How to address an incorrect umpire
 

I have stepped away from umpiring to coaching

Since I am a very active football official I read and know the rules as well as I hope my football coaches would.

Tonight I ran into the "hands are part of the bat" umpire.

From my coaching box I couldn't tell if it was bat knob or hands and when PU said foul ball I assumed it was knob. My batter acted like it was hands and so I came to check on her and umpire said, "the ball hit her fingers" I then came all the way to PU and stood side by side facing the infield and said, "you know that the hands are not a part of the bat, right?" He assured me the hands are an extension of the bat and I encouraged him to ask his partner, who then agreed with him that the hands are a part of the bat. I returned to my box during their very brief conference and let the game continue.

After the game PU has to leave through our dugout and I'm packing up gear and PU comes up to me and tells me how much he does not appreciate the way I disrespected him. At that time I apologized and encouraged him to look up the rule and I would do the same and next time we see each other we would know what needs to be done.

In this or a similar situation, how would you like the coach to approach you, or should he?

From what I read, you did nothing wrong. The umpire sounds like he was wrong on several levels.

First, not knowing the rule.

Second, coming over to a coach and stating that he doesn't like the way he was disrespected on the field. He was not disrespected by you. You did exactly what you should have done and respectfully informed him he was wrong. I would not like to see what this umpire is like when he actually gets disrespected by a coach. The bigger issue is he approached a coach in the dugout area. Personally I hate having to leave through a dugout. I try scouting the field prior to the game to find the "escape route" in case the game has close calls the teams don't agree with. If I can't find a way out to avoid the dugout, I try getting through as quick as possible and certainly don't approach the coaches in the dugout. If they approach me I try to be respectful, but I don't seek out the coaches on my way out.

You should have just protested the game.

And you could have responded, "I don't appreciate the umpires who disrespect the game by not taking the time to learn the rules".

Protest. Right away.

And if you can find out who the assignor is, call them. This is not even umpiring 101... it's umpiring kindergarten.

Reffing Rev,

Here is my take on this situation...I have been a hs assignor for SB/BB for the past 17 years and officiate a differenent sport at the D1 level. While I don't have all the answers, here is my take.

First the crew got the rule wrong. Not happy about that, yes it is protestable but it is a chance to get those guys in the rule book. What bothers me more is that you were approached in your dugout as they were leaving after the game. Your dugout is your sanctuary. Those guys have no business telling you how they should be approached!!!! Game over move on.....their assigner needs to know more about that than the blown call. Our business is all about people skills, these guys failed.....

Id be in no rush to use these guys the rest of the summer...I can defend judgement, when a rule is kicked I can tell a coach that he is right, but how can I defend that behavior.....Guys like that give officiating at the lower levels a bad name.......

Concerning your original question..."how to approach an incorrect umpire?", I feel like you handled yourself almost perfectly based on what you've shared. I do have two suggestions, but generally speaking, I would say that what you've described is the model for how to handle questioning an umpire during the game.

My first suggestion is to avoid asking the "You do know..., right?" types of questions. Asking it this way puts the umpire in a defensive mindset. This rule applies to most situations, not just dealing with umpires. For those of us that are married, you can vouch for the fact that when your wife makes a mistake following it with "You do know (fill in the blank), right?" is not a good idea. As an alternative, once he said it hit her fingers, you could have asked back, "Does she get first base?" and let the conversation flow from there.

The second suggestion is rather simple, but maybe one of the most important: Always be mindful of your body language and tone. Earlier I said "based on what you've shared" because I realize we all tell stories based on our own perception of what happened and don't realize that others see things about us that we don't. I'm not saying you did do anything wrong in these areas (such as raising your voice or waving arms or anything like that), but maybe the umpire picked up on something that caused him to feel disrespected. Standing side-by-side is a great way non-confrontational way to position yourself, so kudos on that front.

From the sounds of it, this guy was convinced he was right and my suggestions wouldn't have changed anything, but I'm trying to give you something to use to try to improve on what I think was really well handled on your part in the first place.

Lastly, I agree with the other posters that lodging a protest is the only real tool you have if an umpire is wrong and refuses to acknowledge it. Depending on how protests get handled in your area, most umpires will do just about anything to resolve a protest on the spot. The alternative is to risk having to come back another day to replay the game from the point of the protest (especially since you don't usually get another game fee). I also agree that the umpire had no business coming to you after the game the way he did. If he honestly felt like you disrespected him during the game to the extent that he couldn't let go of it by the end of the game, he should have ejected you. I'm not saying it would have been justified, but if I feel like a coach has done something so egregious that I'll still be upset by it at the end of the game, I've reached the point of letting him/her know it is time to leave.

