A botched EJ situation - how to help partner

[yawetag]

Despite the questionable intelligence of the rule, its the HS procedure we have in MO. Knowing this rule, I will not toss a HS coach that approaches me with a rulebook in hand. My first question is, "Coach, I see you have your rulebook. Are you lodging a protest?" If not, he needs to return the book to the dugout. I'm not going to toss a coach who intends to lodge a protest simply because he brought out his rulebook.

To me, it would depend on the level of the game and the demeanor of the coach. If it's a lower-level game, you're probably dealing with an inexperienced coach. Also, if the coach is walking to you calmly, it's most likely a coach that is doing it out of ignorance.

[mstaylor]

And Fed tells us the field is an extension of the classroom so we should be teachers, teach. :2cents:

[PeteBooth]

Despite the questionable intelligence of the rule, its the HS procedure we have in MO. Knowing this rule, I will not toss a HS coach that approaches me with a rulebook in hand. My first question is, "Coach, I see you have your rulebook. Are you lodging a protest?" If not, he needs to return the book to the dugout. I'm not going to toss a coach who intends to lodge a protest simply because he brought out his rulebook.

The Procedures you issued say nothing about the coach bringing the rule/case book on the field of play.

It simply states that the coach can have in his possession the rule/case book.

It's one thing to have the rule/case book in the dugout. It's quite another to bring it on the field of play.

It's called protocol.

Suppose the score is 3-0 HT down in bottom half of 5. The first batter walks. He is now given the steal sign and is thrown out at second base by a good margin.

Should we bring out the coaches manual and show him that unless the defense "gives-up" second base, you do not steal down by 3 runs and you just got your lead-off man on base.

The coach can do his research and then protest the ruling. Bringing a rule-book onto the field is showing up the officials plain and simple and cannot be tolerated. The coach can look at the book all game long in the dugout and then make his point via protest to the officials. Then it's up to the officials.

Pete Booth

[midmoump]

Let me understand your point. Are you saying that a Missouri high school coach who brings a rulebook onto the field of play should be automatically ejected?

Since the Missouri state procedure specifically permits the coach to protest by using the rulebook, and there is no corresponding rule prohibiting a rulebook on the field, it is not appropriate to automatically EJ a coach who brings a rulebook out.

Just as pulling a lineup card to mask a discussion of my strike zone will not "save" a coach, walking onto the field with a rulebook in hand will not EJ a coach, at least on my field. I first want to know, does he have a legitimate reason for bringing the rulebook out? I can always EJ the coach. I am just not going to do it prematurely.

Example:

"Time out!"

"Time."

Coach enters field with rulebook.

"Coach, you're out of the game!"

"What?"

"You're out of the game for bring a rulebook onto the field!"

"My batter injured himself making that catch at the fence last inning. He put a bandage on it, but I see blood seeping through his shirt. I have the rulebook to ensure that the NFHS blood rule procedures are properly followed to reduce risk of contamination. Look here comes the trainer now."

IMO there are legitimate reasons for the coach to bring out the rulebook in a HS contest in Missouri. I am going to listen to those legitimate reasons. Absent a legitimate reason, the coach is ejected.

Pete

[moblue]

Good point. I rarely have a coach bring the rule book out onto the field. When they do, there is almost always a valid reason for it.

[PeteBooth]

Let me understand your point. Are you saying that a Missouri high school coach who brings a rulebook onto the field of play should be automatically ejected?

"My batter injured himself making that catch at the fence last inning. He put a bandage on it, but I see blood seeping through his shirt. I have the rulebook to ensure that the NFHS blood rule procedures are properly followed to reduce risk of contamination. Look here comes the trainer now."

Let's "cut to the chase"

What the coach is saying to you is this.

Blue, you have no clue on what the blood rule is that's why I brought out the rule book.

here's what the coach should do

Skip: Pete can I have Time

me: Sure

Skip: My player has blood seeping through his shirt can he continue?

Me: Skip neither myself or my partner saw it but since you brought it to our attention and we can now see that your player has blood seeping through his shirt, the shirt must be removed in order for the player to continue.

In other words, we MAKE the rulings and the coach (he can look at the book all he wants to in the dugout) can protest. That's the way it should work.

No matter what the circumstance when a coach brings a rule book onto the field he thinks the umpires are clueless and wants to show them up. Also, some rules are NOT clearly defined and are left up to interpretation. No need getting into a pi****g match with a coach over rule interps on some of the grey area rules.

If that's what you guys do in Missouri then as the saying goes do as the Romans but it does not work here in NY. I have been umpiring HS for quite some time now and I never had a coach bring a rule book onto the field because in our area it's called protocol and they know better.

