Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
Sut'n Blue

Not For Your Ears?

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, wolfe_man said:

Is there something similar for NFHS?  I mainly do HS, Legion, Babe Ruth, and some travel as well, but played under NFHS rules, so this doesn't really apply as those coaches don't have an "Ethics" code, at least not one that I've been aware of to this point.

From an old rule book -- I would guess this (or similar) is still there (apologies for the formatting):

 

COACHES CODE OF ETHICS 18-1-1 Appendix F The function of a coach is to educate students through participation in interscholastic competition. An interscholastic program should be designed to enhance academic achievement and should never interfere with opportunities for academic success. Each student should be treated with the utmost respect and his or her welfare should be considered in decisions by the coach at all times. Accordingly, the following guidelines for coaches have been adopted by the NFHS Board of Directors. The coach shall be aware that he or she has a tremendous influence, for either good or ill, on the education of the student and, thus, shall never place the value of winning above the value of instilling the highest ideals of character. The coach shall uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. In all personal contact with students, officials, athletic directors, school administrators, the state high school athletic association, the media, and the public, the coach shall strive to set an example of the highest ethical and moral conduct. The coach shall take an active role in the prevention of drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse. The coach shall avoid the use of alcohol and tobacco products when in contact with players. The coach shall promote the entire interscholastic program of the school and direct the program in harmony with the total school program. The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules. The coach shall exert his or her influence to enhance sportsmanship by spectators, both directly and by working closely with cheerleaders, pep club sponsors, booster clubs, and administrators. The coach shall respect and support contest officials. The coach shall not indulge in conduct which would incite players or spectators against the officials. Public criticism of officials or players is unethical.
The coach should meet and exchange cordial greetings with the opposing coach to set the correct tone for the event before and after the contest. The coach shall not exert pressure on faculty members to give students special consideration. The coach shall not scout opponents by any means other than those adopted by the league and/or state high school athletic association. OFFICIALS CODE OF ETHICS 19-1-1 Appendix G Officials at an interscholastic athletic event are participants in the educational development of high school students. As such, they must exercise a high level of self-discipline, independence and responsibility. The purpose of this Code is to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all interscholastic officials. Officials shall master both the rules of the game and the mechanics necessary to enforce the rules, and shall exercise authority in an impartial, firm and controlled manner. Officials shall work with each other and their state associations in a constructive and cooperative manner. Officials shall uphold the honor and dignity of the profession in all interaction with student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, school administrators, colleagues, and the public. Officials shall prepare themselves both physically and mentally, shall dress neatly and appropriately, and shall comport themselves in a manner consistent with the high standards of the profession. Officials shall be punctual and professional in the fulfillment of all contractual obligations. Officials shall remain mindful that their conduct influences the respect that student-athletes, coaches and the public hold for the profession. Officials shall, while enforcing the rules of play, remain aware of the inherent risk of injury that competition poses to student-athletes. Where appropriate, they shall inform event management of conditions or situations that appear unreasonably hazardous. Officials shall take reasonable steps to educate themselves in the recognition of emergency conditions that might arise during the course of competition. Officials shall

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

2019 OBR rule 6.04 Unsportsmanlike Conduct

(a) No manager, player, substitute, coach, trainer or batboy shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coach’s box or on the playing field, or elsewhere:

(2) Use language which will in any manner refer to or reflect upon opposing players, an umpire, or any spectator;

Also see the comments following rules 5.10(b) and 5.10(k) about sanctioning of bench jockeying by ineligible substitutes and players on the disabled list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2018 NFHS rule 3 SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT

ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

f. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to,

1. use of words or actions to incite or attempt to incite spectators demonstrations,

2. use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon any other person, or taunting or baiting. The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting.

3. use of any language intended to intimidate,

4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

2018 NFHS rule 3 SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT

ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

f. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to,

1. use of words or actions to incite or attempt to incite spectators demonstrations,

2. use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon any other person, or taunting or baiting. The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting.

3. use of any language intended to intimidate,

4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play;

Okay, now you have something!

So, #4 gives me some ability to get more involved if I deem it necessary. 

Thanks for digging this up. I'll have to check my rule book for what penalty can be enforced on such actions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfe_man said:

I am all for safety, sportsmanship and fair play with ethics, but I'm not sure as an umpire how much of that part of the game is my responsibility.  I'll be honest, I have never seen an umpire intervene with what is being talked about on this thread; however I've never had anything get out of hand yet in my 4 years of experience either. 

The sportsmanship/ethics element is a matter of judgment and interpretation.   If the language had been a little more generic, it would be harder to defend acting upon it (but not out of the realm)...and would be easier to defend a position that you didn't see it as a threat (or unsportsmanlike or unethical).