Around here if BOTH Umpires couldn't get it correct, you should have protested. (Which costs 50$). Then you would contact your League Commissioner after the game. The Commissioner would then contact the UIC (assigner). The UIC cannot possibly take calls directly from all the various leagues we handle at a Manager/Coach level.

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

As an umpire, when it got an attitude that they thought they "knew" the rule, I would actually suggest they file a protest.

I tell umpires to not fear a protest, it has a valid position in the officiating of a game. And if one does fear a protest, that may validate the reason a protest occurred since you are not confident of your rules knowledge.

But the one thing I do guarantee umpires is that if they do lose a protest and they are real umpires, they will never miss that ruling again.

Well, that's a bit harsh! :eek:

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

Disrespected ???
 

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 !!!!!

[Rant]:mad:

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

I think Irish's point is that the umpires on the field had no reason to call the UIC at all.

If I have the situation correct, the conversation should have gone something like this:

Coach: Blue, please ask you partner about that call, my runner was safe.
Umpire: No, it's my call and I made it.
Coach: You won't check with your partner?
Umpire: No.
Coach: I protest. Get the UIC.
Umpire: Coach, that is not protestable. Let's play ball!

Perhaps a bit more than 5 seconds....

I hope that you provided feedback to your umpires post game about what a protestable situation is....

Our HS training specifically says not to tell a coach that a play is not protestable. That's much more defensible since we just note the protest and play on. That said, if I were that coach (and I wouldn't be), I'd continue you're conversation thus:

Coach: You're saying the rule doesn't allow me to protest that.
Umpire: Yes.
Coach: Fine, I protest the ruling that I can't protest.

And frivolous though that protest would be in that case it is in fact a protestable ruling because it's not a judgment.

Consider that you're case could have been
Coach: Blue, please ask you partner about that call, an obstructed runner can't be put out between the obstructed bases.
Umpire: Sure she can
Coach: You won't check with your partner?
Umpire: No.
Coach: I protest. Get the UIC.
Umpire: Coach, that is not protestable. Let's play ball!

And in that case I would be the guy protesting the refusal to let me protest. And then I'd win them both.

What about this protest makes it an invalid protest? The protest would be based on the ignorance of the coach that files the protest, but the purpose of protesting is to ensure the rules are properly applied. If he is under the false belief that the rules require one umpire to check with another in any situation upon the request of a coach, then his protest is that the umpire failed to apply the erroneous rule properly. As we all know there is no such rule, thus the appeal would be denied, but that doesn't make it an invalid appeal.

Invalid appeals are those that don't concern the application of the rules. The biggest example of invalid appeals are those concerning judgement calls. Also falling in that realm are mistakes that are made but have remedies described in the rules (substitution errors, batting out of order) as long as the appropriate remedy is applied.

Sure would be nice to know of which post/appeal you are referring.

Fair point Irish...I was referring to the protest about refusing to check with a partner that MD Longhorn first mentioned. In the ensuing posts, I interpreted both your post and Andy's post as saying this would be an invalid protest.

My point is that if the protest was about the original judgement call, then you are 100% correct - invalid protest (can't protest a judgement call). If, however, the protesting coach believes there is a rule saying one umpire must check with another umpire upon request, then he is protesting a misapplication of the rules. If I'm flat out wrong in this interpretation of what can be protested, please let me know, but this is how I learned it and nobody's ever told me differently.

For the record, I'm in your camp that requiring a fee is dumb. There is a $100 protest fee (returned if the protest is upheld) in my son's league and I've never seen or heard of a coach actually filing a protest because of this fee. Even with rock solid cases, I think most coaches don't know how the protest committee is going to rule on something plus there is the conflict of interest in that the league keeps the $100 if the protest is denied. Not allowing protests at all is just as bad if not worse. My personal feeling is that leagues that have problems with excessive protests should track them by coach using some type of points, penalty and forgiveness system. Such a system might look like this:

Each protest filed (regardless of the outcome): +2 points
Each dropped protest (protesting team wins): -2 points
Each denied protest: +3 point
Each upheld protest: -4 points
Each game without a protest: -1 point
After a coach reaches 15 or 20 points, any additional protests would result in a 1 game suspension unless the protest is upheld (essentially after 3 to 4 denied protests or whatever number sounds appropriate). The 1 game suspension would not reduce the accrued points, so the coach would be in the same position after missing the 1 game. One thing to note about this system is that an upheld protest actually nets a coach -2 points, where as a denied protest results in a +5 for the coach. The reason I had a higher value in favor of the coach for an upheld protest is to place a higher level of responsibility on the umpires for knowing the rules, which we should.