Pete Booth

[midmoump]

I agree with most of what you have written, but I disagree with the notion that the only reason a coach would bring a rulebook onto the field is because "he thinks the umpires are clueless and wants to show them up."

Granted, many Missourah coaches don't know what a rulebook looks like, and can't begin to spell "protocol." Maybe that's overstating a bit, but there are always inexperienced and/or ignorant HS coaches around. I suspect there are some in your area also.

A coach who brings out a rulebook for a pissing match is gone (and he probably already knows this when he starts from the dugout), but why EJ until you know why he's bringing it out? It certainly will not stop an angry coach from having his say. I can always educate the ignorant or end an argument with a hook, but once my finger has hit the sky it's tough to take it back.

Pete

[Rich Ives]

Let's "cut to the chase"

What the coach is saying to you is this.

Blue, you have no clue on what the blood rule is that's why I brought out the rule book.

Pete Booth

No Pete, what the coach is saying is "I need to verify the blood rule". His thoughts are all on his kid and the effect on the game. He's not even considering asking you what the rule is.

[mstaylor]

I have Pete's back on this one. In only the rarest of cases would a coach bring a rulebook out except for the express reason to show you what an idiot you are. Their thought process is this guy is dead wrong and I need to show him his error, he may think this in all earnestness. What it looks like on the field and is interpreted by the umpire is the knows it all and the umpire knows nothing and needs to be shown. There may be a small semantical difference between the two thought processes but they both look the same and the result to them will be the same.

The MO rule is very specific that the rulebook doesn't enter into the equation until after he protests. Discuss it in your assoc meeting and see what your leaders say.

[spiritump]

if the umpire was wrong on a rule then the coach can protest the game(that is the best way because if the umpire is wrong then the ump has a problem with his confrence bosses)--that is the correct way to do it --if a coach brings a rule book out onto the field --he is gone.

[yawetag]

Missourah

*shiver*

[midmoump]

*shiver*

MIZZOU-RAH!

:cheers:

[midmoump]

In only the rarest of cases would a coach bring a rulebook out except for the express reason to show you what an idiot you are.

That is exactly my point: I don't know for certain why the coach is bringing his rulebook onto the field. I am going to give him the opportunity to explain a legitimate reason for bringing it out.

How do you justify an automatic EJ under the HS rules without an unsportsmanlike act? See Rule 3-3-1(g). The general rule is to use an EJ as a last resort during HS contests. 2009/2010 NFHS Baseball Umpire Manual, p.34. Likewise, the CCA Manual directs umpires to warn the coach before an EJ, except when game personnel leave their position to argue balls and strikes.

Having the rulebook on the field is just not enough. In fact, Rule 3-3-1(i) specifically allows a coach to have a rulebook "in his possession in the coach's box." Additionally, under the MSHSAA protest procedure the coach is permitted to reference his rulebook. Like so many EJs, whether an EJ is warranted depends on the circumstances and the coach's actions. The coach may have every intent to act to show me up, but I am not going to presume anything.

Of course, I am from Missourah (apologies to Yawetag), so the coach needs to Show Me before he gets the hook.

Pete

[yawetag]

That is exactly my point: I don't know for certain why the coach is bringing his rulebook onto the field. I am going to give him the opportunity to explain a legitimate reason for bringing it out.

As I said before:

To me, it would depend on the level of the game and the demeanor of the coach. If it's a lower-level game, you're probably dealing with an inexperienced coach. Also, if the coach is walking to you calmly, it's most likely a coach that is doing it out of ignorance.

I don't think Missouree's () rules were written to be interpreted that the rule book should only be brought out after the protest. However, I'm not letting the coach show me a rule until a protest is lodged.

[mstaylor]

When I am working games, if I see a coach come out of the dugout with a rulebook I will tell him to leave it. If he continues then he will be tossed, period. If a manager is in the coach's box and comes up the line to argue strikes I will tell him to stop, if he doesn't, tossed.

Now I can't imagine an instance where I would allow a coach with a rulebook to stay but there might be something I haven't thought about. 99.9% of the time a coach and a rulebook equal a screaming coach. The last time I had a coach try to bring a book out on me he was already out arguing the call. He turned to his dugout and told them to bring him his rulebook. I told him it wouldn't end well if he did that. He still doesn't know why but he didn't do it.

Not to give an impression that I am toss happy, I haven't tossed a HS coach in four years. The last one to go was an asst that came out of the dugout to argue, he never made it. Before that I can't remember. In youth ball it is a little more often but even then it isn't often. Players get tossed on a much higher rate.

