How to address an incorrect umpire

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, anyone who charges for a protest should be castrated....

Well, that's a bit harsh!

Especially since it is better than the predominate position around here... formal protests are simply not allowed.

[Multiple Sports]

Boomer.....who cares if he felt disrespected.....

1 - The crew kicked the rule.

2 - Then he went into dugout after game ( I realize he to go that way ) and told the coach what he thought of coaches behavior....

I'm tired of that PC crap....umpires got IT WRONG and then he compounds with his big mouth !!!!!

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Boomer.....who cares if he felt disrespected.....

1 - The crew kicked the rule.

2 - Then he went into dugout after game ( I realize he to go that way ) and told the coach what he thought of coaches behavior....

I'm tired of that PC crap....umpires got IT WRONG and then he compounds with his big mouth !!!!!

MS, I feel you missed my point. I was not disputing that the crew kicked the call and I'm just as appalled by the fact that he sought out the coach to get another shot in after the game. Going to the dugout, or anywhere else for that matter, for that purpose is unprofessional and totally uncalled for. There is no excuse for any of that.

The general purpose of my comments was to give some constructive feedback on how to handle this situation maybe a wee bit better. Furthermore, my comments actually apply to just about any potentially confrontational conversation that might happen across a wide variety of circumstances. They are merely helpful nuggets to try to avoid escalating the conflict, which almost always prohibits a positive resolution. You can do these things without being PC or compromising your side of the argument.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, that's a bit harsh!

Especially since it is better than the predominate position around here... formal protests are simply not allowed.

[Rant]

I don't give a shit what is predominant anywhere, it is just outright wrong and a display of laziness and/or cowardice on behalf of any tournament committee or umpire staff.

Why should it cost anyone anything to question what is believed to be the misapplication of a rule? They are already paying to be there and the umpire is being paid to get it right. It is part of the game and whether we like to admit it or not, umpires make mistakes and kick rules more often than some think. The participants should have an available remedy when such an instance arises. The umpire is not above the game, yet that is the impression when a protest is rebuffed by those of authority.

Installing roadblocks for the purpose of discouraging the proper procedures of the game is, IMO, unethical.

[/Rant]

[Altor]

Irishmafia, for the most part, I agree with your frustration. However, what do you do when the protests are not made in good faith?

It's a different sport, but I believe this example fits the same dilemma. The NCAA had an issue in track a field for a few years where coaches were protesting the finish results for practically every race, even if it wasn't close. Coaches would have the protest forms filled out before the race and hand them in before the results were official. Sometimes multiple coaches would appeal the same race. There was no penalty for filing an appeal that was denied, so they appealed everything they could.

So, the NCAA started requiring a $100 protest fee. The fee is returned when the protest is upheld. Amazingly, the frivolous protests stopped.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I am personally more aggravated by a "no protests allowed" policy than a nuisance fee to discourage frivolous protests. Our state high school association has that "no protests" policy, and I hear about absurd rulings in softball all the time.

I get that there just isn't a good administrative process to handle replaying games, but there really should be some remedy for the teams when officials in any sport grossly misapply rules. Even a partial remedy.

I would much prefer a formal process where 1) the team head coach posts a protest fee (or commits the school to that surcharge), 2) the game officials (like the NCAA process) immediately get a rulebook and look it up, 3) the parties in dispute must each find and cite a specific rule that supports their position, and the vast majority of any disputes would end at that point!! Truly very few NCAA protests get past this point.

Making the team have some skin in the result (protest fee) reduces the frivolous protests; forcing a rulebook review on the spot corrects the majority of myth issues (hands are part of the bat, leaving early on a fly ball is a force out, runners must slide, etc.), as well as corrects most when the officials pull one out of their butt.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Altor

Irishmafia, for the most part, I agree with your frustration. However, what do you do when the protests are not made in good faith?

It's a different sport, but I believe this example fits the same dilemma. The NCAA had an issue in track a field for a few years where coaches were protesting the finish results for practically every race, even if it wasn't close. Coaches would have the protest forms filled out before the race and hand them in before the results were official. Sometimes multiple coaches would appeal the same race. There was no penalty for filing an appeal that was denied, so they appealed everything they could.

So, the NCAA started requiring a $100 protest fee. The fee is returned when the protest is upheld. Amazingly, the frivolous protests stopped.

As a track official I can say I've seen that same issue. At one meet we had 10 instances in which the jury of appeals was brought together to rule on appeals, for a HS conference meet. One coach alone was more than half the appeals. Of the 10, one was a mistake by an official and was upheld. One was a mistale by the coach and was appealed by an oppoent. 8 were tossed out within a minute. Each one delayed the meet though. The next year a protest fee was instituted. Since that happed there have been 3 protests, in 15 years and all were upheld.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

[Rant]

I don't give a shit what is predominant anywhere, it is just outright wrong and a display of laziness and/or cowardice on behalf of any tournament committee or umpire staff.

