Too Lenient?

[umpire_scott]

I honestly can't remember the last time I ejected a player or a coach.  I've had several but none in the past several years.  I think part of that has come from me dealing with situations better and not escalating them.  But in reading other posts I am starting to wonder if I'm too lenient with coaches and need to eject more to ensure that I'm controlling the game.

 

I'll run a few situations by you that I had:

 

15U travel ball tourney.  Had a team that complained about my zone a few times.  Mainly on curve balls.  The complaints were quick and were dropped.  For example I had a curve that dropped hard, late and the catcher caught it basket style, but off the ground and I called a strike.  The HC said "you've got to be kidding me he picked it off the ground".  I ignored and no more was said.  Later on another breaking pitch that broke differently it had a more sideways slider break and it changed very little in height.  Finished at about the navel and the coach mutters something about both of those can't be strikes. I simply say "not all curve balls break the same".  Nothing else is said.  I have the same team the next day.  Once again a chirp here and there, nothing personal, and quickly dropped.  Then late in the game a pitch comes in off the plate inside to a RH batter.  Team is in the 3B dugout and one of the assistants stands up and yells "how can the plate shrink during the game".  At the same time the HC ask where the pitch was.  I say to the HC "inside", and I say to the AC "we are not going to argue balls and strikes".  He responds with "I wasn't arguing I was asking you a question".  I said I know what you were doing and it's not going to happen. 

 

Should I have ejected him or did I handle it okay?

[semper_fi_72]

Sounds like a normal day at work.

I don't have anything in your post that would be worthy of an Ejection.

 

Only thing I would do different is, ignore the AC comment and don't start a discussion with him.

In response to the HC asking where that pitcht was, a good F2 better be telling him it was inside before I have to respond.

[Mike Prince]

There is a generally accepted sequence here:  "Ignore - Acknowledge - Warn - Eject".  So to put this in the context of what you posted:

 

Day 1 - 1) "You've got to be kidding me he picked it up off the ground" - Ignore (which you did)

Day 1 - 2) "Both of these cannot be strikes" - Acknowledge (this means to look at the coach with no words to let him know you heard him this time - you made a comment back to him here)

 

That is the end of this game, it is over.  You can't carry anything into next day's game even though you constructed your post that way.

 

Day 2 - you don't really define what a "chirp here and there" really means, but you let it continue according to your post.  Without further details, I would have done the ignore/acknowledge/warn/eject cycle here too.  The problem with dismissing chirping as minor and not addressing it at some point is that things will escalate as they seem to in your post.  As a tip - do not respond to the AC in the dugout, I personally think you did OK responding to the HC but do not engage in a back and forth with the dugout.  If I get into a conversation with the dugout it's usually because someone in there is going home.  In this situation considering how you got to the late innings with letting chirping go, I would not have EJ.  If you had given a warning prior to that (a simple "that's enough") for the earlier chirping, then perhaps the AC gets a free pass to the parking lot.

 

Looking back at your post (and previous ball/strike posts of yours), it sure seems like your zone is tight and inconsistent at the same time.  Please don't take it personally, but when someone starts explaining pitches (beyond one word location answers) to a manager my initial conclusion is that they missed it.  If you are getting complaints "mainly on curve balls" then you need to work on tracking breaking pitches better.  Follow the pitch to the mitt with your eyes (not your head) - do a search on the "sock drill" and this will help you.

[HeadHunterLA]

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

[LMSANS]

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

[maven]

In general, if you have to ask "too lenient?" the answer is yes.

[HeadHunterLA]

 

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

 

Did you not finish the sentence and read this part, "unless they do something that warrants an ejection"????

[Mike Prince]

My view is that coaches and players keep themselves in the game, I have very little to do with that aside from being the one to tell them that they have lost the privilege to remain.  I don't ever think I have had an EJ where in retrospect I can't say the coach punched his own ticket.

 

If you tell someone "that's enough" and they keep going, who has ejected who?  At that point I am just the messenger.

[LMSANS]

 

 

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

 

Did you not finish the sentence and read this part, "unless they do something that warrants an ejection"????

 

I'm not doing anything to keep them in the game.  The sentence is in conflict with itself.  If you are trying to keep them in the game, then you have insinuated that you will extend whatever criteria it is you use for EJ.

[BigUmpire]

 

 

 

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

 

Did you not finish the sentence and read this part, "unless they do something that warrants an ejection"????

