DesertRat

Had it been I, this coach would have been gone once he mentioned anything my calling about balls and strikes when he left the coaching box. The rules are clear: no one is permitted to leave their position to argue balls and strikes, and ejection is the penalty provided in the rules for that kind of conduct. I might warn him if I was uncertain as to his position or what the topic of his remarks were, but if he were obviously outside the coaching box and if he were clearly criticizing the calling of balls and strikes, it's time for him to go! The purpose of the rule is to prevent time-wasting arguments. Fans want to see BASEBALL, not immature conduct.

I retired from umpiring after the 1984 season after 15 years on the field. The game was way different back then. Safety and sportmanship were not a glimmer in anyone's eye. At all levels everyone played to win. I'm somewhat of a traditionalist as I like the lower and wider strike zone of the old days and hate the DH rule as I've always admired pitchers like Dontrelle Willis or Mike Hampton who are complete athletes. So I watch mostly NL games these days. When I went to Bill Kinnmon umpire school in 1970 we were told it was OK to bait players and managers so you could toss them and in fact we were told how to do it but now that's frowned on even at the pro level and in fact some umpires have been disciplined for it. In the old days certain players and manager were simply jerks that added nothing to the game and we got them out of there so they didn't hold up the game by constantly running their mouths. And we called a big strike zone so that the hitters would come up there to use the bat rather than wait for a walk. I would have a tough time deciding whether a runner was trying to score or trying to injure the catcher. I played the game in HS and scored more than one run by bowling over the catcher blocking the plate and can tell you from experience I was not trying to injure the catcher--I just wanted to score the run by whatever it took to do that. It's difficult to judge intent. Does the catcher get to stand up to block the plate? I had this happen and the runner hit him under the chin with both arms so he dropped the ball. The catcher had no business doing this so I couldn't very well penalize the runner and it was no obstruction since the catcher was completely passive. I let the run score and then a fight broke out resulting in multiple ejections on both teams. I think the standard should be whether what the player is doing is a accepted and legitimate part of baseball based on the history of the game or is the player's action something other than what would normally be expected in the situation?

Collisions between runners trying to score and catchers wanting to tag the runner out have always been and always will be part of baseball. It's unfortunate that an injury sometimes results to either player, but that's baseball. I don't see the value of, and would not enforce, rules that protect players from what has always been a normal risk of the game. If it were my play and the catcher dropped the ball and the runner touched the plate, he's safe and the run scores. Now, if afterwards, there's a fight as a result of the play (as often happens in these situations) there would probably be some ejections depending on who was the aggressor, who left their position or the dugout to get involved, etc. If the manager came out to complain about his catcher getting knocked down, I would probably ask the manager what kind of sissy he's got behind the plate, which would probably get the manager angry enough to do something warranting an ejection.