1st coach gets dumped

[Jocko]

Bases loaded. Pretty cllose game. Base hit plates 2. BR going for 2b on the throw from F8 to F2. F2 fires back to 2B and F4 swipes at BR (several feet shy of the bag, not time to slide yet). BR ducks his shoulder and I clearly see no tag. Verbal and mechanic. DTHC calls time and approaches my partner who instantaneously sends him to me. He asks if he can come talk. Sure. I stand in C awaiting his arrival. You wanna talk, you gotta walk. About halfway to the mound from 1BL he starts. Now, he could have said lots of things. I was prepared to give him what I saw. Does he ask about OOB? No. Does he ask about the tag/no tag call? Nuh-uh. Does he question the play at all? Nope. His words....."You were out of position to make that call." Really? Seriously? "You...Back to your dugout. (Point with left hand indicating his directionof travel)" He looks at me in disbelief. "You're ridiculous!" Not THAT'S ridiculous. YOU'RE. BOOM! He gone.

[grayhawk]

He gone.

 

That's how Uncle Si woulda done it back in Nam!

[JaxRolo]

Bye-bye all day! Adios!!!

[guyinaredhat]

If a coach comes out on you is it proper to make him walk all the way towards your position ? What do you guys think??

[BRUMP]

If a coach comes out on you is it proper to make him walk all the way towards your position ? What do you guys think??

i make em walk to me...if you walk to him you could be perceived as the aggressor

[mstaylor]

Let them walk. If they come out fast then it won't take them long. If they stroll out I ask,"Can I help you?" Let him explain his complaint. 

[blue23ll]

It's his dime, he can walk to me. In fact, I will not allow a coach to jawbone me from long distance. Good toss Jocko!  I probably would have added after the EJ, "I don't tell you how to coach, you don't tell me how to umpire"

[jjb]

I agree, sort of. But, I'm going to walk at least partially to him, say, in your sit, from C to the mound area. That way, when the conversation is over, I have a place to go (back to C). I you wait until he gets to C, and you want to walk away, where ya gonna go?

[bam]

After the 3rd out they have to walk all the way out to deep right to talk to me. 

[JaxRolo]

After the 3rd out they have to walk all the way out to deep right to talk to me. 

Same here!!!

[Texas Manny]

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.

[CodyLoe15]

Not sure of the proper place to ask this question, however, this seems like it would do.  What does everyone think of the verbal "you are going to make me eject you"  before you actually pull the trigger?

[Texas Manny]

Not sure of the proper place to ask this question, however, this seems like it would do.  What does everyone think of the verbal "you are going to make me eject you"  before you actually pull the trigger?

Prepare to dial 9-11 and call in a five alarm fire if you do!

 

You need to be very careful under what circumstances you use that specific line. I wouldn't. It smells of baiting.

 

Give a warning that has teeth, like "Conversations over. I don't want to hear anyone. Go back to the dugout.", or "I know you are not arguing balls and strikes, are you?" "I'm not going to listen to you anymore." or "That's enough!"

 

Be advised, if you draw a line in the sand, you better be prepared to eject if they cross it. If you don't, they'll run you through as weak.

[JaxRolo]

Not sure of the proper place to ask this question, however, this seems like it would do. What does everyone think of the verbal "you are going to make me eject you" before you actually pull the trigger?

No. I don't like it. Sounds like you are threatening.

[CodyLoe15]

I understand it is drawing a line in the sand but that is the point of that statement.  Just the same as I have heard enough or conversation is over so and so go back to your dugout.  Only time that comment would be said is if I am prepared to eject him and want to extend the last inch of rope to hang himself.  Are you simply recommending that I avoid that comment or simply be aware of the repercussions it can bring if not used effectively?

[blue23ll]

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.

[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.

[BRUMP]

once a coach starts telling me how to umpire he's forfeited his right to a conversation

[Texas Manny]

once a coach starts telling me how to umpire he's forfeited his right to a conversation

That's why I shut that down right away by not saying "I won't discuss my mechanics with you."   It's none of his business. But to shut down communication because he goes there always IMHO isn't always best.

[Stan W.]

Not sure of the proper place to ask this question, however, this seems like it would do.  What does everyone think of the verbal "you are going to make me eject you"  before you actually pull the trigger?

no no no........way too much conversation...........after thats enough...keep it short and simple.......as a card carrying member of the "five words or less" club, I dont reccomend any preceived threat of ejection, especially when you are a younger umpire..........No offense to Manny,  but I also dont feel that longer conversations are needed.....I'm for clear, concise communications........

[Texas Manny]

 

Not sure of the proper place to ask this question, however, this seems like it would do.  What does everyone think of the verbal "you are going to make me eject you"  before you actually pull the trigger?

no no no........way too much conversation...........after thats enough...keep it short and simple.......as a card carrying member of the "five words or less" club, I dont reccomend any preceived threat of ejection, especially when you are a younger umpire..........No offense to Manny,  but I also dont feel that longer conversations are needed.....I'm for clear, concise communications........

 

I don't take offense, but how is my conversation not clear, concise communication? "I'm not going to discuss my mechanics with you." is not concise? "If you want to discuss the play we will, if not were done here." is not concise?

 

Wow. Y'all think I have the Gettysburg Address out there. Either that or it appears y'all are neither reading or comprehending what I am saying.

 

What works for me, may not work for you, and vice versa. Just because I do it a little differently, doesn't make it wrong. Just because you do it your way doesn't make it wrong either. I just offered an alternative viewpoint.

[CodyLoe15]

Im not disagreeing with you at all.  I was just asking how you felt about it and if you think its an absolutly do not use type of phrase.

[Texas Manny]

Im not disagreeing with you at all.  I was just asking how you felt about it and if you think its an absolutly do not use type of phrase.

My post was in reference to Stan W., not you Cody. I'm not upset or offended. Not in the least.

[blue23ll]

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.

[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.

 

Per PBUC: If the manager has a legitimate point to argue under the rules, it is the umpires duty to listen to him if his comments and demeanor are reasonable. An umpire can do this with dignity and no loss of respect. Be understanding - remember, the players are in a heated contest. You are impartial judges and should maintain a calm dignity becoming of your authority. Be a good listener. (Bolds as in the book).

 

Apparently you didn't read or apprehend what my conversation was with the coach. I know he didn't ask in the OP's about the play. He went straight to mechanics. I deflected that. Neither was my response to the situation as the OP stated NOT out of line, unprofessional, or misguided. It is concise and clear. If he wants to discuss the play, that's fine, but the play, nothing else. I know he wants to discuss that, so either get him to that point, or get him out of there. I know first hand what happens when you make yourself unapproachable. That's why I shared, from my perspective, what I've learned from the trial of hard knocks. All I stated was an alternative way of handling which is proven to work. Not just by me, but by other umpires as well.

 

If you don't like the way I handle something, that's fine. But don't just tell me I'm wrong and not show me where I am making a mistake. I'm not doing anything that is unnecessary or extra, or out of the norm. I'm following the guidelines for which I was trained under, and apparently are still being taught today. I'm not a red ass anymore. I will give the coach the chance, and will direct the conversation, but I will not take crap from him. I'm not afraid to eject. It's just not my first option.

 

Yes, I'm a little frustrated, not because you question me, but because it appears you haven't read what I've said, and you are forming opinions and making statements on half assumptions. I am in no way angry, or offended. Can't learn in that state. So all is good and no worries. It's a honest discussion and is welcomed.