You need to read the rules

[Rich Ives]

Based on many posts I've seen over the years. some members of the blue brigade DO need to read the rules. :angel4:

[mstaylor]

Sounds like a good toss. I tell coaches and umpires that taking calls out a complaining coach is completely wrong. I'm not saying you don't put a short leash on a problem coach, I'm saying that making a ligit protest isn't a problem.

[Replacematt]

Sounds like a good toss. I tell coaches and umpires that taking calls out a complaining coach is completely wrong. I'm not saying you don't put a short leash on a problem coach, I'm saying that making a ligit protest isn't a problem.

Please send me a PM. I tried to send you one, but you are not accepting them.

[johnnyg08]

... It's a great way to put an end to their bitching, and keep them in the game.

Can someone please explain to me when it became our job to keep someone in the game?

To be completely honest, it seems to me like its a crock of crap statement used to justify a failure to pull a trigger in a situation where doing so would have been completely justified. Unless of course you're doing it to screw around with the guy and subject him to more punishment - I'm sure we've all kept, or thought about keeping, an individual in a game whose just looking for an excuse to go home when his team is playing like garbage and there's inclement weather, somewhere for him to be, etc etc.

Either you deem something ejectable or not. That line will be different for everyone, which is just fine in most circumstances. If they cross your line, get rid of them, unless you've got a good reason to make them stick around. This whole "I was able to teach them a lesson and not have to throw them out nonsense" - guess what - if you turf them, they have the rest of that game plus, in most leagues, the entire next game - which they're watching from the stands or the press box - to learn their lesson.

I think it comes down to trying everything that you can within reason in relation to the circumstance to give him a chance to stop. When that fails, we eject.

Sometimes they don't give us a choice. Batter draws a line on me in a game, he's done. There's no trying to keep him in the game at that point.

Coach comes out of the dugout to argue a half-swing, I'm putting up the stop sign, I'm telling him that he can't leave it position to argue balls/strikes and if he continues I have to eject you. At that point, I've tried to keep him in the game, and he chose to eject himself. I had a coach come up to me in a college game after I called a balk, stormed out of the dugout and screamed "you're f-ing bulls*&t" about 1 foot in front of my face and the ejection took 1 second. There was no opportunity for me to try and keep him in the game...he ejected himself immediately.

I think that's what we're striving for is to do what is reasonable to keep him in the game. You never want the reputation of an unapproachable reda$$. If you want to advance your career at especially the amateur level, it's typically a good idea to subscribe to that line of thinking. You can try the other way and see where that gets you, but many of us have been down that road before.

[johnnyg08]

I have suggested it to several coaches in the past. I always get something like what you are saying MS. Coaches seem to think it will be held against them. I had one coach tell me that If I didn't know the rule well enough to make the call, then I should not be working the game...I replied that if he thought I was wrong to protest. He just said unbeleiveable and walked off. I talked to him about 2 weeks later at another tourney and he apologized! He reread the rulebook on HBP and said I got it right. He argued a HBP could not result in an out...swinging 3rd strike on an upstairs curveball that hit the batter's hand...you know what he said...but blue, that hit him! Yes it did...he's out. But hands are part of the bat....

In our area, protests cost quite a bit of money in our games where it is permissible. If they want to protest, I always allow it. I've never had it happened, but at some point during our conversation, I have said to them, "if you feel that I've misapplied a rule, you have every right to file a protest (if applicable game), to date, they have not done that, but I never shy away from it...that is their "check and balance" in my opinion.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

In HS ball, I love suggesting to a coach that he protest, as our state does not accept protests, lol.The very few times I have used that line, it has been followed by "The State doesn't allow protests".... I know, Coach.

[johnnyg08]

If they want to protest, I always allow it.

Oh, I should add, not that I'd be the one to decide if they could or could not protest, but I should restate that I wouldn't try to talk them out of it.

[mstaylor]

I will always take a protest if asked. It almost never happens buut I will ask. The thing to remember is if the call is truly a judgement call it is not protestable but take it anyway. Some will say to refuse it but I say there is no need for that argument. Sometimes it isn't clear which it is so just mark the book and go on.

A good example of a protestable call that many umpires think is a judgement is a balk. Say you call a balk for a nonstop, that's a balk by rule and it is your judgement if he stopped or not. But if you call a balk because he went to his mouth on the mound, that is an incorrect interpretation and is protestable.

[JaxRolo]

I don't agree with this. You are just fueling the fire.

(null)

[mstaylor]

I don't agree with this. You are just fueling the fire.

(null)

Suggesting they protest or taking a protest even when you know it is protestable?

[johnnyg08]

Suggesting they protest or taking a protest even when you know it is protestable?

I don't think this is fueling the fire at all...how would it be fueling the fire?

[mstaylor]

I didn't think so either but I am interested in a discussion on it.

[JaxRolo]

I don't agree with this. You are just fueling the fire.

(null)

Suggesting they protest or taking a protest even when you know it is protestable?

By Suggesting they protest when you know it is not allowed in your area. That is just going to make the coach Pi$$ed off.

Sorry Mike I am not disagreeing with you it was Chuck Maske's post i was referring to.

Edited December 23, 2011 by JaxRolo

[Rich Ives]

I will always take a protest if asked. It almost never happens buut I will ask. The thing to remember is if the call is truly a judgement call it is not protestable but take it anyway. Some will say to refuse it but I say there is no need for that argument. Sometimes it isn't clear which it is so just mark the book and go on.

A good example of a protestable call that many umpires think is a judgement is a balk. Say you call a balk for a nonstop, that's a balk by rule and it is your judgement if he stopped or not. But if you call a balk because he went to his mouth on the mound, that is an incorrect interpretation and is protestable.

