Jump to content

LRZ

Established Member
  • Posts

    1,168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

LRZ last won the day on September 20

LRZ had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    SE PA

More information about you

  • How did you hear about Umpire-Empire?
    Search Engine (Google, Yahoo, Bing, ...)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

LRZ's Achievements

529

Reputation

6

Community Answers

  1. Assigner phones Official, "[Name], I need somebody at X HS right away. Can you make it?" Official (a cop in X HS's township and DARE liaison at the school): "Sure, I'm on my way." Official arrives at X HS, where he was told, "Sorry, [Name], you can't officiate because your clearances are not on file." True story. Go figure.
  2. LRZ

    Ruling

    You assume a lot of "facts" that may or may not be true. Absent those assumptions, I would not allow a coach to game the umpires and other team. YMMV.
  3. LRZ

    Ruling

    I would have handled this as you did, MT73. I'm not going to impose the IFF call after the fact because both teams apparently relied on the pre-game understanding, however misguided that was. Besides, this was an U9 game, for pete's sake, not the WS. For whatever reason, the umpires in your case were relying on the coaches for the local rules. Consequently, they thought they were calling the game by the tournament rules, although they were misinformed. I'm curious: was the pop-up caught or dropped? Did the IFF no-call affect anything?
  4. If a coach likes you but doesn't respect you, what does that suggest?
  5. LRZ

    Home Run

    Boards like this are like folks sitting at a bar or in someone's backyard at a BBQ, talking about topics of shared interest. The discussions wander, go off on tangents, come back to the original, take off again. As long as some respect is maintained, it's all good!
  6. The official's report starts the review process. Then, PIAA reviews it (1) to determine if the EJ/DQ was justified or not, and (2) to determine if the EJ/DQ merits the enhanced penalty, regardless of whether the official checked that box. I have no stake in whether PIAA overrules, affirms as is, or enhances. I just officiate, tossing offenders when necessary. But your comment about potential conflicts, Matt, actually arose in the case I related--but it was between my chapter/district interpreter and district representative, on one hand, and me. They didn't like how I drafted my report and that I issued a red card, instead of a yellow. The state apparently had no problem with either my language or my card, disagreeing only on the implications for supplemental enhancement. PIAA acted to support officials, I was told, but the local "powers that be" do not share that concern.
  7. "I am clearly doing something wrong here because I am continuing to run afoul of base coaches." "There comes a time when you have to be yourself and accept that fact." If "me being me" ain't working, try something else.
  8. PA is trying to deter misconduct in school athletics. We've had some ugly incidents in recent years, and PIAA apparently realized that a standard, one-game suspension was an inadequate deterrent. Hence the enhancement and the PIAA authority to impose it even if the official does not check the box. A player who gets a supplemental DQ must complete an on-line NFHS sportsmanship program and provide his/her principal with certification of completion, which the principal then submits to the district chair in that sport. This is in addition to the enhanced, two-game suspension. When a coach is DQ'ed supplementally, he/she must complete both the NFHS Sportsmanship program and a "Teaching and Modeling Behavior" program, then provide certification to the principal. This, also, is in addition to the two-game suspension. My soccer case was interesting because I, as the official on the field and the target of the player's misconduct, did not think the player's conduct warranted the enhanced penalty, but PIAA disagreed.
  9. All you PIAA umpires, take heart! PIAA has your back! Several years ago, Pennsylvania's PIAA instituted a supplemental disqualification category with an enhanced penalty. Usually an ejection or disqualification carries a one-game suspension, but an egregious case can be upgraded to a two-game sit-out. PIAA reviews all ejections and disqualifications. In filling out the form, the reporting official can check a box raising the DQ to a supplemental; if the official does, PIAA can deny the enhanced penalty; if the official does not check the box, PIAA, on its own, can increase the penalty to two games. Here is the language from the on-line reporting form: A Supplemental Disqualification is triggered when a Coach or contestant is ejected from a contest and a component of the disqualification is the act(s) of confronting, contacting or addressing a Coach, contestant or official using foul or vulgar language, ethnic or racially insensitive comments or physical contact. This section is NOT intended for other infractions described as “rules of the game” or actions which do not meet the above criteria. On Saturday, in a jv soccer match, I issued a red card (disqualification) to a player, filed the report and did not check the supplemental box, as I did not think the conduct rose to the requisite level of severity; my chapter interpreter disagreed with my red card, opining that the conduct was only worthy of a caution/yellow card. On Monday, PIAA responded, informing me that I misapplied the rule, that the situation satisfied the requirements for a supplemental report, and that the player would sit for two games, not just one. Tough lesson for a 14-15 y/o HS kid to learn, but a necessary one.
  10. As to the "yelling across the field" issue, there is a world of difference between an exchange, however brief, and a quick, assertive KTSO. Why engage them in a dialog? Explanations can easily lead to a "Then do your job, blue!" You must know that that coach had no interest in your point of view--he was fishing for a call and he was baiting you. Just tell them to stop. Take a step towards the offending dugout or coach, put your hand up in the "stop" gesture, and announce, not necessarily yelling but firmly, "Knock it off!" Approaching the dugout or the coach could be perceived as you escalating things. If coaches and players want to ratchet up situations into confrontations, they'll be the aggressors and come to you. As for being "liked," respect--for your professionalism, hustle, rules knowledge, etc.--is more important.
  11. This might just be a matter of personal style, but, to me, your interactions with that coach were all way too long. "Coach, that's enough. That's not a balk" or "Coach, that's not a balk. Knock it off." For me, in the context of what transpired before that, the change-over shouted sarcasm would have elicited a warning. He was showing you up.
  12. LRZ

    Home Run

    Until Manfred decides eliminating the home run trot/celebration would speed the game up.
  13. LRZ

    Balk to third

    Ask him. Besides, the rules always are, or should be, the starting point for getting answers. That's why Senor Azul, for one, is so helpful.
  14. LRZ

    Balk to third

    The rule says "before" so apply it with common sense. If you mean to suggest that "almost simultaneously," "close enough" or "approximately" could satisfy the rule in the real world in which we umpire, I can live with that, as we don't officiate with lasers or micrometers. Besides, the OP asked a question and I quoted the applicable rule, without delving into nuances or interpretations.
  15. LRZ

    Balk to third

    You don't read the OP to mean "throw" by the word "release" in the context of "picks off to third"? What scenario are you envisioning?
×
×
  • Create New...