1st coach gets dumped

[mstaylor]

This thread went south and I have no idea why. When I read a thread I generally don't read who writes what, it is irrelevant to me who has what ideas. There were things said that have no business being said, that said, can we continue the discussion or does it need to be locked?

I want to show the thread by my take. The different stances were basically put forth by Jocko,Manny and myself so I will address it in those terms. It is not a calling out of anyone, just my take on the thread.

In the OP the manager decided that commenting on his position was the way to argue and that was shut down by saying the discussion was done. Manny believes that redirecting the conversation to the call is the way to go, not a bad position. Jocko chose to shut it down completely, also not a bad position considering he started before he got there. I thought that asking him if there was a question was the way to redirect back to the call. The opposition to Manny's method was it was too wordy. I prefer to use much less conversation but game management is different for each person. 

Once Jocko shut it down the coach decided a personal attack was better. Again Jocko went with an ejection, which I personally agree with. Manny prefers to try to diffuse the situation. Laudable but I believe a misguided belief. Once it gets personal he has to go. I believe we all three agree that being toss happy is a bad way to go, handling a situation is better. Where each umpire has to decide is where that line stops. 

Back to the OP,if he had said nothing before getting there I would have asked him if I could help him? Depending on my mood and the game situation, when he chose to discuss my mechanics my response may been, that is not open for discussion. I prefer to defuse situations, I don't look for ejections but I certainly don't shy away from them. 

The three methods are not all that dissimilar. The method that just is wrong is to believe that ejections are bad. Some believe  that not tossing at all is a good thing, that is not true in this discussion. 

[JaxRolo]

This thread went south and I have no idea why. When I read a thread I generally don't read who writes what, it is irrelevant to me who has what ideas. There were things said that have no business being said, that said, can we continue the discussion or does it need to be locked?

I want to show the thread by my take. The different stances were basically put forth by Jocko,Manny and myself so I will address it in those terms. It is not a calling out of anyone, just my take on the thread.

In the OP the manager decided that commenting on his position was the way to argue and that was shut down by saying the discussion was done. Manny believes that redirecting the conversation to the call is the way to go, not a bad position. Jocko chose to shut it down completely, also not a bad position considering he started before he got there. I thought that asking him if there was a question was the way to redirect back to the call. The opposition to Manny's method was it was too wordy. I prefer to use much less conversation but game management is different for each person. 

Once Jocko shut it down the coach decided a personal attack was better. Again Jocko went with an ejection, which I personally agree with. Manny prefers to try to diffuse the situation. Laudable but I believe a misguided belief. Once it gets personal he has to go. I believe we all three agree that being toss happy is a bad way to go, handling a situation is better. Where each umpire has to decide is where that line stops. 

Back to the OP,if he had said nothing before getting there I would have asked him if I could help him? Depending on my mood and the game situation, when he chose to discuss my mechanics my response may been, that is not open for discussion. I prefer to defuse situations, I don't look for ejections but I certainly don't shy away from them. 

The three methods are not all that dissimilar. The method that just is wrong is to believe that ejections are bad. Some believe  that not tossing at all is a good thing, that is not true in this discussion. 

 

Mike can you say all this in Spanish??? So I can Understand? I got a headache trying to read it.

 

 

But you are correct!

[mstaylor]

Jax, I took my obligatory one year of Spanish in eighth grade, which was 1972, so probably not.  

[Texas Manny]

 

This thread went south and I have no idea why. When I read a thread I generally don't read who writes what, it is irrelevant to me who has what ideas. There were things said that have no business being said, that said, can we continue the discussion or does it need to be locked?

I want to show the thread by my take. The different stances were basically put forth by Jocko,Manny and myself so I will address it in those terms. It is not a calling out of anyone, just my take on the thread.

