Jump to content
  • 0

Conference Between Coach and Umpire

Guest Thompson

Asked by Guest Thompson,

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4419 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Thompson

Guest Thompson

Posted
Posted

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

  • Answers 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Popular Posts

BalkHawk
BalkHawk

You, coming out "as best you can": Man, [insert PU 1st name], you had some fine positioning on that play and your timing was impeccable. I just wondered if, based on [insert real book rule] you could

Rich Ives
Rich Ives

I like this thought.   Now just remember that it's the lawyer's job to represent his side of the case, not to judge the result. 

mjr_2013
mjr_2013

No written rule, just common courtesy (which in general is becoming less and less common)... I would definitely have let you have your say before allowing him to interject, especially if you were as c

14 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
mjr_2013

mjr_2013

Posted
Posted

No written rule, just common courtesy (which in general is becoming less and less common)... I would definitely have let you have your say before allowing him to interject, especially if you were as courteous as you say.

  • Like 2
  • 0
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

Here's my rule.... I would have told the opposing coach to return to his dugout (and he would have done so) before you and I continued our conversation.  After speaking with you, IF I had some information that the opposing coach needed to know I would have walked over to his dugout and had a conversation with him.

  • Like 1
  • 0
carolinablue

carolinablue

Posted
Posted

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

Here's my rule.... I would have told the opposing coach to return to his dugout (and he would have done so) before you and I continued our conversation.  After speaking with you, IF I had some information that the opposing coach needed to know I would have walked over to his dugout and had a conversation with him.

 

 

 

Not a good idea to go to the dugout IMO, meet him halfway at most. keep it one on one.

  • 0
BalkHawk

BalkHawk

Posted
Posted

You, coming out "as best you can":

Man, [insert PU 1st name], you had some fine positioning on that play and your timing was impeccable. I just wondered if, based on [insert real book rule] you could explain something to me...

Morris Buttermaker, drunk as a skunk, butts in:

[incoherent garbling about the 1st Ammendment and his right to assembly]

You, waiting patiently for the umpire to tell Buttermaker to wait his turn, eventually grow weary:

[PU 1st name], when Buttermaker is finished, will you come over here and speak with me?

Plate umpire:

Indubitably! And may I take this moment to say "thanks" for not engaging in any arguments with the other team, under any circumstances, which must result quickly in bench jockeying warnings for both sides. Besides, mlb 9.04a1 says arguing with the other coach is my job.

  • Like 3
  • 0
SteveJ

SteveJ

Posted
Posted

 

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

Here's my rule.... I would have told the opposing coach to return to his dugout (and he would have done so) before you and I continued our conversation.  After speaking with you, IF I had some information that the opposing coach needed to know I would have walked over to his dugout and had a conversation with him.

 

 

 

Not a good idea to go to the dugout IMO, meet him halfway at most. keep it one on one.

 

 

 

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

 

I am a Dixie Youth League coach.

 

Today I was discussing (calmly) a play at the plate with the umpire. I had called time and gone about it as best you can. As I approached the umpire and began discussing the ruling on the play (I was trying to understand better the rule) the opposing manager came out and began arguing the play. Having been interrupted I turned and said firmly to the coach "Hold on I am speaking to him." (meaning the umpire)

 

After speaking with the opposing manager after the game he believed that since I had called time and approached the umpire he had the right to enter into the discussion. Whether or not it is me never having witnessed an opposing coach enter a conference like that I believed that he was in the wrong and could only enter that conference by invite from the umpire.

 

I was wondering if there was a written rule in relation to this, an unwritten rule or else just something I'm just making up in my head

 

Thanks

Here's my rule.... I would have told the opposing coach to return to his dugout (and he would have done so) before you and I continued our conversation.  After speaking with you, IF I had some information that the opposing coach needed to know I would have walked over to his dugout and had a conversation with him.

 

 

 

Not a good idea to go to the dugout IMO, meet him halfway at most. keep it one on one.

 

Yep, should have said "walk in the direction of the dugout to get the HC's attention (if I didn't have it already)".  I would never go to the dugout...

  • 0
Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

Coaches are the lawyers. Umpires are the judges. Only one lawyer may speak at a time. If and when the time arises for the other party to speak, I will let him know that he now has the floor. Until then, he SHALL wait patiently in/near his dugout and be as courteous to the opposing coach as he would have you be towards him.

But what do I know

  • Like 1
  • 0
BigUmpire

BigUmpire

Posted
Posted
Coaches are the lawyers. Umpires are the judges. Only one lawyer may speak at a time. If and when the time arises for the other party to speak, I will let him know that he now has the floor. Until then, he SHALL wait patiently in/near his dugout and be as courteous to the opposing coach as he would have you be towards him. But what do I know
New bumper sticker: "Coaches are the lawyers. Umpires are the judges"- Jocko Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • 0
Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

Coaches are the lawyers. Umpires are the judges.

 

I like this thought.

 

Now just remember that it's the lawyer's job to represent his side of the case, not to judge the result.  :notworthy:

  • Like 3
  • 0
cyclonehokiece

cyclonehokiece

Posted
Posted

I thought the lawyer's job is to forego facts and morals in lobbying for his own selfish interests...

That makes this a perfect parallel then don't some (most) coaches will see something totally different and will try to piece parts of rules that work for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • 0
SoCal Lurker

SoCal Lurker

Posted
Posted

I thought the lawyer's job is to forego facts and morals in lobbying for his own client'sselfish interests...

 

Morals are subjective.  A lawyer's job is, within the bounds of legal ethics, be a "zealous advocate" for his client.  For better or worse, we as a society have chosen an adversary model in which the lawyer's role, by design, is to be single-minded in its focuse on the intrests of his client.  The design and scope of the role is different in the U.S. than in many countries -- but the ability of any person to be represented by counsel protecting him was one of the hallmarks of freedom that the founding father's built into the design of the country.  That role can be easy to mock and make fun of, but those who need a lawyer to respond to the power of the government sure appreciate it.  (Falsifying facts to a court is a serious ethical breach; spinning facts int he most favorable way for the client so that the finder of fact can decide who is right, however, is precisely the role of a lawyer.)

 

Sure there are unethical lawyers, but while it easy to talk about lawyers that way, I don't think you'll find any more unethtical lawyers that you will plumbers, accountants, or (dare I say) umpires.  But carry on with the simplistic bashing . . . :rantoff:

  • Like 2
  • 0
Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

I thought the lawyer's job is to forego facts and morals in lobbying for his own selfish interests...

 

He'd get disbarred for that.

 

There are rules of conduct.

 

He is there to represent his client's interests, not his own.

 

And of course your lawyer is there for you - it's the other person's lawyer that's the sleazeball.  Right?

  • 0
cyclonehokiece

cyclonehokiece

Posted
Posted

I thought the lawyer's job is to forego facts and morals in lobbying for his own selfish interests...

He'd get disbarred for that.

There are rules of conduct.

He is there to represent his client's interests, not his own.

And of course your lawyer is there for you - it's the other person's lawyer that's the sleazeball. Right?

Just like Congressmen, yours isn't the problem it is all the others.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 Share
Go to question listing
×
×
  • Create New...