 

I'm not doing anything to keep them in the game.  The sentence is in conflict with itself.  If you are trying to keep them in the game, then you have insinuated that you will extend whatever criteria it is you use for EJ.

 

Another 'NO$H1T1ER"

[HeadHunterLA]

 

 

 

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

 

Did you not finish the sentence and read this part, "unless they do something that warrants an ejection"????

 

I'm not doing anything to keep them in the game.  The sentence is in conflict with itself.  If you are trying to keep them in the game, then you have insinuated that you will extend whatever criteria it is you use for EJ.

 

No, that isn't what that means at all.  Never mind, cheers!

[RichMSN]

I'll go back to the OP for a moment.

 

If the catcher caught it basket-style, just off the ground -- could it be the pitch should've been called a ball?

 

In the baseball I work, if the ball hits the knee and is caught like *that*, then the catcher did a really poor job and me calling it a strike is going to make everyone unhappy and make me look incompetent.

 

Or maybe your timing was a bit fast and you decided it was a strike 5 feet in front of the plate?

 

I know that this is and eject or don't eject thread, but seemed like a good place to ask some of these questions.

[Stan W.]

Im pretty happy with the game manangement skills and the temprement that I have developed over the years......this might just be considered semantics to some..........but.I do not "try" to keep anyone in the game......oh, yes, I may have chided, scolded, kidded, shamed, ignored, reasoned, explained, advised, consoled and commiserated with game participants to diffuse certain situations so that they didnt escalate, slow down or sidetrack the game........buts thats just my basic game participant management......

 

But I agree with @LMSANS that "trying to keep them in the game" seems somehow to be extending my criteria for ejection........and I cant/wont do that....If despite my efforts to manage the game in a professional manner a participant goes too far, then they go......trusting my standards lets me never regret an ejection and to that end, I've had fewer ejections than some and maybe a little more than some others......

 

but its the method I've found that works best for me....

Edited June 24, 2013 by Stan W.
clarity in the use of the english language...

[HeadHunterLA]

It is semantics, all those game management skills you describe are used to not have to eject someone.  

[umpire_scott]

I'll go back to the OP for a moment.

 

If the catcher caught it basket-style, just off the ground -- could it be the pitch should've been called a ball?

 

In the baseball I work, if the ball hits the knee and is caught like *that*, then the catcher did a really poor job and me calling it a strike is going to make everyone unhappy and make me look incompetent.

 

Or maybe your timing was a bit fast and you decided it was a strike 5 feet in front of the plate?

 

I know that this is and eject or don't eject thread, but seemed like a good place to ask some of these questions.

 

1.  Yes it is possible the pitch should have been called a ball.  In my estimation it appeared to be at the bottom of the knees but the late break caught the catcher by surprise and that's why he turned his glove.  I don't think he needed to catch it that way.

 

2.  I don't think it was my timing as much as it was indecision.  I didn't decide it was a strike too soon.  I processed it all and felt that in the zone it was higher than some fastballs that I had called strikes.  Remember that in previous posts many of you were telling me that my zone appeared too small so I was aware of that this weekend and trying to be more liberal with my zone. 

[Stan W.]

It is semantics, all those game management skills you describe are used to not have to eject someone.  

Not in my opinion of course, because not every participant interaction or baseball situation escalates into an ejection scenario......  most of these skills are just being used to manage the game participants on a ordinary game basis into resuming or conducting the game in an orderly fashion..........for the most part they dont even know that they are being managed.......

 

yes, I have used some of them when things get a little heated.....but they confirm their own ejections by exceeding my accepted standards.....and at that point I will not use any of those skills to extend their participation in the game.....when they got to go,,....they go....

 

Ejections are another beast entirely ........ 

[Minnz]

To the OP: I think you are just fine.  I think ejecting is the last resort and too many umpires overuse it at the HS and Rec levels.  Plus hey I hate paperwork so why be fast to eject (half joking.)  Unless they are arguing after being warned OR they use the "**** YOU" many words to insert there, let them stay.

 

I will say for the AC.  Ignore ALL ACs, since only the HC can even talk to you.  Only time I ever talk to AC is when they may be coming off a base coaching gig back to dugout.  AND they better walk and talk not stop to have the conversation.

 

Keep on keeping guys in the game I say.