Last year I think I had three ejections, all players, all adults. Game management is a very important skill, very hard to teach but very necessary to successfully umpire. Sometimes our local groups or states get in the way but we need to be consistant in our dealings so the particpants learn the limits of their actions. Assoc wide consistancy will never happen, too many personalities and experience levels, but with-in each umpire you need to present a consistant and evenhanded front.

As a very experienced umpire at many levels, LL to MiLB, bringing a rulebook out is the same as drawing a line or tossing equipment.

[Rich Ives]

OK Guys.

Basic premise of the amateur umpire: The coach doesn't know the rules.

Coach has a bleeding player and, because he doesn't know the rules, he brings the rule book with him to check the blood rule as he goes to check his player.

You toss him for bringing the rule book onto the field.

How many ump admiration points will you get for that one from your kinfolks?

How many should you have received?

Will you whine about getting blackballed from the coach's future games?

[mstaylor]

Any coach I have ever seen at any level will come out to check his player. He then asks what happens, does he have to leave or can he stay. I have never ever in 35 years had a coach even consider what the blood rule says, he just asks.

99.9% of coaches with a rulebook in his hand is also about 3ft off the ground telling what a moron he thinks you are. Now obviously if he just carries it in his pocket or on his clipboard then that is fine. As soon as it leaves those two locations then he is getting tossed. This is an automatic ejection plain and simple.

[Rich Ives]

I have never ever in 35 years had a coach even consider what the blood rule says, he just asks.

.

There wasn't one for most of those years.

Perhaps he asks because he doesn't have his rule book with him.

I'd ask just to make sure YOU knew it and could back me up if the other coach (or some other officiel) had a concern.

In general, the internet-umpire community seems to have a very poor understanding of what coaches know and of the "coach think" that governs their actions and motivations.

[mstaylor]

There wasn't one for most of those years.

Perhaps he asks because he doesn't have his rule book with him.

I'd ask just to make sure YOU knew it and could back me up if the other coach (or some other officiel) had a concern.

In general, the internet-umpire community seems to have a very poor understanding of what coaches know and of the "coach think" that governs their actions and motivations.

Explain further.

[HokieUmp]

In general, the internet-umpire community seems to have a very poor understanding of what coaches know and of the "coach think" that governs their actions and motivations.

In general, the coaching fraternity seems to have a very poor understanding of what various rulebooks say, and how their actions on the field look to the participants and observers of a game.

I mean, since you're calling us "internet-umpires" out, and all.

I know you like to defend the coaching ranks whenever possible, but are you REALLY trying to imply that we're all just keyboard warriors, or what? I'm not a Tim_C, but I've got about 500 games in two countries in the last 8 years, so I'm actually out there doing games, and trying to practice my game management.

And based on some of the things you say to defend coaches and their motivations, it looks like from this angle that YOU'RE the one that hasn't been on a field in a while. Having had a cross section of coaches, they really aren't motivated by anything other than winning, and in many cases, failure to win is attributed to some call that went against them.

If there's an injured player on the field, and the coach is coming out to check him, the last thing I'd expect - either as a player or a human being - that he'd be pulling the rulebook out as he comes to check the "blood rule." Check the bleeping player out, and make sure he's okay - that's the priority.

Because, frankly, if I've seen the player bleeding, he's changing out of whatever clothes he's bled on, and getting cleaned up, whether it's officially in the book or not. (Assuming he's still able to play.) So the rulebook is kind of a moot point. Granted, that's just for this specific instance.

Hasn't this lasted long enough to to show where the prevailing interpretations and/or game management points lie? Bring out the rulebook to argue a point - good-bye. If you don't like it, as a coach? A) Don't do it again, and/or B) appeal your suspension (if applicable).

And when I say it's "automatic," I would still tell a coach to take the rulebook back to the dugout, and give him one last chance, unless he's flying out of the dugout (in which case, he's done).

[spiritump]

In general, the coaching fraternity seems to have a very poor understanding of what various rulebooks say, and how their actions on the field look to the participants and observers of a game.

I mean, since you're calling us "internet-umpires" out, and all.

I know you like to defend the coaching ranks whenever possible, but are you REALLY trying to imply that we're all just keyboard warriors, or what? I'm not a Tim_C, but I've got about 500 games in two countries in the last 8 years, so I'm actually out there doing games, and trying to practice my game management.

And based on some of the things you say to defend coaches and their motivations, it looks like from this angle that YOU'RE the one that hasn't been on a field in a while. Having had a cross section of coaches, they really aren't motivated by anything other than winning, and in many cases, failure to win is attributed to some call that went against them.

