I don't Get It

[Rich Ives]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

[semper_fi_72]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

I don't know about elsewhere but we check hats and bats before games, even before the new regulations.

For those that do not think it is their job, Please read 10-2-3.a

Rich that's the difference between Internet Umpires and Umpires.

Someone who thinks managers/coaches are rats are not approachable umpires and want to do as little as necessary, get their check and go home.

They want the power and authority but not the responsibility.

[ncump7]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

I don't know about elsewhere but we check hats and bats before games, even before the new regulations.

For those that do not think it is their job, Please read 10-2-3.a

Rich that's the difference between Internet Umpires and Umpires.

Someone who thinks managers/coaches are rats are not approachable umpires and want to do as little as necessary, get their check and go home.

They want the power and authority but not the responsibility.

[ncump7]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

I don't know about elsewhere but we check hats and bats before games, even before the new regulations.

For those that do not think it is their job, Please read 10-2-3.a

Rich that's the difference between Internet Umpires and Umpires.

Someone who thinks managers/coaches are rats are not approachable umpires and want to do as little as necessary, get their check and go home.

They want the power and authority but not the responsibility.

We have been checking the bats and helmets for years, but to check the bats against the list of approved ones would take forever. Let the coaches state at the plate meeting that all their bats are legal. Then, if there is a problem, they must prove the bat is legal or out it goes.

[yawetag]

We have been checking the bats and helmets for years, but to check the bats against the list of approved ones would take forever. Let the coaches state at the plate meeting that all their bats are legal. Then, if there is a problem, they must prove the bat is legal or out it goes.

It's my opinion that we shouldn't check bats or helmets at all, and let their legalities fall under the "properly equipped" part of the plate meeting. I'm surprised Fed doesn't have us check all the gloves, too.

[semper_fi_72]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

I don't know about elsewhere but we check hats and bats before games, even before the new regulations.

For those that do not think it is their job, Please read 10-2-3.a

Rich that's the difference between Internet Umpires and Umpires.

Someone who thinks managers/coaches are rats are not approachable umpires and want to do as little as necessary, get their check and go home.

They want the power and authority but not the responsibility.

We have been checking the bats and helmets for years, but to check the bats against the list of approved ones would take forever. Let the coaches state at the plate meeting that all their bats are legal. Then, if there is a problem, they must prove the bat is legal or out it goes.

It does not take forever.

I have worked 4 games this year already.

Each team had at least 3 BESR bats and the approve list.

They knew exactly what to expect and were ready when I came to check equipment.

It has taken no longer then it has before the new regulations and after seeing certain bats over and over I know certain ones are on the approved list without even checking it.

10-2-3a does not say it is the HCs duty, it is the Umpires duty.

You are legally liable and failing to follow the rule book if you do not check equipment.

[mstaylor]

It is fairly easy. Our conference requires the coaches to have the list but we still check bats. In seven checks I have only tossed three or four bats. Three bats for fourteen teams is pretty good. The only thing that requires any additional checking is hollow core composite barrels. If you see a composite and it isn't a DeMarini, Vendetta, Combat or a Louisville Slugger then it is illegal, no need to check anything. If it one of these four then check it.

[dumbdumb]

The Coaches Code of Ethics

The function of a coach is to educate students through participation in interscholastic competition. An interscholastic program should be designed to enhance academic achievement and should never interfere with opportunities for academic success. Each student should be treated with the utmost respect, and his or her welfare should be considered in decisions by the coach at all times. Accordingly, the following guidelines for coaches have been adopted by the NFHS Board of Directors.

The coach shall be aware that he or she has a tremendous influence, for either good or ill, on the education of the student and, thus, shall never place the value of winning above the value of instilling the highest ideals of character.

The coach shall uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. In all personal contact with students, officials, athletic directors, school administrators, the state high school athletic association, the media, and the public, the coach shall strive to set an example of the highest ethical and moral conduct.

The coach shall take an active role in the prevention of drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse.

The coach shall avoid the use of alcohol and tobacco products when in contact with players.

The coach shall promote the entire interscholastic program of the school and direct his or her program in harmony with the total school program.

The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

The coach shall exert his or her influence to enhance sportsmanship by spectators, both directly and by working closely with cheerleaders, pep club sponsors, booster clubs, and administrators.

