it is a fine line of difference, but it is a difference.
Could it be "unwarranted disputing of decision" as described in 10-2-3f ?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat May 09, 2015, 11:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by twotakedown View Post
Could it be "unwarranted disputing of decision" as described in 10-2-3f ?
Possibly, but in fairness to the coach, there were a lot of close plays in this game. I would say there were a lot of plays that from the coaches angle, the call would be different than the angle the umpires have on the play. We did have a lot of close tag plays in this game.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun May 10, 2015, 03:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
hrmmm.. hope I don't have to do anything in "fairness" to the coach.... no telling how I'd act.
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 11, 2015, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
You seem to be arguing in favor of taking more nonsense from coaches than anyone else would. I'm not sure I understand your motivation for that...

Also ... if you think there's nothing wrong with this guy's antics (note that EVERYONE here is telling you there is) --- why did you bring this question up in the first place.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 11, 2015, 02:14pm
Stirrer of the Pot
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lowcountry, SC
Posts: 2,380
This is purely a game management issue. If you feel a player is able to continue and just needs some time to get herself back to playing condition, allow it. If another coach complains, tell him/her you'd do the same for one of his/her players.

Although not totally applicable in this scenario, you can use the same philosophy that you find in rule 3-3-10 when dealing with blood. It says, in part, "If medical care or treatment can be administered in a reasonable amount of time, the individual does not have to leave the game. The length of time that is considered reasonable is umpire judgment."
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology Duffman Basketball 17 Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? fiasco Basketball 46 Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
OT: Calling the official a "hater" and "loser" bainsey Basketball 35 Wed Sep 14, 2011 03:53pm
"You Cost me a timeout" Loudwhistle Basketball 11 Thu Jan 06, 2011 09:28am
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight pizanno Basketball 27 Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1