Injury "Timeout"

[chapmaja]

Here is the situation.

Team A is at bat. B4 hits a single, routine play, nothing special. At the end of the playing action I see the B4, now standing at first, requesting time. I grant time and she immediately goes down to the ground. Turns out she has a calf cramp. I give her time to stretch out the cramped leg and be able to return. During the quick break (no more than 2 minutes), the DC comes out complaining she is wasting time and they have 3 subs, she has to use them .

What is the proper rule on this. My response was that it was my judgement on the amount of time needed. Was this correct?

The DC was a pain all game, questioning almost every call during the game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

During the quick break (no more than 2 minutes), the DC comes out complaining she is wasting time and they have 3 subs, she has to use them .

Sir - I hear what you're saying, but that's my call, not yours. Please go sit down.

PS - if he's "been a pain all game", warn and eject. You promote what you permit. Nip it in the bud... nothing good ever comes from letting these guys wear you out.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sir - I hear what you're saying, but that's my call, not yours. Please go sit down.

PS - if he's "been a pain all game", warn and eject. You promote what you permit. Nip it in the bud... nothing good ever comes from letting these guys wear you out.

Are you having a tough day?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is the situation.

Team A is at bat. B4 hits a single, routine play, nothing special. At the end of the playing action I see the B4, now standing at first, requesting time. I grant time and she immediately goes down to the ground. Turns out she has a calf cramp. I give her time to stretch out the cramped leg and be able to return. During the quick break (no more than 2 minutes), the DC comes out complaining she is wasting time and they have 3 subs, she has to use them .

What is the proper rule on this. My response was that it was my judgement on the amount of time needed. Was this correct?

The DC was a pain all game, questioning almost every call during the game.

Was this a time limit game?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sir - I hear what you're saying, but that's my call, not yours. Please go sit down.

PS - if he's "been a pain all game", warn and eject. You promote what you permit. Nip it in the bud... nothing good ever comes from letting these guys wear you out.

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.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

She never acted in an unsportsmanlike manner, but came out to question almost every close call or situation she did not like.

I suggest you re-evaluate the two clauses in this sentence.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

[Dakota]

You didn't answer my earlier question... was there a time limit on this game?

[twotakedown]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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 ?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by twotakedown

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.