Explicit threats are a different animal.   There's a difference between "pull back and hit it" and "pull back and hit HER with a line drive"...between "brush her back" and "throw it at her head"..."slide at the base - he will move" vs "if you break his ankles he won't get in your way next time"....one is a pragmatic view of how the game is played, the other is an instruction to injure, or to at least show a total disregard for its potential.  "if you put him in the hospital that's his fault, not yours"

The examples I spoke about, the ones referenced above, were explicit instructions to injure (or potentially injure) another player.   It's not your place to determine if the coach really meant it, any more than it's your place to determine if a coach really meant it if he said "I'll kick the crap out of you in the parking lot".   In fact, if the coach simply said "I'll see you in the parking lot" you would be within your rights to interpret that as a threat, even though it's very literal interpretation is very benign.  To address that threat, but to let go something more explicit directed at a CHILD, is crazy to me.  Any threat uttered on the ball field is within your purview...not just talks about retaliation for a hit batter.

Imagine this - third base coach tells his batter to drill a line drive between F5's eyes...the defense is in the third base dugout.  The coach sitting on the bucket giving the catcher the signals is F5's father.  If you don't do something about it, he will.

You haven't seen an umpire intervene on those points likely because you haven't run across (m)any coaches that would say those things.   Coaches I have seen make explicit comments like those get warned at the very least, if not run and possibly suspended. If not fired by the parents.  As the world becomes more "woke" and ethics becomes a higher focus of coaching (more than half my coaching certification process was about ethics - more than half the classroom training and more than half the exam - I guarantee you the coaches I had 30 years ago couldn't spell "ethics"), you will see less and less of these dinosaurs.   I hope you never have to deal with a coach like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

You haven't seen an umpire intervene on those points likely because you haven't run across (m)any coaches that would say those things. 

This is probably true, which I guess is why I'm having so much trouble processing it all.  It makes sense to me and I'm sure I'll handle threats as they come, but I guess I haven't heard anything like that to this point.  I will say it has no place in baseball or anywhere else for that matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why we share the lumps that we take ... Learn from each other and feel the love!  :cheers:

You are lucky Wolfe for not having run into this.  My advice is be prepared though.  I had run into it before and had always put a quick stop to it.  No excuse, but this time I didn’t and the end result was to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One I've heard a few times through the years is on an obstruction or whatever..."run him over next time!" The other day I had a coach actually yell to his player after the run down (in which we called obstruction without contact) "don't stop! Just run next time and if there's contact, that's OK! That's part of the obstruction call!"

Big difference between those two things. One was an instruction saying "contact may happen, but that's part of that particular play." The other was "run him over next time", which is a threat and completely unnecessary to say. If you don't address that, usually someone from the other team says something like "blue, are you not going to do anything?" And if you just shrug, you're setting yourself up for other problems. Prevent problems when you see them brewing. That is not over officiating. Otherwise you're going to turn the nice guy into the other dugout into a jerk as well. Keep that guy nice. Deal with the jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

The examples I spoke about, the ones referenced above, were explicit instructions to injure (or potentially injure) another player.   It's not your place to determine if the coach really meant it, any more than it's your place to determine if a coach really meant it if he said "I'll kick the crap out of you in the parking lot".   In fact, if the coach simply said "I'll see you in the parking lot" you would be within your rights to interpret that as a threat, even though it's very literal interpretation is very benign.  To address that threat, but to let go something more explicit directed at a CHILD, is crazy to me.  Any threat uttered on the ball field is within your purview...not just talks about retaliation for a hit batter.

beer,

I've struggled a little with this thread, and I probably shouldn't ask, but I just can't seem to help myself.  We clashed on "words from the dugout" not that long ago;  I ask this because I'm legit curious, but:  if one isn't supposed to be listening to goings-on in the dugout, how are we now reconciling jumping on stuff like this?  For the record, I don't disagree that the kinds of examples you give should be addressed - I just see what looks like some contradictory thoughts.  Unless you're talking more about "hear it all, but filter and deal with only what you need,' then, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HokieUmp said:

beer,

I've struggled a little with this thread, and I probably shouldn't ask, but I just can't seem to help myself.  We clashed on "words from the dugout" not that long ago;  I ask this because I'm legit curious, but:  if one isn't supposed to be listening to goings-on in the dugout, how are we now reconciling jumping on stuff like this?  For the record, I don't disagree that the kinds of examples you give should be addressed - I just see what looks like some contradictory thoughts.  Unless you're talking more about "hear it all, but filter and deal with only what you need,' then, okay.

Very simple...before, we were discussing a conversation that was happening inside a dugout, within a dugout, and limited to the context of swearing/cursing - or, as I put it, glorified grammar management.   You were talking about punishing/warning a pure f-bomb for the sake of being an f-bomb, as opposed to an f-bomb attached to an insult or a slur, or at the very least, an f-bomb that was directed at you or a player on the other team.

In this case we are talking about an explicit threat or instruction to inflict injury upon another player.

And yes, I'm talking about addressing what you hear, and can't help but hearing.  If you hear something, and it crosses a line, deal with it.  Our past debate, IMO, disagreed on where the line was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.


×
×
  • Create New...