The goal is to maintain the protest process without fear of monetary loss (which is a major deterrent for volunteer coaches) and yet put in place a process to prevent excessive protests. After a couple of denied protests the coach will get a clue and if not, he/she will have to coach every other game. One of the keys to this system is that the right to protest is never eliminated. Any coach could still protest even after the points limit has been reached, so the system doesn't abolish the right to protest. It just allows for reasonable consequences for abusing the right.

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.

Personally
 

I like the way our Rec League handles protests (we do only allow eligibility protests, not rule application protests, but that's not what I'm talking about.

For our Rec League, the "offended" coach shall notify the umpires prior to the last pitch of the game their intent to protest (again, eligibility only in our league). The umpire will note this on the official game report. The protesting team then has 48 hours (2 business days) to produce the protest fee and file an official protest ($25). If the protest gets upheld, fee is returned (game is a forfeit win for their team).

The same basic system could be used for rec league play on protests (won't work for tourney play).

In Rec League/Travel League play I would prefer the protests to include misapplication of the rules. The same procedure would be used including the 2 business days and the fee. The umpire would be notified at the time of the protest that the team intends to protest. He would then write all information down from the time of the protested play (batter, count, out, lineup, ect). Play would then continue then the coach would have the time to produce the fee and the official protest to the league office.

The league office then could decide on a ruling based on league rules and sponsoring organization rules. If the protest is upheld, they could rule the game replayed from the POI or not to replay it (if it was a 15 run mercy and the protesting team lost, they may choose not to replay).

This type system lessens the frivolous protests, but at the same time still allows for leagues to have a protesting system in place.

Obviously this would not work in tourney play. In tourney play, there has to be onsite protests and timely resolution so the event can continue.

Now with the fee. To be honest I have a problem with very high fees for protests. I think a fee of $25 is fair enough to prevent unwarranted protests, but still allow the real protests to continue.


As a track coach, I was involved in three protests during my career at the state meet ($100 each). We had to protest the disqualification of a relay team for an exchange outside the zone (rule was misapplied, we won that protest), for incorrectly assigning lanes to the semi-finalists in a sprint event (we lost that protest on a technicality-too late). We also had to protest a misapplication of the rules in the shot put, and a mistakenly set up event area (we got screwed on that protest). In all three cases were correct on the ruling. We got an apology letter from the state association on the two that we lost after contacting them when the protest was denied.

I will never have a problem with a coach protesting the misapplication of the rules because I've been on the opposite side, provided it was done in a proper manner.

We don't always agree, but this is EXACTLY what I teach at clinics.

I always pose a pure judgment scenario and then ask what happens if a coach/manager protests. Invariably, someone will say, "They can't protest that."

My response: Sure they can. They can protest anything, including the color of the sky. It's your job to note the protest and, if it's a tournament that requires immediate handling of the protest, to notify the person responsible for moving it along. What's not appropriate is deciding that the coach can't protest.

I also think protest fees are idiotic. Mainly because I've seen protest committees "get it wrong" too. Why should I be out $50 because some random people hearing a protest don't know the rules as well as I do?

I didn't say the umpire should refuse a protest. I encourage umpires to not fear a protest.

My reference is to the UIC or in some cases a protest committee, all who should know immediately whether it is a protestable situation or not and, if not, it is just refused. Like I said, 5 seconds. Okay, maybe 10 :)

For those of you who say that an umpire should not refuse a protest, please refer to this thread about an experience I had several years ago:

https://forum.officiating.com/softba...requested.html

Given this situation, would you have accepted her "protest" and called the UIC?

Please especially note Irishmafia's response in the referenced thread....

No, that's not a protest. That's a coach asking your partner to "get help." Completely different.

I read the thread -- I would not have even engaged the coach on a partner's call. I would've told the coach s/he had her conversation, now go back to the dugout.

"Coach, for me to accept a protest and call for a UIC ruling, you have to cite a rule that you believe has been misapplied. You certainly know that an umpire does not have to request help for a judgment call; so what rule are you asserting has been misapplied?"

At least make the coach think of something more than wanting "help".

As stated by RICH, that was not a protest.
If, however, the wording was altered to:
"After she talked to him she came to me and said she wanted to Protest
Absolutely I would accept that protest.
I would state: "If you are protesting that will be $75 cash (NSA proceedure) and I will stop the clock."
Depending on her answer, the next statement would either be:
"Fine, I'll stop the clock and get the UIC"
or
"Then discussion's over - lets play ball."

Of course, if the latter, the NEXT statement may very well be "You're gone."

Okay, stop. You are trying to mate an apple with an orange and it doesn't work, there is already a fruit named ugli.

No, Robbie, using the word does not make it so. Like it or not, there must be some level of intelligence and common sense. If there is the remote possibility of a rule being misapplied, THAT is what the coach needs to protest. Simply saying you want help from the UIC means absolutely nothing unless the UIC was the third umpire on the field and that SHOULD never be the case.