The coach shall respect and support contest officials. The coach shall not indulge in conduct which would incite players or spectators against the officials. Public criticism of officials or players is unethical.

The coach should meet and exchange cordial greetings with the opposing coach to set the correct tone for the event before and after the contest.

The coach shall not exert pressure on faculty members to give student special consideration.

The coach shall not scout opponents by any means other than those adopted by the league and/or state high school athletic association.

As long as a coach conforms to the above from day one, and each and every day and game of their career, then they are not a rat. I have never seen any umpire have any problems when a coach followed the above to the letter. The game was played and everyone went home was all that happened when the coach followed the above to the letter.

Haven't run into any yet, although a very very few have come very very close. When that one game, that is very very important to them, has that one call or situation that could knock them out of contention in that game or cause them to loose, even the best come up with some sort of dig at the umpire, that was not called for, and unsportsmanlike even if not something that would be elicit an ejection.

I, personally, would not have any trouble dealing with umpires, even if they were p$ss poor in their judgment. They would be p$ss poor both ways (no, I am not going to be a bean counter) anyway. If I felt they were just so bad that I would prefer not to have them work my games anymore, I would discuss that with the assignor to see what could be done, but no I would not blackball that umpire. I would not rant and do all that other crap to the umpire at the game and then go bend the assignors ear to blackball him or in other words double dip on the umpire (blast on him at the game and blast on him to the assignor), I would go only to the assignor if I felt that his judgment was just not up to par yet.

Unfortunately our relationships are adversarial because the above are not followed to the letter. Probably not going to change.

The best I ever heard from a coach was, "you can hurt me, but you cannot win or loose the game for me". In other words, how did he and his players put themselves into a position, so that 1 missed call totally took them off the hook and made it 100% the umpires fault. He couldn't think of a way. There was always something the players and coach should have done to take that noose off the umpire and put in on themselves. I liked that thinking.

And no, I would not physically give a catcher a Mitch Kupchak just to prove he has one on. I would take the coaches (i.e. rat) words.

Yes, and that is a dichotomy as was pointed out.

[JaxRolo]

A coach shall master contest rules.

I haven't seen many coaches that do.

[Pops]

We have been checking the bats and helmets for years, but to check the bats against the list of approved ones would take forever. Let the coaches state at the plate meeting that all their bats are legal. Then, if there is a problem, they must prove the bat is legal or out it goes.

It's my opinion that we shouldn't check bats or helmets at all, and let their legalities fall under the "properly equipped" part of the plate meeting. I'm surprised Fed doesn't have us check all the gloves, too.

I agree that we shouldn't be checking bats and helmets pre-game. It's a waste of time. Anyone can slip a bat or helmet into the game. Mom takes one out of the trunk. Johnny arrives a bit late for the game. One was accidentally left in the ball bag. You know how this can happen.

But I check equipment pre-game because we are instructed to do it. It's part of our job. However, the Fed needs to change this requirement, but I doubt if they will.

[yawetag]

Anyone can slip a bat or helmet into the game.

This is honestly the easiest way for an umpire to get dumped with a lawsuit. Johnny's mom brings his (illegal) helmet late and Johnny gets injured. It would be hard for an umpire to prove that the helmet was never checked.

A few weeks ago, I thought the best way is for umpires to be given a wax pencil or something he can use to mark a checked bat and helmet. Each umpire would have his own mark and the wax can be cleaned off between games. As the umpire checks helmets, he makes his mark near the NOCSAE mark. For bats, mark it on the knob. Yes, the teams could copy the mark, but it would take more work than simply adding the helmet or bat later.

Note that I'm not seriously suggesting this -- I'd prefer we not check at all.

[Mr Umpire]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

While I don't refer to coaches as "rats" (too many times ), I would have an issue with checking bats. I agree it should fall under the "legally and properly equipped" part but it doesn't. We trust them to answer the question. Why not trust them to have bats which are legal?

I don't know FED's thinking. Maybe they don't trust coaches, not the umpires who don't. And, generally, the "rats" comment is when a coach is trying to manipulate or bend or confuse an umpire or his ruling to get their way. That is when I have usually seen the association. Another reason why I am glad I don't do FED games but probably will someday.