In the OP the manager decided that commenting on his position was the way to argue and that was shut down by saying the discussion was done. Manny believes that redirecting the conversation to the call is the way to go, not a bad position. Jocko chose to shut it down completely, also not a bad position considering he started before he got there. I thought that asking him if there was a question was the way to redirect back to the call. The opposition to Manny's method was it was too wordy. I prefer to use much less conversation but game management is different for each person. 

Once Jocko shut it down the coach decided a personal attack was better. Again Jocko went with an ejection, which I personally agree with. Manny prefers to try to diffuse the situation. Laudable but I believe a misguided belief. Once it gets personal he has to go. I believe we all three agree that being toss happy is a bad way to go, handling a situation is better. Where each umpire has to decide is where that line stops. 

Back to the OP,if he had said nothing before getting there I would have asked him if I could help him? Depending on my mood and the game situation, when he chose to discuss my mechanics my response may been, that is not open for discussion. I prefer to defuse situations, I don't look for ejections but I certainly don't shy away from them. 

The three methods are not all that dissimilar. The method that just is wrong is to believe that ejections are bad. Some believe  that not tossing at all is a good thing, that is not true in this discussion. 

 

Mike can you say all this in Spanish??? So I can Understand?

 

Este subproceso se trasladó al sur y no tengo ni idea por qué. Cuando leí un hilo que por lo general no leo que escribe lo que, es irrelevante para mí quién tiene qué ideas. Hay cosas que no tienen nada que decir, una vez dicho esto, podemos continuar con el debate o ¿es necesario que sea bloqueado?

Quiero mostrar el hilo de mi. Las distintas posturas fueron básicamente por, Jocko, Manny y yo por lo que voy a abordar el tema en esos términos. No se trata de una llamada de nadie, solo mi parecer sobre el tema.

En el PO el manager decidió que al comentar sobre su posición era la forma de argumentar y que fue cerrada por el debate que se llevó a cabo. Manny cree que redirigir la conversación de la llamada es el camino a seguir, no es una mala posición. , Jocko optó por apagarlo por completo, y no una mala posición considerando que comenzó antes de llegar allí. Pensé que si había una pregunta era la forma de redireccionar a la llamada. La oposición al método de Manny era que estaba demasiado locuaces. Prefiero utilizar mucho menos conversación pero juego gestión es diferente para cada persona.

Una vez, Jocko se apaga el entrenador decidió un ataque personal era mejor. Una vez más, Jocko fue con la expulsión, lo que personalmente estoy de acuerdo con. Manny prefiere para tratar de calmar la situación. Loable, pero creo que una creencia errónea. Una vez que obtiene personal tiene que ir. Yo creo que todos están de acuerdo que el hecho de ser tirada feliz es una mala manera de ir, manejo de una situación mejor. Donde cada árbitro tiene que decidir es el lugar donde la línea se detiene.

A la OP, si él mismo había dicho nada antes de llegar le habría pedido si podía ayudarle? Dependiendo de mi estado de ánimo y la situación de la partida, cuando se decidió a hablar de mi mecánica mi respuesta, que no es abierto a discusión. Yo prefiero a resolver situaciones, yo no salgo de expulsiones pero, ciertamente, no te asustes.

Los tres métodos no son del todo diferentes. El método que sólo es un error es creer que expulsiones son malas. Algunos creen que no despide a todos es una buena cosa, que no es cierto en este debate.

 

Mi español es la forma oxidada. 

[Umpire in Chief]

Rule # 7 

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

[Texas Manny]

Rule # 7 

 

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

It is a complete translation in Spanish what MST said, but I understand.

[mstaylor]

Just making Jax comfy.

[Texas Manny]

Just making Jax comfy.

That's all. I did it as a courtesy as a hand extended for peace...

[mstaylor]

My spanish is mostly limited to what's cardable in hispanic soccer.

