Ignorant 25-year-tenured HS coach.

[VolUmp]

Fed /district Champ Game

Pitch comes in.  R1 breaks for 2B.

Catcher cocks his arm, hits the PU's mask, and airmails the ball into RC.

R1 ends up on 3rd.  PU stops the play once R1is safe at 2B, calls Ump INT, but no one can hear amidst all the chaos.

Coach goes off — specifically saying, "YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW ME THAT IN THE RULE BOOK ... NEVER HEARD OF IT!!!!!!"

Coach WILL NOT leave the field.  Is this grounds enough for restriction?  Of course!

No Official is obligated to show the coach ANYTHING in the Rules Book.  In fact, we are not allowed to bring one on the field.

The coach can abide by the order to return to the 3B box, or he may be restricted.

One inning later, he tells the Plate Ump his AC looked it up, and sure enough, he made the right call.

As badly as this coach behaved in this situation and as badly as he felt, why does this rule exist?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a FED only rule?

[Replacematt]

16 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Fed /district Champ Game

Pitch comes in.  R1 breaks for 2B.

Catcher cocks his arm, hits the PU's mask, and airmails the ball into RC.

R1 ends up on 3rd.  PU stops the play once R1is safe at 2B, calls Ump INT, but no one can hear amidst all the chaos.

Coach goes off — specifically saying, "YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW ME THAT IN THE RULE BOOK ... NEVER HEARD OF IT!!!!!!"

Coach WILL NOT leave the field.  Is this grounds enough for restriction?  Of course!

No Official is obligated to show the coach ANYTHING in the Rules Book.  In fact, we are not allowed to bring one on the field.

The coach can abide by the order to return to the 3B box, or he may be restricted.

One inning later, he tells the Plate Ump his AC looked it up, and sure enough, he make the right call.

 

As bad as this coach behaved in this situation and as bad as he felt, why does this rule exits?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a FED only rule?

UI is in every code.

If you're talking about the restriction, then yes, it's only FED.

[VolUmp]

Umpire INT for the base umpire working inside the diamond and hit by a batted ball that is not deflected by the pitcher is in every code.

Is it the same with the PU who is hit in the mask by the cocked arm of the catcher preparing to gun down a runner?

[Replacematt]

4 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Umpire INT for the base umpire working inside the diamond and hit by a batted ball that is no deflected by the pitcher is in every code.

Is it the same with the PU who is hit in the mask by the cocked arm of the catcher preparing to gun down a runner?

Yes.

[VolUmp]

2 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yes.

Thank you ... I'll seek the NCAA and OBR rule cites later.  I only have the FED cite memorized.

[udbrky]

This was a POE for FED this year, wasn't it?

[scrounge]

4 hours ago, udbrky said:

This was a POE for FED this year, wasn't it?

Not quite a POE, but they changed to wording to make the rule book in alignment with the long-standing case book play.

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, VolUmp said:

As bad as this coach behaved in this situation and as bad as he felt, why does this rule exits?

 

Because the very nature of the responsibilities if F2 and PU require that they be in close proximity to each other and, thus, there's a good chance that PU hinders F2.  The rules makers thought that the offense shouldn't be able to take advantage of this and that the best solution was a "do over."

[White47]

 

 

[Aging_Arbiter]

However, if F2 records the out at 2B, the UI is ignored...........................and I'm buying him a hotdog after the game.

[maineump]

8 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Umpire INT for the base umpire working inside the diamond and hit by a batted ball that is no deflected by the pitcher is in every code.

Is it the same with the PU who is hit in the mask by the cocked arm of the catcher preparing to gun down a runner?

It seems to me, that I have seen Ump INT by the PU much more frequently than I see the BU INT called. The catcher and PU are so close it is bound to happen.

[johnnyg08]

That was nice of him to tell PU that he got it right.  That rarely happens.

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

That was nice of him to tell PU that he got it right.  That rarely happens.

Agreed. 

However, way too often, the attitude is "that was unusual, I don't know the rule, but it went against my team so it must be wrong.  I should argue."  The attitude should be "that was unusual, I don't know the rule, I'll look it up.  If the umpire was wrong, I'll respectfully inform him, and then we'll all know better the next time."  Of course, in the latter case, the game would be called because of too many pigs flying over the field.

[Aging_Arbiter]

6 hours ago, maineump said:

It seems to me, that I have seen Ump INT by the PU much more frequently than I see the BU INT called. The catcher and PU are so close it is bound to happen.