[zm1283]

I went to the state rules meeting yesterday and still don't get what they're wanting us to do in regard to bat checks. The FED preseason guide says to continue checking bats and helmets, which I can do. The problem is that they (The state) say the coaches SHOULD have the list of legal bats so they can prove any composite BESR bats they have are legal. I have talked to some coaches that I know well and they tell me that there has been NOTHING from the state governing body telling them that they are to have the list of their legal bats in the dugout.

So what do we do? Try to verify all bats are legal while doing checks before the game? Wait until an opposing coach brings it to our attention during the game?

Edit: I figured out that the Washington State list matches the FED list (with pictures) when you separate it down into barrel type. There are only a few legal composites, so it should be pretty easy.

[JaxRolo]

Anyone can slip a bat or helmet into the game.

This is honestly the easiest way for an umpire to get dumped with a lawsuit. Johnny's mom brings his (illegal) helmet late and Johnny gets injured. It would be hard for an umpire to prove that the helmet was never checked.

A few weeks ago, I thought the best way is for umpires to be given a wax pencil or something he can use to mark a checked bat and helmet. Each umpire would have his own mark and the wax can be cleaned off between games. As the umpire checks helmets, he makes his mark near the NOCSAE mark. For bats, mark it on the knob. Yes, the teams could copy the mark, but it would take more work than simply adding the helmet or bat later.

Note that I'm not seriously suggesting this -- I'd prefer we not check at all.

I would think that you are at least partially covered when you certified that you checked all bats and helmets given to you at the time of the check. Not much you can do after that.

[yawetag]

I would think that you are at least partially covered when you certified that you checked all bats and helmets given to you at the time of the check. Not much you can do after that.

How can you prove the helmet he was wearing wasn't checked? Even if you can prove that, can you prove that the helmet wasn't with the others when you did the check? Maybe you accidentally skipped over it.

[HokieUmp]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

People have already addressed the bat compliance part, but I will say that the "yes" verbal we're supposed to get when we ask the legally, safely and properly equipped question should be enough to keep us from being sued. Personal responsibility being what it is - or should be - if Johnny is using illegal or unsafe gear, and gets hurt, it should be his own damn fault.

Anyway, as to your first statement, let me explain to you why you guys ARE rats (since I know you're still a coach at heart). For one thing, just like their kid is the next Derek Jeter, the rec-ball type coaches think THEY are the next Billy Martin. And since SportsCenter and the like show coaches losing their minds on-field, they think they can do that, too. But, since they're not as knowledgeable about the game as they think they are, they don't know The Code. So they'll act like asses on the field, and get surprised when they get dumped.

Or, they'll take cheap shots at umpires after the game is over, figuring they're in the clear. Or, they'll approach at our cars after the game, and want to "talk" about the game.

And HS coaches aren't much better, as we heard in our association last night. Not all of them do this, I would hope, but it's out there. Our assignor - who's been around baseball in this area for 30+ years - told us last night at our meeting that there are plenty of coaches out there that will tell an umpire what a great job he did, and then turn around and call the assignor and ask if said umpire has a clue about baseball. That's just two-faced horse<bleep>.

Coaches and managers, and players to an extent, can be your best buddy until the first pitch, or the first pitch called against their team, at least. And then it can start. That's why I don't trust them. I don't go into a game looking for trouble, or looking to screw any one, even if there's a history. And even if I'm not having a great game, I don't blame the players or coaches for it - it's just too bad they don't give me that same courtesy, since apparently, I have CLEARLY cost them the game. And we're the enemy for those guys.

You asked, so you got an answer.

(As I typed this, I got to thinking - I almost prefer the rec-ball brand of lunacy. Why? Because at least THOSE guys won't generally be two-faced about it - if they think we were terrible, they'll make it pretty plain! Which isn't always fun, but at least it's honest.)

[HokieUmp]

For years the internet umpires have basically been saying that managers/coaches are rats and don't trust them.

Now that it's time to verify bat compliance a number of folks are saying "Not my job - trust the manager".

Rich that's the difference between Internet Umpires and Umpires.

Someone who thinks managers/coaches are rats are not approachable umpires and want to do as little as necessary, get their check and go home.

They want the power and authority but not the responsibility.

I'm an Internet Umpire - as is anyone on this board, frankly - and I umpire on the field. I want to come in, work my game to my best, and go home. Where's the problem?