[blue23ll]

I believe that when there is a lot of chirping going on during the game about your zone, maybe you need to change your zone. Now there are always going to be 'oohs and ah's', but when you get persistent tension...then you need to adjust your settings. As far as responding to chirping, ie. "I simply say "not all curve balls break the same", that to me just invites further debate, and this is not a debate.  Should you eject in the situation you described, I say no.

[RichMSN]

To the OP: I think you are just fine.  I think ejecting is the last resort and too many umpires overuse it at the HS and Rec levels. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "last resort."  Maybe you could explain your thinking there.

[blue23ll]

I don't think ejecting is a last resort by any means. Sometimes it should be the FIRST resort. And my experience has been that we have much fewer ejections in high school than any rec ball I have worked.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

 

 

You did fine.  Always try and keep players and coaches in the game unless they do something that warrants an ejection.  Too many umpires have quick triggers in my opinion.

I don't agree with the bold part.  I will listen and even answer legitimate questions, but if they get stupid, I'm not trying to keep them.

 

Did you not finish the sentence and read this part, "unless they do something that warrants an ejection"????

 

 

 This falls under the heading of "them removing themselves from the game", IMHO. It is their job to keep themselves in the game.

[mstaylor]

I hate the phrase,"Keeping coaches in the game." I pride myself in controlling game situations, using preventive umpiring, and shutting things down early. This is not keeping coaches in a game, it's managing the game so problems don't escalate. I have absolutely no problem tossing anybody, they kiddingly call me Dr. Hook, even though I have very few ejections. This was not always the case, but as my game management skills and rules knowledge is more ingrained, I have few ejections. 

[MPLSMatt]

Just curious, for all of you who are saying not to acknowledge the assistant, are you literally ignoring that comment in the OP, or are you telling the HC that you don't want to hear that from his dugout?  I don't have medium skin (not real thick, not too thin either) but passive aggressive half comments like that yelled loudly at me piss me off and I tend to try to shut them down.  Honestly, I might have handled it exactly the same as the OP except after he made his flippant "it's a question" comment he's getting a firm "that's enough." But, most of those who are saying ignore are more experienced than I, so this is just one guys opinion.  

[James Walker]

Just curious, for all of you who are saying not to acknowledge the assistant, are you literally ignoring that comment in the OP, or are you telling the HC that you don't want to hear that from his dugout?  I don't have medium skin (not real thick, not too thin either) but passive aggressive half comments like that yelled loudly at me piss me off and I tend to try to shut them down.  Honestly, I might have handled it exactly the same as the OP except after he made his flippant "it's a question" comment he's getting a firm "that's enough." But, most of those who are saying ignore are more experienced than I, so this is just one guys opinion.

First time, ignore it. Especially if its coming from the dugout.

Second time, look towards the dugout. ( if the chirping is coming from a coaches box, this is step one). Take a few seconds to see if you can see who said it or reply to the look.

Third time, warn. If you don't know who it is, give a bench warning. If you do, be specific. Either coach or # (player), put up the stop sign and say that's enough.

Forth time... BOOM. Pretty self explanatory. The coach or player is given permission to leave sight and sound for the remainder of the contest.

[BigUmp56]

 

2.  I don't think it was my timing as much as it was indecision.  I didn't decide it was a strike too soon.  I processed it all and felt that in the zone it was higher than some fastballs that I had called strikes.  Remember that in previous posts many of you were telling me that my zone appeared too small so I was aware of that this weekend and trying to be more liberal with my zone.

Scott,

Very recently you and I had a discussion about you having "indecision" calling balls and strikes. Please take this the right way, brother, because I really am trying to help you to become a better balls and strikes umpire. If you're having indecision on pitches it's because you're not properly tracking the ball all the way from the pitcher's hand, entering and passing through the area of the zone, and finishing at the mitt. You'll hear over and over that the art of calling pitches has much to do with timing. What you don't hear very often is what timing really is. It's not an arbitrary measurement of elapsed seconds. Rather, it's the proper use of the eyes as you track and PROCESS all of the elements of the pitch. Much like a good hitter does, you need to keep you eyes focused on the ball's speed, spin, movement, and trajectory. When you're doing this correctly; there's no indecision about the call of ball or strike. You KNOW what it is when it finishes in the mitt. There will be times when you'll get a little fooled on a pitch, just as a good hitter does. But when you're using your eyes properly you'll be able to gather all that you've processed in a split second to know what call to make.

I hope this makes sense to you and can help you.

Tim.