Agressive vs Assertive

[mstaylor]

@Specks  I believe you explained Manny's position better than I did and you have nailed it. I agree that I would rather see a young guy toss a little quick than a little slow. Too many get intimidated by problem coaches, don't do anything about it and then quits because they don't like the position. This is why I say each toss needs to be gone over by the UIC to evaluate the merits. Then you can go over it and explain why it was good, why it was fast or how it could have been defused. It is nearly impossible to teach guys how to handle coaches, it is such a case by case thing. 

[Texas Manny]

MU,

 

Thank you for having the common sense to ask me what I mean. I've been very frustrated because folks have taken what I said about trying to keep folks in the game, like I was a tournament director who speaks down to umpires. Nothing can be farther from the truth. If a manager, coach, or player does something that is ejectionable, then by all means, eject them.

 

What I meant is that by controlling the situation you also control the argument. If you control the argument or discussion, you are keeping the manager, coach, or player in the game. The only one that will remove the manager, coach or player, is themselves, by their choice of word, deed, or action.

 

If you control the situation, then most times, that will keep the argument from spiraling out of control. Only two things can cause loss of control:

 

A) The manager, coach, or player says or does the magic words/deeds, which is deserving of an ejection.

 

or

 

B) The umpire says something which is misunderstood or is purposeful which flares the situation.

 

If you prematurely end a discussion, as the umpire you may be creating a problem for yourself. If the manager has a legitimate question or argument, we are obliged to listen to them. If you choose not to, you risk getting a reputation as a hard ass. Grant it, there are some situations, like arguing balls and strikes, for example, that a discussion is not warranted. If a manager yells at you from the dugout and continues to yell at you, audible to the stands and surrounding players, as he walks and reaches your position, that doesn't bode well for him when he reaches you. Some may have a short fuse. Some longer than others. Some may want to deal with this manager. Some may not. With firmness and control, you maintain the integrity of the game, field, play, and argument. Unless you are a smart ass, and do something under (B) above, most problems will end without an ejection or disciplinary action.

 

So simply saying, by controlling situations properly, you keep the game and its participants intact. With that said, I repeat, if the manager, coach, or player does something to warrant ejection, then oblige them. Umpires don't eject them. They eject themselves.

[JaxRolo]

When you Re talking to coached the more you talk the more you talk! Don't say anything or keep it very short. Do not engage.

[blue23ll]

Que?

[mstaylor]

I always have used the philosophy that there are times for managers to come out and times they need to to stay. If it is a case where he has a legit question then I will hear them  out and explain what I have. If it is a case where they need to stay in the dugout, the conversation is going to be very short. No matter the situation the less said the better. 

[maven]

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas!

 

If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

[mstaylor]

 

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas!

 

If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

 

Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. 

[Texas Manny]

 

 

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas!

 

If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

 

Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. 

 

I don't know where y'all think I have doctoral dissertations with every situation that develops between a manager and myself. I totally agree that the less you say, the better you are. It's not the quantity of your words, but it is the quality of those words. That being said, sometimes you have to take control of the befuddled angle that the manager takes, because he doesn't know how to argue. Focus his inquiry or send him back to the dugout. Different situations require different levels of communication. Again, that is were experience will be gained and exercised.

 

But for real, I don't give the Gettysburg Address, read War and Peace, and issue the Magna Carta, before asking the manager what his issue is. So please give it a rest with riding my chops about saying too much.

 

Mike, this isn't regarded towards you or your post. I'm just speaking collectively.

[blue23ll]

 

 

 

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas!

 

If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

 

Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. 

 

I don't know where y'all think I have doctoral dissertations with every situation that develops between a manager and myself. I totally agree that the less you say, the better you are. It's not the quantity of your words, but it is the quality of those words. That being said, sometimes you have to take control of the befuddled angle that the manager takes, because he doesn't know how to argue. Focus his inquiry or send him back to the dugout. Different situations require different levels of communication. Again, that is were experience will be gained and exercised.

 

But for real, I don't give the Gettysburg Address, read War and Peace, and issue the Magna Carta, before asking the manager what his issue is. So please give it a rest with riding my chops about saying too much.

 

Mike, this isn't regarded towards you or your post. I'm just speaking collectively.

 

Manny, and I will apologize before I even say this, but for me, it's probably the verbosity of your written comments on here. I will say this, that when I take the time to read all of what you write, I generally come away with valid points. I would hope that there is no correlation between the amount of words you write to explain your position vs  the number of words you use in real live game situations to explain or defend your positions.