[Forest Ump]

I'm on the fence about this one. He starts from the mound and says you are out of position. You immediately cut off the conversation and don't give him a chance to ask for an explanation of the play. He's stumped and says "You're ridiculous." I couldn't dump him for that. Here is how I would have handled the situation:

 

I would have replied "I clearly saw the play." If he continued with the out of position remarks, I would then reply: "I'm not discussing my mechanics with you. If you want to know what happened I'll tell you, but I'm not discussing my mechanics." If he tries the out of position again, then I would say "Conversation over. Done. Go back to your dugout coach." If he asks why, then "You're not here to find out what happened. Go back to the dugout. We're done here." Then he either goes to the dugout or he continues. Continues = "You're gone!" If walking back he makes a smart ass personal retort, that's an exit as well.

 

I would not eject for "You're ridiculous." That's what my experience has shown as a red-ass reputation earning ejection.

 

This is just going solely by what you wrote and takes into account no other factors that may have fed into this scenario.

 

I just would have handled it a little differently.

 

Also, umpires in discussions with personnel should be passive, not aggressive. To meet with them half way on controversy situations can imply aggressiveness. A few steps towards them in non-call objecting conversations is not a problem, or in explaining decision reversing calls.

Manny....I got no problem with any of what you wrote if it was a lower level game. JV and  higher, I would go with Jockos way.

 

BTW. I think it's horseSH*# that folks here are piling on you because you  have said that you don't have a quick trigger finger. Too many umpires are quick to eject. Many ejections can be traced to a mistake made by the umpire.

[JaxRolo]

Just making Jax comfy.

That's all. I did it as a courtesy as a hand extended for peace... Gracias Amigo!

[ricka56]

"You're ridiculous!"

Coach has satisfied one of the 3 P's criteria for ejection (personal, profane, persistant). When he declares that "You..." or "You're..." he is 99% EJ'd. But you have to listen to what follows  on the off chance he's saying "you're doing a great job" (without sarcasm). If the rest of the sentence is less than complimentary, he's gone.

 

I forgot who said it or the exact wording, but a coach asked an umpire if he could be ejected for what he was thinking. The umpire made the mistake of saying that he couldn't be ejected. Then the coach said, "well, I think you're the <expletive> sorriest excuse for an umpire there ever was".Legend has it the umpire didn't eject.  Coaches are entitled to their opinion, but "You're ridiculous"="I'm gone".  

[Pete Peterson Sr]

 

If the person's actions and/or behavior is enough to warrant an ejection, then eject. There is no positive outcome if you ask "are you going to make me eject you?" , unless you weren't planning to eject anyway, and they answer 'no'.  Manny, far too much dialog in my opinion. You wouldn't eject for being called ridiculous? How about stupid? Or an idiot? Let them object to my calls all they want, that might have been a 'stupid call', and that is their opinion. If you call me stupid, an idiot or ridiculous, you are gonzo.

A manager or coach has the right to come out to get an explanation of a play/call. He also has the right to hear that explanation of said play/call. You have to have dialogue. As the umpire, it is part of your job to keep that dialogue focused and not off-topic. That's exactly what I did in my conversation example. We are not god's out there and we shouldn't have the expectation of not having our decisions questioned. That's not to say that I'm saying Jocko feels like that, or felt like that at that time.

 

No umpire should allow extended conversation on plays/calls. Coach has his say. Umpire has his. If there is no conflict of rule or extenuating circumstances where umpire was blocked out, then conversation over. If not, warning. If not further, gone.

 

As for the ridiculous comment, it's the weight of the word. Ridiculous is a joke in of itself. If he says "You're an idiot" then yes, I'd eject him; weak as it is. But again, I wouldn't of handled it the way Jocko did, so it may not have gone there. I feel Jocko indirectly created the circumstances for the ejection because he shut the dialogue down before the coach had a chance to ask what happened, and Jocko didn't try to get the conversation on track. Jocko had his reasons. I'm not Jocko. I'm me. That's how I'd handle it.