If there's an injured player on the field, and the coach is coming out to check him, the last thing I'd expect - either as a player or a human being - that he'd be pulling the rulebook out as he comes to check the "blood rule." Check the bleeping player out, and make sure he's okay - that's the priority.

Because, frankly, if I've seen the player bleeding, he's changing out of whatever clothes he's bled on, and getting cleaned up, whether it's officially in the book or not. (Assuming he's still able to play.) So the rulebook is kind of a moot point. Granted, that's just for this specific instance.

Hasn't this lasted long enough to to show where the prevailing interpretations and/or game management points lie? Bring out the rulebook to argue a point - good-bye. If you don't like it, as a coach? A) Don't do it again, and/or B) appeal your suspension (if applicable).

And when I say it's "automatic," I would still tell a coach to take the rulebook back to the dugout, and give him one last chance, unless he's flying out of the dugout (in which case, he's done).

a rat is a rat is a rat--

[Rich Ives]

In this thread we have an umpire repeatedly claiming he knows who is and isn't concerned about having to reschedule a game - disputing someone who has been involved in all the issues for decades.

How many of you are involved in running a league?

How many of you just show up, do a pre-game., do the game, and get out of Dodge (collecting your chcck)?

There was a recent post that basically said that someone was a good coach but didn't teach behavior - and argued with those of us (including other umpires) who said that his failure to teach behavior meant he wasn't a good coach.

I am constantly having RAT thrown in my face - just because I coach.

I am constantly reading that coaches don't know the rules (and a significant number don't) but many (not all - many) of you indicate a refusal to teach (many of you do, but too many refuse). Why? Maybe so you can make statements like "I know the rules better than all of them"? Does that make you feel good? Important?

I have read posts (various boards) where a poster asked "why did the player - runner - coach - whomever do a particular thing" - which to me would be perfectly clear to someone who has been around the game for any length of time.

Yes, coaches are motivated to win. So are the players. It's the nature of competition. But there are lines that are not crossed - rules or no rules. There is self-policing that you have to allow up to a point. Read the WHOLE last sentence again, especially the underscored part.

Long term goals are part of the motivation/decision process.

Coaches measurements vary with the level. In many schools, and in college the players have to be academically eligible for example - so their performance in the classroom is important to the coach. In a season, players have to be kept healthy for the season, not just to the end of today's game.

In a 12U rec league - the goal is to teach skills and behaviors and to have the players enjoy it enough to want to come back next year.

Coaches take umbrage with your decision, not you personally. They'll be upset with whoever made the call - not because it's you.

Of course, after a while the coaches know who the good umpires are. They also know who they cringe for. You can probably split it into "game management" and "game calling". If you get too bad in either one, being really good in the other won't save your reputation.

Coaches spend half the time on offense and half the time on defense. Their view of a play will vary depending on which side they're on at the moment. BUT after the game, they'll understand the perspectives. If they can't -they won't survive as a coach.

And while you and your parner are enjoying the post-game repast, the coaches are busy facing parents/players/fans/AD's/the press discussing the why's and wherefore's of the day's earth-shattering-important-as-all-hell-one-game-in-a-long-season, defending his moronic decisions (Why did you bunt/not bunt? Why didn't Johnny play? Why can't Bill hit - bench the idiot. Pretty dumb pitch call the Smith wasn't it?) to all comers.

Something that really annoys me is discussions of rec games/leagues where everyone involved except the umpires are volunteers, and reading umpire complaints about game length - when they're not complaining about it not being real baseball to have time limits.

Want to start a game on the wrong note? Say "Not on my field". Want to say it the right way? Say "Not in games I'm calling".

Most of all learn to "turn the page". When it's over, it's over. Move on.

[spiritump]

In this thread we have an umpire repeatedly claiming he knows who is and isn't concerned about having to reschedule a game - disputing someone who has been involved in all the issues for decades.

How many of you are involved in running a league?

How many of you just show up, do a pre-game., do the game, and get out of Dodge (collecting your chcck)?

There was a recent post that basically said that someone was a good coach but didn't teach behavior - and argued with those of us (including other umpires) who said that his failure to teach behavior meant he wasn't a good coach.

I am constantly having RAT thrown in my face - just because I coach.

I am constantly reading that coaches don't know the rules (and a significant number don't) but many (not all - many) of you indicate a refusal to teach (many of you do, but too many refuse). Why? Maybe so you can make statements like "I know the rules better than all of them"? Does that make you feel good? Important?