[Texas Manny]

 

 

 

 

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

At the limit, the "less said" is nothing at all. That's not good game management. When coach comes out, he's challenging either a rule or my judgment. I'm happy to explain any rule to him, and I try to keep it brief, and explain only the part that applies to what just happened. We don't get into hypotheticals, "what ifs," or "what abouts." "Coach, you asked for the basis of my ruling on this play, and I gave it to you." Partners who want to explain every rule they know drive me bananas!

 

If he wants to argue judgment, I shut that down, at first politely. "Coach, that part of the call is judgment, and if you saw it differently, OK. I had him out." Partners who want to argue judgment with coaches drive me bananas! Coach is entitled to his opinion (and even to express it, once, if he's nice). If he doesn't get it, "that's enough." If that's not enough, then he can go argue with the bus driver.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

 

Agreed, you have to explain your call but it isn't the time for a doctoral dissertation either. You don't have to explain the balk rule in it's entirety, no stop, popped his leg, feint to first is all you need to say. 

 

I don't know where y'all think I have doctoral dissertations with every situation that develops between a manager and myself. I totally agree that the less you say, the better you are. It's not the quantity of your words, but it is the quality of those words. That being said, sometimes you have to take control of the befuddled angle that the manager takes, because he doesn't know how to argue. Focus his inquiry or send him back to the dugout. Different situations require different levels of communication. Again, that is were experience will be gained and exercised.

 

But for real, I don't give the Gettysburg Address, read War and Peace, and issue the Magna Carta, before asking the manager what his issue is. So please give it a rest with riding my chops about saying too much.

 

Mike, this isn't regarded towards you or your post. I'm just speaking collectively.

 

Manny, and I will apologize before I even say this, but for me, it's probably the verbosity of your written comments on here. I will say this, that when I take the time to read all of what you write, I generally come away with valid points. I would hope that there is no correlation between the amount of words you write to explain your position vs  the number of words you use in real live game situations to explain or defend your positions.

 

I can understand that. When I write, I write so that any level of experience can understand what I am saying. Does it seem a little wordy? Yeah, I humbly admit it is, but I do that so I don't leave any question as to what I'm saying. If a question does arise, then I always remain open to discuss and answer. I try to get it right, but realize that sometimes, I blow it. If I do, I try to correct as far back as I can. I just want to try and pass along the knowledge I have and help where I can. No offense taken. But I hope you understand that with most threads, I view them as a teaching opportunity, just as much as I view them as a learning experience for me.

 

I will work to simplify. How's that?

[blue23ll]

Manny, I knew what your answer was going to be before you wrote it!  I understand. I try to write like I was taught in journalism class, write at the 5th grade level, so most can understand (sorry Rolando). As far as working to simplify, that is always good, as it makes what you write more accessible for all, because what you have to say is valuable information.

[Texas Manny]

Manny, I knew what your answer was going to be before you wrote it!  I understand. I try to write like I was taught in journalism class, write at the 5th grade level, so most can understand (sorry Rolando). As far as working to simplify, that is always good, as it makes what you write more accessible for all, because what you have to say is valuable information.

Thanks Blue,

 

Some folks just don't understand me, so I find that at times I have to explain myself. Yep, you hit the nail on the head. That's how I write. I will work to get my point across more succinctly. Thanks for being understanding.

 

If anyone has been frustrated with me because of my style of writing, my humblest apologies. I will work on it.

[grayhawk]

"I didn't have time to write a short letter , so I wrote a long one instead." - Mark Twain Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[afaber12]

Manny, I knew what your answer was going to be before you wrote it! I understand. I try to write like I was taught in journalism class, write at the 5th grade level, so most can understand (sorry Rolando). As far as working to simplify, that is always good, as it makes what you write more accessible for all, because what you have to say is valuable information.

Thanks Blue, Some folks just don't understand me, so I find that at times I have to explain myself. Yep, you hit the nail on the head. That's how I write. I will work to get my point across more succinctly. Thanks for being understanding. If anyone has been frustrated with me because of my style of writing, my humblest apologies. I will work on it.

I know a few of my posts have been on the verbose side, so no stone-throwing on my part. (This could be one of them.) But I think anyone's wordy posts on here - particularly any that have sparked a "lively" debate - are good examples of why in an argument on the diamond the 'less is more' approach can be the better way to go. Especially when it's an argument in the heat of the moment, and it's always going to be with someone who's to some extent upset with the call you made. (Why don't the guys who had it go their way ever complain?) There's a decent chance that they'll only hear some of what you say, and not hear some of the important words such as "but", "not", "if"... The sneakier ones will know you got the call right, but figure its close, and are listening for something you'll say to 'catch you out'. (I'm thinking this is more likely for newer umpires, or at least new-to-the-manager umpires.)