 

 

 So in your games, coaches are allowed to critique your positioning, and the manner in which you umpire ? The coach didn't want an explanation, he wanted to bitch. BIG difference.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

If the person's actions and/or behavior is enough to warrant an ejection, then eject. There is no positive outcome if you ask "are you going to make me eject you?" , unless you weren't planning to eject anyway, and they answer 'no'.  Manny, far too much dialog in my opinion. You wouldn't eject for being called ridiculous? How about stupid? Or an idiot? Let them object to my calls all they want, that might have been a 'stupid call', and that is their opinion. If you call me stupid, an idiot or ridiculous, you are gonzo.

A manager or coach has the right to come out to get an explanation of a play/call. He also has the right to hear that explanation of said play/call. You have to have dialogue. As the umpire, it is part of your job to keep that dialogue focused and not off-topic. That's exactly what I did in my conversation example. We are not god's out there and we shouldn't have the expectation of not having our decisions questioned. That's not to say that I'm saying Jocko feels like that, or felt like that at that time.

 

No umpire should allow extended conversation on plays/calls. Coach has his say. Umpire has his. If there is no conflict of rule or extenuating circumstances where umpire was blocked out, then conversation over. If not, warning. If not further, gone.

 

As for the ridiculous comment, it's the weight of the word. Ridiculous is a joke in of itself. If he says "You're an idiot" then yes, I'd eject him; weak as it is. But again, I wouldn't of handled it the way Jocko did, so it may not have gone there. I feel Jocko indirectly created the circumstances for the ejection because he shut the dialogue down before the coach had a chance to ask what happened, and Jocko didn't try to get the conversation on track. Jocko had his reasons. I'm not Jocko. I'm me. That's how I'd handle it.

 

 

 So in your games, umpires are allowed to critique your positioning, and the manner in which you umpire ? The coach didn't want an explanation, he wanted to bitch. BIG difference.

 

What's your point? He posted up to invite a conversation and so I expanded on it. If you had gone back and read what was written in other posts, you would have seen that that was written before Jocko added much more information to the story, and that Jocko and I had a private discussion where we shared thoughts and came to an agreement. I didn't share it here because frankly, y'all just cruxify me rather than hearing what I have to say and having a learning discussion about it. That doesn't mean what I say is golden. It just means that what we all say should be open to discussion.

 

As for the manager wanting to bitch rather than have an explanation. Jocko ran him because of circumstances not given in the original thread post, but in secondary. I would have had a little shorter fuse as well knowing more of the information, however, I would still have tried to refocus the manager's argument. Since when do manager's, or coaches know how to argue?

 

Can you please tell me what umpire association doesn't have it's members critique or discuss things that happen in a game?

 

Again, I just have a diffent way of handling things. Go back and read Mike Taylors summation of the thread. He put it succinctly and professionally.

[Jocko]

@Manny

I really don't think I added anything in my following posts that wasn't in the OP. I just broke it down into bite sized pieces.

[Texas Manny]

@Manny

I really don't think I added anything in my following posts that wasn't in the OP. I just broke it down into bite sized pieces.

Referring to the information given in posts 42, 43, and 44. You gave some more detail on what was in the OP, plus I'm taking into account what we spoke with in PM's. No worries.

[Jocko]

@Manny

Gotcha. No worries.

[Platejob29]

 

Manny, in the OP the coach did not ask for an explanation of the play, but he told the umpire he was in a bad position to make the call. He doesn't have a right to do that, and I don't agree that he has a 'right' to do anything. He can ask for an explanation of a rule, an interpretation of that rule, and if we decide to, we might explain what we saw on a play, and why we decided as we did. If the coach is respectful, he gets a lot more lee way, at least with me.

Where in the rules does it say that the coach doesn't have the right to say that the umpire was out of position? No where. The coach can say it. It doesn't mean you have to entertain it. I was simply giving an alternative method to dealing with it, which you apparently feel it is correct to say that I am WRONG.

