"Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible"

[BigUmpire]

"Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible" What the hell does that mean?

 

Very few of us LIKE ejections and for the “league manglers" and/or TDs to say this is asinine!

 

What responses have you guys used when a sissyman, chickensh**t, limpdic%#k TD or league official has asked you to do this?

[maninblack69]

I haven't really had to deal with anything like this since I've done mostly youth rec ball over the last year. Most of the coaches have been pretty well behaved. We'll see how it goes this year as I get into high school ball. Besides, most if not all coaches know (or should know) what the magic keys are to get ejected. Eject early, eject often (if warranted by their behavior). Not my job to keep them in the game, but it is my job to remove them from the game if necessary.

[JaxRolo]

Coaches eject themselves!

It does a coach no good to argue. We are not changing our calls! Just a waste of time!

[BigUmpire]

Once I used:

 

"So you don’t have to do YOUR job!"

 

Fun 3 minute discussion that followed.

[alex7]

First thought was what Jax already said:  Coaches eject themselves.

 

"Try to keep coaches in the game, if possible," makes as much sense as "try and call runners safe, if possible."   

[maven]

"Try to keep coaches in the game. "

OK, I'll try, but sometimes they just wanna go.

maven

[BigUmpire]

Best thing I ever heard and was posted from a TD was:

 

“Gentlemen, I want this tournament to be fun and enjoyable for all INCLUDING the umpires.

 

Now if the umpires and/or I believe that there are players, coaches, fans AND umpires that are uncomfortable during a game the umpires will remove that person that is making us uncomfortable and all others until all that are left are having a good time.

 

Those ejected people will remain in the parking lot the rest of that game AND the next game regardless when of it occurs.

That means if you are ejected in your first game you MAY be banned from the park ALL DAY if your next game is later in the afternoon.

Remember we are here to participate in the greatest game in the world and we do this to have fun!

 

You can choose to have fun with us OR sit in your car.

I don’t want your $300.00 fee if you believe this is the WWF or a South American soccer match.

 

My reputation is based on people wanting to come to my tournamentsâ€.

 

I copied this word for word from an old tournament flyer I had. This very experienced TD was here in Georgia for many years and would always back the umpires.

He DID walk around a lot and would try to hand pick the umpires for his next tournament. It wasn’t hard for him to get the best umpires and people DID have fun playing and umpiring “Dave Ballâ€

 

His tournaments were always full with a waiting list.   

I Miss Dave C.

[KLAH316]

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

[BigUmpire]

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

Sissys!

[blue23ll]

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

 

This is specifically why I don't work the 'pay to play' tournaments. We play the game under the rule set of the sponsoring organization, not the 'rule set' of the TD who is collecting the cash. If restriction to the dugout is an option in the rules, then that is fine by me. If not, it ain't happening. As far as I know, NFHS is the only rule set that has a dugout restriction in the rules.

[BRUMP]

i just say ok and change nothing about what i do. I don't look to throw people out, but i wont shy away from it if I'm forced to.

[BigUmpire]

 

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

 

This is specifically why I don't work the 'pay to play' tournaments. We play the game under the rule set of the sponsoring organization, not the 'rule set' of the TD who is collecting the cash. If restriction to the dugout is an option in the rules, then that is fine by me. If not, it ain't happening. As far as I know, NFHS is the only rule set that has a dugout restriction in the rules.

 

USSSA has a dugout prison option as well.

[alsommers]

I don't think the statement "Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible" is as absurd as it's made out to be.  The better umpires usually have fewer ejections.  Obviously they're usually better officials, but beyond that they do a better job of talking to coaches and handling the situation and preventing that situation where keeping a coach in the game is not possible. 

[jjb]

I've always liked being able to tell a coach "Look, you're the last coach for your team: if I show you the gate, there's going to be 12 players following you out there, because the game's over. So, sit down!" seems to work....

[LMSANS]

"Stupid is that stupid does."

I keep them in the game until they do something stupid.

Larry

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[conbo61]

 

 

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

 

This is specifically why I don't work the 'pay to play' tournaments. We play the game under the rule set of the sponsoring organization, not the 'rule set' of the TD who is collecting the cash. If restriction to the dugout is an option in the rules, then that is fine by me. If not, it ain't happening. As far as I know, NFHS is the only rule set that has a dugout restriction in the rules.

 

USSSA has a dugout prison option as well.

 

Restrict them to the dugout and make them sit in the corner.

 

Dunce cap optional.

