Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Leonard

Dump the asst. and restrict HC?

Question

Guest Leonard

 

NFHS:  Batter grounds to F6, wild throw to first past F3.   Runner takes a step to 2nd as F2 gets ball throws to F3 for the out on BR.  Asst. at first screams at base ump

then gets dumped.  Is the HC supposed to be restricted at this point?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Under FED rules, if an assistant is ejected, the manager must be restricted to the dugout. 

Note: I heard that while lurking this board last year and not sure if that still applies, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
  • 0

This is a violation of 3-3-1f(6), which prohibits "any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire."

It's a good idea to know the 3 parts of 3-3-1 and the different penalties they incur. Violations of 3-3-1 subsections f–k require a written warning and restriction of both offender and head coach, with ejection on second offense. If the violation is "judged to be major," the umpire may eject on a first offense. Without knowing more about the situation, we can't really assess the umpire's judgment call here to eject on a first offense.

Subsection f(6) has its own special comment in the PENALTY: "For violation of f(6) both the head coach and offending coach shall receive a written warning and be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game unless the offense is so severe the umpire may eject the offender and restrict or eject the head coach."

So yes, the head coach must be restricted, if not ejected, in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, Guest Leonard said:

 

NFHS:  Batter grounds to F6, wild throw to first past F3.   Runner takes a step to 2nd as F2 gets ball throws to F3 for the out on BR.  Asst. at first screams at base ump

then gets dumped.  Is the HC supposed to be restricted at this point?

 

Describe the play better please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

Doesn't matter if he has "Magical Control" over his assistants. Just like the owner of a company, the HC is in fact responsible for the actions and behaviors of his employees and players. He is responsible for hiring the right assistants that should exhibit restraint and exhibit the proper behavior. Too many HC's don't hire assitants that promote the NFHS Mission Statement, as well as, the Coaches Code of Ethics.

I have no problem with the HC getting restricted or dumped for the actions of his employees. He hired them, he is responsible for their behavior. Both the Mission Statement and the Code of Ethics can be found in the appendix section of any NFHS rulebook. HC's are responsible for their players, coaches, and parents to be aware and understand the Mission Statement and the Code of Ethics. Sadly most HC's do not convey that information, nor do they uphold the standards of behavior as expected by the NFHS.

Just add it to the list of many reasons why there is a shortage of sports officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

This is an outsiders view looking in, as I see it.  In some cases the HC and maybe even the AC are teachers, and as such they are expected to act like professional educators, even on the ball field.  I disagree with your assertion that its FED wanting 'magical' control. An interesting aside, based on my experience,  I have zero, zilch, nada behavioral issues with teacher/coaches who are paid faculty members. Most problems come with off campus coaches who come from the 'elite' baseball world.  YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Doesn't matter if he has "Magical Control" over his assistants. Just like the owner of a company, the HC is in fact responsible for the actions and behaviors of his employees and players.

So why stop with the HC.  Dump the AD, the principal, and the Superintendent too. Maybe even the President of the school board.  

Sorry Charlie. Subordinates aren't remote controlled robots. Not  at work. Not at the ball park.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

Innocent?  Not all coaches live up to your standards. It should be the HC is responsible for his subordinates.  Doesn't mean as officials we HAVE to follow the prescribed penalty. 

PS: I have 0 tolerance for an AC who want to berate me after a call!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The issue isn't control. The issue is some few HC's running their AC's out to be asshats and get run, and themselves not having any consequences.

HC's might not "control" their assistants, but they are required by rule to take responsibility for their behavior. In a nation where the abuse of officials is an epidemic, that's a welcome step.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

So why stop with the HC.  Dump the AD, the principal, and the Superintendent too. Maybe even the President of the school board.  

Sorry Charlie. Subordinates aren't remote controlled robots. Not  at work. Not at the ball park.

Sorry Charlie? As usual, you're being obstinate trying to twist things around to suit your narrative. Regardless of the actions of their subordinates, the boss or owner is always 100% RESPONSIBLE for the actions and behaviors of their employees. I never said that the HC has complete control over what their assitants do or say, however, they are still responsible for their actions on the field. Did I not make it clear in my previous post? I didn't say they had control over them, but rather responsibility for their actions.

If an employee makes a mistake at work, does the boss or owner give them a free pass because they're not "mind controlled robots?" Perhaps you can try that approach with your customers when you are the owner of a company and see how long you stay in business.