What if the umpire insists it's a judgment call when it's really a misapplication?

I don't believe that the rules (OBR at least) allow you to refuse a protest.

From a practical/ethical standpoint, allowing the umpire to refuse a protest is allowing the accused to rule on his own guilt. Not the smart thing to allow.

[mstaylor]

Rich, that's what I said. Take it even if you don't think it is a protestable call. It is possible that you are wrong and gasp, the coach may be right. Instead of starting an argument about if it protestable or not, just take the protest.

Jax:

Gotcha, I agree that if you are in an area that doesn't allow protests, don't mention it. Now, I don't understand states that don't allow protests. I can see in football why they don't but in most other sports, going back to finish a game isn't a big deal.

[UmpJeff]

Gone. No questions asked. That is showing you up and for any Manager or Coach to do that is unacceptable. Auto EJ.

[BretMan]

Coaches say a lot of dumb things...

"You've got to call that both ways!".

"How can you end a game on a call like that?!".

"Nobody's called that all season!"

"You're supposed to be here for the kids!".

"Good pitch, Billy!". (On a pitch a foot out of the zone.)

And, yes, I've heard, "You need to read the rules!", a time or two. It's not an automatic ejection for me. I just chalk it up to to another hollow phrase that coaches throw out when they're grasping for straws and want to make it sound like they know what they're talking about- even if they don't.

My usual answer: "I already have read the rules. That's why I'm confident that my ruling is correct". By that point I'm done explaining myself. The coach can either head back to the dugout or keep trying to push the issue- his choice. Which one he chooses might just determine if he sticks around for the rest of the game or not.

[yawetag]

"Good pitch, Billy!". (On a pitch a foot out of the zone.)

I've found a lot of times this (and its cousing "Good miss, Billy!")isn't meant to be directed to the umpire, but really toward the pitcher. There are times it's used as a jab to us, but not all the time.

[UmpTTS43]

And, yes, I've heard, "You need to read the rules!", a time or two. It's not an automatic ejection for me. I just chalk it up to to another hollow phrase that coaches throw out when they're grasping for straws and want to make it sound like they know what they're talking about- even if they don't.

My usual answer: "I already have read the rules. That's why I'm confident that my ruling is correct". By that point I'm done explaining myself. The coach can either head back to the dugout or keep trying to push the issue- his choice. Which one he chooses might just determine if he sticks around for the rest of the game or not.

I guess if you don't mind the coach insinuating that you're incompetent I guess it's all good, for you. As I have stated before, he's getting whooshed.

[johnnyg08]

And, yes, I've heard, "You need to read the rules!", a time or two. It's not an automatic ejection for me. I just chalk it up to to another hollow phrase

It needs to be an automatic ejection. The rest of us are counting on you. If not us, literally, the other guys in your association are counting on you.

[mstaylor]

Coaches say a lot of dumb things...

"You've got to call that both ways!".

"How can you end a game on a call like that?!".

"Nobody's called that all season!"

"You're supposed to be here for the kids!".

"Good pitch, Billy!". (On a pitch a foot out of the zone.)

And, yes, I've heard, "You need to read the rules!", a time or two. It's not an automatic ejection for me. I just chalk it up to to another hollow phrase that coaches throw out when they're grasping for straws and want to make it sound like they know what they're talking about- even if they don't.

My usual answer: "I already have read the rules. That's why I'm confident that my ruling is correct". By that point I'm done explaining myself. The coach can either head back to the dugout or keep trying to push the issue- his choice. Which one he chooses might just determine if he sticks around for the rest of the game or not.

Good pitch is sometimes directed at us but many times he doesn't wwant a strike thrown. Now if it is coupled with," Keep throwing it there, maybe he will call it" GONE!

...call it both ways

That is either automatic or a very stern warning, depends on what preceded it. That is coach speak for you are cheating. Not to be tolerated.

How can you end a game.....

Easy, it happened at the end of the game, walk away.

Nobody's call that....

Shut it down, not a toss.

You are supposed to be here for the kids....

Usually said by a jerk trying to get away with something. Shut it down!

[johnnyg08]

You have to remember, it is rare that coaches learn from warnings. That doesn't mean we bait them into an ejection, but at some point they have to learn what is and is not okay.

[mstaylor]

That may be true but not every offense is an ejection. In youth ball we need to warn for certain things, eject immediately for others. Somethings need a warning and then eject as they persist. Even at the pro level they warn for certain things. What we need to do to be consistant is eject after we warn. Too many warn, then warn again then ignore. If we tell them to knock it off or that's enough and they continue, dump them.

[detailshp]

We all agree that when a coach argues balls and strikes, he doesnt even have to leave the dougout to get dumped. ( I hope ) Are there really that many more things out there other than foul language that would result in an auto dump? Sure, and the original question was is a statement " you need to read the rules" an auto dump.

I would think that this is kinda like the Supreme Court's definition of Pornography. You can't define it, but I know it when I see it. In my career every time I have heard that statement, it has been either from an idiot fan or a coach in anger shouting it at me cause I missed a call, in his opinion.

If a coach waited till a play was over, came out to me, and I turned and faced center field ( like I normally do ) and we stood side by side and talked about the play, and at the end of the conversation he said to me " you need to read the rules" I doubt I would dump him. If he went face to face, and got animated, then yes, I would dump him.

[mstaylor]

It is tough to make an auto list because it changes level to level. Certain things trangress all levels, while others change. It's like balks, there very technical balks that get let go in lower levels but get hammered in higher levels. There are others that get let go at high levels that you have to get at low levels. I will have much more detailed conversations with a youth coach where I would expect a college coach to know.

Post 5000 by the way.