Why should it cost anyone anything to question what is believed to be the misapplication of a rule? They are already paying to be there and the umpire is being paid to get it right. It is part of the game and whether we like to admit it or not, umpires make mistakes and kick rules more often than some think. The participants should have an available remedy when such an instance arises. The umpire is not above the game, yet that is the impression when a protest is rebuffed by those of authority.

Installing roadblocks for the purpose of discouraging the proper procedures of the game is, IMO, unethical.

[/Rant]

I would've thought you be even more upset that no protests are allowed. Where payments are required, they are typically returned if the protest is upheld. Ideally, everyone would operate in good faith, but they don't.

Personally, I find the position of not wanting to bother with protests at all to be "just outright wrong and a display of laziness and/or cowardice on behalf of any tournament committee or umpire staff", whereas the deposit is to prevent frivolous or uninformed protests.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Altor

Irishmafia, for the most part, I agree with your frustration. However, what do you do when the protests are not made in good faith?

And just where do they think it is going to go? Do you think a UIC is going to waste time with people who want to act the ass on every little thing? It's just like umpiring a game. How long do you wait to put the clamps down on the coach who wants to bitch and moan about every little thing that happens on the field?

Originally Posted by Dakota

I would've thought you be even more upset that no protests are allowed. Where payments are required, they are typically returned if the protest is upheld. Ideally, everyone would operate in good faith, but they don't.

Personally, I find the position of not wanting to bother with protests at all to be "just outright wrong and a display of laziness and/or cowardice on behalf of any tournament committee or umpire staff", whereas the deposit is to prevent frivolous or uninformed protests.

Demanding a fee for a protest can be just as effective as denying protests altogether. Many team coaches do not walk around with wads of money stuffed in their pocket for a protests.

And I know you have heard me rail against "no protest" tournaments, but the people who complained most likely knew what they were getting into when they paid the entry fee.

Just because someone wants to protest doesn't mean there is anything, but a hesitation to record it in many cases. In some, all it takes is a few minutes to get the UIC to make a judgment and move on with the game.

But that is where the problem starts. Most tournaments are fund-raisers for one group or another and they don't like spending money they don't think is absolutely necessary and in a lot of cases, that is why many tournaments do not have a UIC.

[MD Longhorn]

Tournaments, who have an onsite UIC and TD, should not be charging for protests.

Leagues, who often do not, and who often have coaches who have no clue and would protest anything and everything (including... "I thought she beat the throw and the umpire wouldn't ask his partner" ... yes, I've had to rule on that protest), should charge just enough that only a truly serious protest will get placed (and yes, any league with this policy should refund the protest fee where the protestor is correct).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

yes, I've had to rule on that protest), should charge just enough that only a truly serious protest will get placed (and yes, any league with this policy should refund the protest fee where the protestor is correct).

Part of the problem right there. Just because someone wants to protest something doesn't mean it has to be accepted. There is NOTHING to rule on, it is an invalid protest. You toss it out and move on. What does that cost you, 5 seconds?

Now, if we can just get judges to have the courage to do the same with the half the garbage that enters a courtroom, this country would be better off.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Part of the problem right there. Just because someone wants to protest something doesn't mean it has to be accepted. There is NOTHING to rule on, it is an invalid protest. You toss it out and move on. What does that cost you, 5 seconds?

Me? Yes - 5 seconds. Them? They stopped the game, had to find someone with my number, call me, get the answer, and resume...

And while this was easy, some were more rules related but still stupid. (Hands part of the bat anyone?) With no fee, there's no reason not to protest ANYTHING they might have dreamed up as being the rule.

Even a small fee stops the ones that the coaches aren't SURE over.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Part of the problem right there. Just because someone wants to protest something doesn't mean it has to be accepted. There is NOTHING to rule on, it is an invalid protest. You toss it out and move on.

What if the umpire thinks it's a judgement call but it's really a rule misinterpretation?

Accept the protest and let the protest handling process do its job. That's why there is a process.

The notion that the umpire can refuse a protest is akin to letting a defendant determine if he's guilty or not.

The protest process is the place to determine the validity. It's their job.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Demanding a fee for a protest can be just as effective as denying protests altogether. Many team coaches do not walk around with wads of money stuffed in their pocket for a protests...

Don't misunderstand me... I am not defending the fee; only saying two things:
1. I understand why the fee system exists, and
2. Allowing no protests at all is worse.

A not unusual situation around here is no protests allowed even though there is always a UIC on site. I suppose it is a "keep things moving" rationale, but some clearly wrong rulings happen because of it. This seems to have pretty much displaced (at least in many tournaments) the previous common practice of allowing protests to the UIC and/or TD settled on the field.

Apart from summer tournaments, though, our high school league also does not honor protests against the rulings of the officials in high school athletics.