[BigUmpire]

I don't think the statement "Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible" is as absurd as it's made out to be.  The better umpires usually have fewer ejections.  Obviously they're usually better officials, but beyond that they do a better job of talking to coaches and handling the situation and preventing that situation where keeping a coach in the game is not possible. 

I agree with your theory BUT that statment is usally uttered by some kissa*&s TD or league official so that he does not have to back an umpire after an ejction.

As posted before these guys try to keep everyone happy BUT the umpires.

Just like children it will lead to more misbehaving down the road when RATS know they can act like buttheads AND get by with it.

[cyclonehokiece]

I hear it from most groups. I just see it as a "don't be too hasty to toss" and "make sure you have done what you can (ie warnings) before tossing unless agregious"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James Walker]

I hear it from most groups. I just see it as a "don't be too hasty to toss" and "make sure you have done what you can (ie warnings) before tossing unless agregious"Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only in a perfect world. TD's sometimes take this too far because they don't want it to effect their bottom line.

[James Walker]

I don't think the statement "Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible" is as absurd as it's made out to be.  The better umpires usually have fewer ejections.  Obviously they're usually better officials, but beyond that they do a better job of talking to coaches and handling the situation and preventing that situation where keeping a coach in the game is not possible.

I agree with your theory BUT that statment is usally uttered by some kissa*&s TD or league official so that he does not have to back an umpire after an ejction.

As posted before these guys try to keep everyone happy BUT the umpires.

Just like children it will lead to more misbehaving down the road when RATS know they can act like buttheads AND get by with it.

Better umpires typically have less ejections because coaches know that they will eject. It's not skill, it's game management. You could be the best umpire in the world, and if you didn't eject because you wanted to keep people in the game, your doing yourself and the game a huge disservice. I know guys like this and it irritates the crap out of me. Ejection should be used sparingly and as a last resort, but it is still part of your job if it comes down to it. Too many guys use it as a crutch and it makes things harder on the next crew.

[James Walker]

Depending on the tournament, I have had assignors tell us in a meeting that he wanted "Dugout Restriction" attempted prior to any ejections....

This has only happened with large high profile tourneys where the TD was trying to keep everyone happy (except us).

Restrict him to a dugout on another field that's not in use. No one told us which dugout we have to restrict to.

[Kevin_K]

I'm going with Yoda on this one.

 

[BigUmpire]

 

I hear it from most groups. I just see it as a "don't be too hasty to toss" and "make sure you have done what you can (ie warnings) before tossing unless agregious"Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only in a perfect world. TD's sometimes take this too far because they don't want it to effect their bottom line.

 

All comes down to $$$$ for TDs.

[BigUmpire]

 

 

I don't think the statement "Try and keep a coach in the game, if possible" is as absurd as it's made out to be.  The better umpires usually have fewer ejections.  Obviously they're usually better officials, but beyond that they do a better job of talking to coaches and handling the situation and preventing that situation where keeping a coach in the game is not possible.

I agree with your theory BUT that statment is usally uttered by some kissa*&s TD or league official so that he does not have to back an umpire after an ejction.

As posted before these guys try to keep everyone happy BUT the umpires.

Just like children it will lead to more misbehaving down the road when RATS know they can act like buttheads AND get by with it.

Better umpires typically have less ejections because coaches know that they will eject. It's not skill, it's game management. You could be the best umpire in the world, and if you didn't eject because you wanted to keep people in the game, your doing yourself and the game a huge disservice. I know guys like this and it irritates the crap out of me. Ejection should be used sparingly and as a last resort, but it is still part of your job if it comes down to it. Too many guys use it as a crutch and it makes things harder on the next crew.

 

Mike Taylor says:

• "My last coach ejection was several years ago but I don't have to because they know I will"-mstaylor

[GetItRight]

i just say ok and change nothing about what i do. I don't look to throw people out, but i wont shy away from it if I'm forced to.

This is the correct way to handle it.

 

Any time I get words of advice or direction from someone "in charge" (TD, UIC, AD, assignor, etc.) that I don't really feel comfortable following, I simply nod and give lipservice, then go about calling the game however the hell I feel like.  Similar to a coach coming up to you during a game and asking you to watch for or call X, Y, or Z.  "Sure thing coach, I'll take a look at it."  Then promptly call the game the same way that I have been all along.

 

If the person "in charge" doesn't like how I do things, they are free to not hire me back or send me home after the game.  So far I have never had anything like that happen.