[mstaylor]

@maven  Your nontalking umpires are examples of hearing something said in training but not understanding what was said in training. This happens often, we say things like,"The less said the better""Popup means pivot" but we don't the point across of what we really mean. They remember the quip, not the logic behind it. Sometimes that's our fault, sometimes it's their's. That is why I tell guys that when they think they understand a rule or mechanic, ask questions about it. I know a case of a very young umpire that never considered wearing a ballbag on the bases being told that partners always have to match, right down to ballbags. He took that to mean that in two man he should wear a bag on the bases. That only happened once but that's what happens when we say things that we understand but don't convey it very well. It changed my style in teaching clinics. 

[Celerion]

Responding to the below quotes:

 

I started as a teenager and the best thing I found to do is to be able to explain your calls without being intimidated. This is easier said than done but the important thing is to give them a strong knowledge of mechanics and rules. Unfortunately I never got that knowledge and had to fly by the seat of my pants. There was no internet, I got no training, no rulebook and a league of managers that were little Earl Weavers.

Game management is not something that can be taught, it depends on knowledge, personality, physical carriage of the umpire and how the league backs the umpires. What works for one umpire is completely wrong for another. You can teach what never works, to not be a doormat and to not to walk away from ejections. Also, don't go looking for ejections but they need to understand it is a necessary evil.   

 

Agree that a good umpire needs to be able to be able to manage a game effectivly.  This can't be given or taught right away, it takes experience and time to learn.  That being said, I do think that training by an experienced and competant umpire is important for new umpires and particurally youth umpires.    Learning the proper mechanics early before getting into bad habits is necessary to both be effective and extend the "life of an umpire" behind the plate preventing injuries.    That being said, it is my opinion.   But yes, "field/game management" is one of the most important skills along with proper mechanics and making the right calls.    Similar to @mstaylor said, I started as a teenager, starting on the bases for a number of years after aging out of LL.  Went into umpiring instead of Babe Ruth or HS ball.

 

@mstaylor - great point... insist on a written EJ report in the form of an email. Then create a folder for each umpire so you can track which coaches are causing problems, and which umpires have quick triggers. You'll see the value in this over time.

As far as "keeping mgrs in the game" I categorically disagree. My job is not to ensure that they don't get run, or to teach them how to handle themselves appropriately. My job is to enforce the rules fairly, so that neither team gains an undue advantage. The mgrs/coaches are the ones that need to keep themselves in the game.

 

I agree personally that as Harry Wendelstedt was known for, it is important to let coaches ask questions and say their piece, but when it is time to go it is time to go.     I also like and agree with the quote "Its the players job to play, the coaches job to coach, and the umpires job to umpire."

[Platejob29]

 

No matter the situation the less said the better. 

 

Although this true to a point, it's true ONLY to a point. I have had 2 newer umpires approach me recently about situations where they felt they lost control of the game. They had made a ruling -- possibly bad -- and when the coach came out they clammed up. Somebody had told them, "silence cannot be misquoted!" so they stood there, mute, while the coach ranted.

 

So, yes, brief and to the point. But staring silently at a ranting coach is not good game management.

 

Unless you're Jerry Layne, in which case you can give the manager all the rope he wants, stare silently at the manager and then let him hang him self with it without saying a word. 

 

I do agree that less is more though. No reason to try and talk your way out of an argument like a lawyer. Just say the bare minimum of what is needed to get your point across.

 

I did have one of my new umpires work coach pitch games this past week and I told him before hand that he was on coach pitch so that he could learn management from in game experience and that when a coach came out to talk to him that less is more but to be assertive with his answers and if someone had to go then they had to go and not to be afraid of ejecting someone if it came to that(not that I want to preach ejections but I don't want to teach anyone to try and keep someone in a game if an ejection is warranted.). I of course watched the game very closely so that if something got out of hand I could bail him out so to speak but he didn't need my help at all. About 25 minutes into the game there was an infield fly call that he made (which was correct) and a coach came out to argue. He didn't let the coach walk all over him and he got his point across fairly well with out having to say much. A few batters later the coach decided to come back out bring up his disagreement with the call again and my umpire handled it perfectly. He told the coach it was a judgment call and that he wasn't to bring it up again period. The coach took the rope hung himself and got the old heave ho'. The coach came up to me later that night to apologize after the games had all finished and I was talking to the new umpire. He apologized to my umpire as well as my self and said he was out of line and that he thought the umpire handled the situation very well. I was very proud of the way my new umpire handled him self as well as the game during that situation.