 

 

 

9.01©, 9.01(d), 9.02(a). 

[Texas Manny]

 

 

Manny, in the OP the coach did not ask for an explanation of the play, but he told the umpire he was in a bad position to make the call. He doesn't have a right to do that, and I don't agree that he has a 'right' to do anything. He can ask for an explanation of a rule, an interpretation of that rule, and if we decide to, we might explain what we saw on a play, and why we decided as we did. If the coach is respectful, he gets a lot more lee way, at least with me.

Where in the rules does it say that the coach doesn't have the right to say that the umpire was out of position? No where. The coach can say it. It doesn't mean you have to entertain it. I was simply giving an alternative method to dealing with it, which you apparently feel it is correct to say that I am WRONG.

 

 

 

9.01©, 9.01(d), 9.02(a). 

 

9.01C: C'mon. That's a little weak. Or as others have said, "Is for weenies."

9.01D: Covers ejections and if a play is in progress.

9.02A: If saying "You're out of position." constitutes arguing a judgment call for you, then I guess you could CYA with this, but I still don't think by itself saying "You're out of position", qualifies for an EJ. There has to be more to it. For me, that's a lil red ass. No disrespect intended. We just look at it a lil different.

[Jocko]

Someone lock this thread please.

[Mr Umpire]

As I have disagreed with Jocko in the past about EJ, this one may fall under that as well. 

 

However, each umpire has his level of tolerance.  I certainly have mine with others on these forums.      While one umpire won't bother with EJ for this, others will.  Is it something I would have?  It depends but if he is yellling it from across the field, maybe.  Tone and distance will play a lot into it.  And, I don't need an exactly worded rule to find support unlike some it appears.

 

Also, don't count on a thread lock.  You opened the door, don't expect someone to close it for you. 

[Texas Manny]

Someone lock this thread please.

Jocko knows we discussed this situation and I understand his reasoning behind the ejection and I support him. My response above yours was just in response to what someone wrote to me. That's all.

[Jocko]

As I have disagreed with Jocko in the past about EJ, this one may fall under that as well.  However, each umpire has his level of tolerance.  I certainly have mine with others on these forums.      While one umpire won't bother with EJ for this, others will.  Is it something I would have?  It depends but if he is yellling it from across the field, maybe.  Tone and distance will play a lot into it.  And, I don't need an exactly worded rule to find support unlike some it appears. Also, don't count on a thread lock.  You opened the door, don't expect someone to close it for you. 

with undue respect, IDGAF if you agree with me or not. My UIC and everyone that matters does.

I only asked for this thread to be locked to avoid conflict. Chime in all you want. But don't get your feelings hurt at responses YOU may receive. Guaranteed I won't.

[Mr Umpire]

 

As I have disagreed with Jocko in the past about EJ, this one may fall under that as well.  However, each umpire has his level of tolerance.  I certainly have mine with others on these forums.      While one umpire won't bother with EJ for this, others will.  Is it something I would have?  It depends but if he is yellling it from across the field, maybe.  Tone and distance will play a lot into it.  And, I don't need an exactly worded rule to find support unlike some it appears. Also, don't count on a thread lock.  You opened the door, don't expect someone to close it for you. 

with undue respect, IDGAF if you agree with me or not. My UIC and everyone that matters does.

I only asked for this thread to be locked to avoid conflict. Chime in all you want. But don't get your feelings hurt at responses YOU may receive. Guaranteed I won't.

 

Well, hmmm, ok.  I'm going to guess "YOU" is not directed at me but someone else who took something personal as I have never taken anything personal from here or any other forum.

 

It sounds like you are taking a disagreement personally, not me.  All I was saying was how some may not agree but if I saw the circumstances, I may have agreed.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

For what it is worth, Jocko doesn't have a quick trigger. I have a couple of guys that do, but he isn't one of those. Of the few ejections he has had that I have reviewed, I could not argue with a single one.