I'm responsible, alright - for the running of that game. Checking bats and helmets has NOTHING to do with responsibility. In fact, it's because players (and their parents, if age-appropriate) and coaches want to abdicate THEIR responsibility, if we're talking about unsafe equipment, or want to cheat, if we're talking about bats, that we even have to do an equipment check before a game. Because law schools continue to accept new applicants each year, we have to make sure Johnny's dumb-ass doesn't have a bad helmet, so WE don't get sued. If they have unsafe gear, it should fall on them for owning and using it, not me, because I didn't "wipe their bottom" before the game.

[UMP45]

Well said Hokie. You can usually tell if an umpire is still coaching or playing by just listening to them. A coach and catcher will turn on you in a heartbeat. I can probably count, on one hand, the number of coaches I don't consider "rats". Remember guys do one of three things.... coach, play, or umpire. When you start mixing any of the three whatever you are doing will suffer. And as an "internet umpire" I pride myself on being approachable. When I go into a game I'm not going to take anything from a coach but I am not giving him anything either. Semper Fi, even though I don't know you, from what you have written you sound like an umpire who tries to make everyone happy. I used to work college ball with a guy like that and it didn't help when someone turned him in for tobacco. He was suspended from working DII regionals for it. Like I said I don't know you but just sounds eeriely familiar.

[Rich Ives]

On the issue of complete honesty at the plate meeting:

Helmets, jewelry, and cups don't give a competitive advantage.

Bats do.

Still want to forego the check?

[ncump7]

On the issue of complete honesty at the plate meeting:

Helmets, jewelry, and cups don't give a competitive advantage.

Bats do.

Still want to forego the check?

I am not advocating not checking bats. I think it is one of our duties. But, I think we should check for dings and alterations, not check them against the list of accepted bats.

[HokieUmp]

On the issue of complete honesty at the plate meeting:

Helmets, jewelry, and cups don't give a competitive advantage.

Bats do.

Still want to forego the check?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Why? Because do you really think the illegal bat is just going to be sitting up against the bloody fence in front of the dugout when we show up to check them, waiting for you to throw it out of the game? Really?

Just as they'll lie at the plate meeting, they'll keep the packed/rolled/otherwise illegal bat out of sight until it's game time. So why waste time, and have to be in their territory before the game, when there are already penalties in the book for when an illegal bat is discovered in a game.

High school is the only place this nonsense takes place. Maybe LL, too, since they have a rule and protocol for everything. Still bullcrap, though.

[Mr Umpire]

On the issue of complete honesty at the plate meeting:

Helmets, jewelry, and cups don't give a competitive advantage.

Bats do.

Still want to forego the check?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Why? Because do you really think the illegal bat is just going to be sitting up against the bloody fence in front of the dugout when we show up to check them, waiting for you to throw it out of the game? Really?

Just as they'll lie at the plate meeting, they'll keep the packed/rolled/otherwise illegal bat out of sight until it's game time. So why waste time, and have to be in their territory before the game, when there are already penalties in the book for when an illegal bat is discovered in a game.

High school is the only place this nonsense takes place. Maybe LL, too, since they have a rule and protocol for everything. Still bullcrap, though.

Agreed. Just b/c it is checked before hand doesn't prevent it from coming in later. If we check before the game, should we also check each inning too just to make sure one hasn't showed up late. What would be the difference? It is still an illegal bat that may get into the game. Let the rules handle it if such bat is discovered DURING the game AND is used in the game. If it is in the dugout BEFORE the game, what harm has occurred?

[mstaylor]

If you check before the game you take any potential illegal/dangerous bats out of the mix. Then you should only have to contend a latecomer or a kid sliding one out of his bag. That is a slight chance, not checking at all almost guarantees an illegal bat. There is almost no chance you will notice an illegal bat during a game unless questioned by another coach.

[Forest Ump]

I would think that you are at least partially covered when you certified that you checked all bats and helmets given to you at the time of the check. Not much you can do after that.

How can you prove the helmet he was wearing wasn't checked? Even if you can prove that, can you prove that the helmet wasn't with the others when you did the check? Maybe you accidentally skipped over it.

You are covered. It is called "exercising due diligence". If you did your job, checking bats and helmets, then you have exercised due diligence. What occurs after you

have done your job is out of your control. Doing your job is what protects you.

[Dean]

Last year i was at a contest and was checking bats & helmets and noticed a crack one of the batting helmets, I advised the couch - who proceeded to tear the helmet into tow pieces to make sure no one would mistakenly wear that helmet.

Yes we check.