I have read posts (various boards) where a poster asked "why did the player - runner - coach - whomever do a particular thing" - which to me would be perfectly clear to someone who has been around the game for any length of time.

Yes, coaches are motivated to win. So are the players. It's the nature of competition. But there are lines that are not crossed - rules or no rules. There is self-policing that you have to allow up to a point. Read the WHOLE last sentence again, especially the underscored part.

Long term goals are part of the motivation/decision process.

Coaches measurements vary with the level. In many schools, and in college the players have to be academically eligible for example - so their performance in the classroom is important to the coach. In a season, players have to be kept healthy for the season, not just to the end of today's game.

In a 12U rec league - the goal is to teach skills and behaviors and to have the players enjoy it enough to want to come back next year.

Coaches take umbrage with your decision, not you personally. They'll be upset with whoever made the call - not because it's you.

Of course, after a while the coaches know who the good umpires are. They also know who they cringe for. You can probably split it into "game management" and "game calling". If you get too bad in either one, being really good in the other won't save your reputation.

Coaches spend half the time on offense and half the time on defense. Their view of a play will vary depending on which side they're on at the moment. BUT after the game, they'll understand the perspectives. If they can't -they won't survive as a coach.

And while you and your parner are enjoying the post-game repast, the coaches are busy facing parents/players/fans/AD's/the press discussing the why's and wherefore's of the day's earth-shattering-important-as-all-hell-one-game-in-a-long-season, defending his moronic decisions (Why did you bunt/not bunt? Why didn't Johnny play? Why can't Bill hit - bench the idiot. Pretty dumb pitch call the Smith wasn't it?) to all comers.

Something that really annoys me is discussions of rec games/leagues where everyone involved except the umpires are volunteers, and reading umpire complaints about game length - when they're not complaining about it not being real baseball to have time limits.

Want to start a game on the wrong note? Say "Not on my field". Want to say it the right way? Say "Not in games I'm calling".

Most of all learn to "turn the page". When it's over, it's over. Move on.

it is not the umpires job to teach the rules--the coaches should know the rules--also most coaches(I say over 90%) are parents and do it to be with there kids--as a ump I leave my family to WORK as a ump--when I WORK I get paid, don't you get paid to work?????

[mstaylor]

How many of you are involved in running a league?

I have run many youth baseball leagues. I am on the BOD of our men's league, which happens to be all umpires. I also work for the county park and rec.

How many of you just show up, do a pre-game., do the game, and get out of Dodge (collecting your chcck)?

Depends on the league but in most if I am umpiring I come, work the game and leave. However, I give my time on other days to assist in keeping the leagues running. I also spend many, many hours teaching and helping to improve our umpires.

I am constantly having RAT thrown in my face - just because I coach.

Only when you say stupid coach things or try to defend stupid coach tricks. I have acknowledged many times your rules knowledge, nor have I ever seen you called a rat.

I am constantly reading that coaches don't know the rules (and a significant number don't) but many (not all - many) of you indicate a refusal to teach (many of you do, but too many refuse). Why? Maybe so you can make statements like "I know the rules better than all of them"? Does that make you feel good? Important?

That is about the worse statement you have ever made here. Any that that could possibly apply to here don't work youth ball.

Coaches take umbrage with your decision, not you personally. They'll be upset with whoever made the call - not because it's you.

Of course, after a while the coaches know who the good umpires are. They also know who they cringe for. You can probably split it into "game management" and "game calling". If you get too bad in either one, being really good in the other won't save your reputation.

That's not been my experience with a percentage of coaches. I certainly have had my share that appreciated decent umpires but others prefer lesser umpires they can run games on.

Something that really annoys me is discussions of rec games/leagues where everyone involved except the umpires are volunteers, and reading umpire complaints about game length - when they're not complaining about it not being real baseball to have time limits.

Guys complain about the pace of the game which leads to long games. That is exactly what Joe complained about last year between Boston/NY. When they play each other they do every time wasting ploy in the book. Badly paced games are hard to work and boring.

Want to start a game on the wrong note? Say "Not on my field". Want to say it the right way? Say "Not in games I'm calling".

I would never say either. I say it is against, insert rule group, rules.

I don't really know what most of your post has to do with the thread but I am simply noting my musings.

[kylejt]

I really hate the "them vs. us" attitude from both coaches and umpires. I find that it's usually spawned from ignorance, grouchiness, or bad Mexican food. All unfortunate.

For every umpire that walks on the field assuming the guy in the dugout is an idiot, there's a coach thinking the same about you. If that's how you roll, I feel bad for you. Life's too short.