Once.

From what I've seen and heard, you generally don't like calling that on your self more than once.  You are ready and watching for it the next time so you DON'T get in the way.

[Stk004]

18 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Umpire INT for the base umpire working inside the diamond and hit by a batted ball that is no deflected by the pitcher is in every code.

Is it the same with the PU who is hit in the mask by the cocked arm of the catcher preparing to gun down a runner?

Wow. Just. WOW. 

[JSam21]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:02 AM, VolUmp said:

Thank you ... I'll seek the NCAA and OBR rule cites later.  I only have the FED cite memorized.

OBR 6.01(f) Comment

[HokieUmp]

On 5/15/2017 at 2:33 AM, VolUmp said:

Coach goes off — specifically saying, "YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW ME THAT IN THE RULE BOOK ... NEVER HEARD OF IT!!!!!!"

Coach WILL NOT leave the field.  Is this grounds enough for restriction?  Of course!

No Official is obligated to show the coach ANYTHING in the Rules Book.  In fact, we are not allowed to bring one on the field.

The coach can abide by the order to return to the 3B box, or he may be restricted.

So, the rule in question has been covered.  But MY query is:  "grounds for restriction"??  He demands to be shown a rule in the book AND refuses to leave?  That's only good for a restriction??  .... And I'm surmising, from the all-caps, that he made his declaration for most, if not all, to hear.  Seems like a restriction is the least of his concerns.

Why in the absolute %@#$^#& wasn't this guy run?

I get it - playoffs.  But that doesn't buy them extra warnings or the right to rant more before earning a dismissal.

[ElkOil]

On 5/15/2017 at 1:33 AM, VolUmp said:

Coach goes off — specifically saying, "YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW ME THAT IN THE RULE BOOK ... NEVER HEARD OF IT!!!!!!"

Coach WILL NOT leave the field.  Is this grounds enough for restriction?  Of course!

[VolUmp]

2 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

Why in the absolute %@#$^#& wasn't this guy run?

I get it - playoffs.  But that doesn't buy them extra warnings or the right to rant more before earning a dismissal.

Playoffs.  Placed 2nd in District.  Well respected coach.  Retiring this year.

He deserved to be restricted ... with which he would have not cooperated ... then he would have been ejected 20 seconds later.

[catsbackr]

If he wouldn't leave, sounds like maybe he wanted to "GO".

[BrianC14]

29 minutes ago, catsbackr said:

If he wouldn't leave, sounds like maybe he wanted to "GO".

Yep.  Give 'em what they want. 

Personally, I couldn't give a rip what the game circumstances are, or how "well respected" someone allegedly is, or if they retired last night.    You refuse to leave?    Buh-bye.  

Apparently this coach who is so "well respected" doesn't know about the two way street that respect is. And if it's a playoff game,  you'd think he'd be on his best behavior. 

I agree with  @catsbackr, he must have wanted to go.

Maybe in retirement he will have time to look at the rule book.....

[VolUmp]

1 hour ago, catsbackr said:

If he wouldn't leave, sounds like maybe he wanted to "GO".

Could be.  I've known him for a long time, and he's never made a fool of himself before. Maybe he's trying to help justify his retirement. 

[HokieUmp]

On 5/19/2017 at 0:08 PM, VolUmp said:

Could be.  I've known him for a long time, and he's never made a fool of himself before. Maybe he's trying to help justify his retirement. 

Sounds like he wanted to go big AND go home.  (I remember *my* "Conjunction Junction," thank you very much!)

 

I would have loved to see it play like this:

Coach:  "I've NEVER heard of that!"

Umpire:  And since you're retiring, now you never will. [ejects]

And scene.

[VolUmp]

On 5/21/2017 at 5:35 PM, HokieUmp said:

I would have loved to see it play like this:

Coach:  "I've NEVER heard of that!"

Umpire:  "And since you're retiring, now you never will. [ejects]

End scene.

Applause … Extended Applause …

Request for curtain call. Nothing. 

2nd Request for curtain call. Nothing. 

14-year-old JV player comes running out of the clubhouse. "He's GONE!!! Coach Ernie is GONE!!!"

(Meanwhile Coach Ernie is beginning his nighttime flight to exit the country, and the nuns at the local convent pull the spark plug wires from under the hoods of the police cars giving chase.)

[umpstu]

On 5/15/2017 at 6:05 AM, White47 said:

 

 

Wild how the announcers say they've never seen this before.