Customer: "Your employee ruined my order and I would like a refund or you to fix it."

Owner: "Sorry, not my problem because all my employees are not remote controlled robots and I'm not responsible. Would you like to pay for your order again and we'll see what happens?"

Said no one ever. (Yes, sarcasm.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/19/2019 at 1:21 PM, Rich Ives said:

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

Those in charge being responsible for the actions of their direct subordinates? CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZY, maaaaaaaan.

That never happens, except pretty much in every walk of life.

Don't like paying the price for having clowns as assistants? Don't have clowns as assistants.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/19/2019 at 11:21 AM, Rich Ives said:

I just love this FED punish the innocent stuff. If they think the HC as magical control over everything the AC does they live in some fantasy world.

 

On 5/19/2019 at 2:42 PM, Rich Ives said:

Subordinates aren't remote controlled robots. Not  at work. Not at the ball park.

You've either never had a subordinate in the work place, or you've never understood your responsibility as their manager/supervisor/boss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

 

You've either never had a subordinate in the work place, or you've never understood your responsibility as their manager/supervisor/boss.

I'll take that bet.  BS Industrial Management.  Management up to middle management at a Fortune 500 company. 

If an employee steals from the company is the boss guilty of a crime? Does the boss get punished internally?  

If an employee punches out a visitor is the boss guilty of a crime? Does the boss get punished internally?

If the attendant at the counter cusses out an irrationally irate customer  does the boss apologize to the customer and counsel or fire the employee or does the boss get fired?

Have any of your well brought up kids ever had a meltdown moment?  Did you ground yourself too?

The notion that you can prevent someone else's emotional outburst is ludicrous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

36 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I'll take that bet.  BS Industrial Management.  Management up to middle management at a Fortune 500 company. 

If an employee steals from the company is the boss guilty of a crime? Does the boss get punished internally?  

If an employee punches out a visitor is the boss guilty of a crime? Does the boss get punished internally?

If the attendant at the counter cusses out an irrationally irate customer  does the boss apologize to the customer and counsel or fire the employee or does the boss get fired?

Have any of your well brought up kids ever had a meltdown moment?  Did you ground yourself too?

The notion that you can prevent someone else's emotional outburst is ludicrous.

 

So, to my initial statement - you've never understood your responsibility as a manager, nor your own potential risk in any of these workplace scenarios.

To the kid meltdown - upon seeing a misbehaving child anywhere you never place any blame on the parents?

You may not be able to prevent the actions of your subordinate, but you will be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

you've never understood

you never place

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/19/2019 at 9:57 AM, maven said:

This is a violation of 3-3-1f(6), which prohibits "any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire."

It's a good idea to know the 3 parts of 3-3-1 and the different penalties they incur. Violations of 3-3-1 subsections f–k require a written warning and restriction of both offender and head coach, with ejection on second offense. If the violation is "judged to be major," the umpire may eject on a first offense. Without knowing more about the situation, we can't really assess the umpire's judgment call here to eject on a first offense.

Subsection f(6) has its own special comment in the PENALTY: "For violation of f(6) both the head coach and offending coach shall receive a written warning and be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game unless the offense is so severe the umpire may eject the offender and restrict or eject the head coach."

So yes, the head coach must be restricted, if not ejected, in this situation.

The OP did not state that the assistant coach left his position to argue, only that he screamed at the base umpire and then got ejected.  If he argued without leaving the coaches box, then the head coach does not have to be restricted or ejected.

With the exception of an assistant vacating the coaches box or the dugout to argue, assistants should be treated as individuals when it comes to warnings/restrictions/ejections.  For instance, if an assistant is arguing balls and strikes from the dugout, and you decide to give him a verbal warning, a written warning and restriction, or ejection - there is no penalty for the head coach.  If he steps out of the dugout to argue, NOW there is a prescribed penalty for the head coach as well (in the case when you restrict or eject the assistant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 5/19/2019 at 12:49 AM, MulletUmp said:

Under FED rules, if an assistant is ejected, the manager must be restricted to the dugout. 

Note: I heard that while lurking this board last year and not sure if that still applies, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t. 

This is false.  See my post above for the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
18 hours ago, yawetag said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

In my defense, the first statement was a comment on the past, the second was a question....so there.

And yes, I get you're half joking - ie. if the statement is true then you (and Obi-Wan) are Sith.  So, considering I haven't been force choked in the past few minutes, I assume you're a kinder gentler Sith.  Can you send me membership registration information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...