Baiting A Coach

[Umpire in Chief]

UIC, I don't think I've ever disagreed with you,  but this seems wrong.  You invite the coach out (whether genuine or not) and then dump him (at least partially) for coming out?  How is this more effective than "Thats enough!" or "Knock it off!"? 

 

I'm sure that the RAT deserves it but just seems like trouble waiting to happen if the coach goes to the league.

This is absolutely baiting and extremely obvious. But it would definitely only come after a "that's enough" or other warning.

[Rich Ives]

 

 

 

Please post your note to thje protest committee in response to this protest:  "I made a legal appeal of a half-swing per 9.02(c ) Comment and instead of asking the field umpire to rule the plate umpire responded by ejecting me from the game, a misinterpretation of 9.02(c ) Comment."

Just for the record, I'd do the appeal, then toss. This would be my answer:

"In my judgment, the request for an appeal was not intended to result in a change from ball to strike, but to argue balls and strikes. After fulfilling my obligation and granting the appeal request per 9.02c, I ejected (name) for arguing balls and strikes, pursuant to 9.02a."

 

 

That's absurd. Making a legal appeal is an ejectable offense? Have any of you ever counted how many half-swing appeals there are in a pro game? Hint: they are NOT rare.

 

I didn't toss for making a legal appeal, now did I?

 

 

Yes you did. You translated a legal question into an illegal question to try to justify it. Won't fly.

[Replacematt]

Please post your note to thje protest committee in response to this protest:  "I made a legal appeal of a half-swing per 9.02(c ) Comment and instead of asking the field umpire to rule the plate umpire responded by ejecting me from the game, a misinterpretation of 9.02(c ) Comment."

Just for the record, I'd do the appeal, then toss. This would be my answer:

"In my judgment, the request for an appeal was not intended to result in a change from ball to strike, but to argue balls and strikes. After fulfilling my obligation and granting the appeal request per 9.02c, I ejected (name) for arguing balls and strikes, pursuant to 9.02a."

 

That's absurd. Making a legal appeal is an ejectable offense? Have any of you ever counted how many half-swing appeals there are in a pro game? Hint: they are NOT rare.

I didn't toss for making a legal appeal, now did I?

 

Yes you did. You translated a legal question into an illegal question to try to justify it. Won't fly.

No, I didn't. The totality of his actions did.

This is no different than me going to the mound to break up a conference, him telling his pitcher (in a manner where he is directing it at me) that it's not his fault, he's throwing strikes and that it's because of me. It's totally legal for him to have a conference, but I'm well within my power to toss if he uses the conference to snipe at me.

Same thing as the "You can't toss me for what I'm thinking" story, or the classic, "I was just talking to my catcher." Once you use it as a tool to violate other rules, you are subject to sanction.

[Jocko]

Please post your note to thje protest committee in response to this protest:  "I made a legal appeal of a half-swing per 9.02(c ) Comment and instead of asking the field umpire to rule the plate umpire responded by ejecting me from the game, a misinterpretation of 9.02(c ) Comment."

Just for the record, I'd do the appeal, then toss. This would be my answer:

"In my judgment, the request for an appeal was not intended to result in a change from ball to strike, but to argue balls and strikes. After fulfilling my obligation and granting the appeal request per 9.02c, I ejected (name) for arguing balls and strikes, pursuant to 9.02a."

 

That's absurd. Making a legal appeal is an ejectable offense? Have any of you ever counted how many half-swing appeals there are in a pro game? Hint: they are NOT rare.

I didn't toss for making a legal appeal, now did I?

 

Yes you did. You translated a legal question into an illegal question to try to justify it. Won't fly.

[Jocko]

This one @Rulekeep :D

[Rulekeep]

This one @Rulekeep

Ahhhhh well played.

[zm1283]

@RichIves:

 

I never said I would eject him immediately. I just said the problem would take care of itself. That may or may not include an ejection.

 

Matt is spot on here. 

[Rich Ives]

WHY do you folks think it's OK to "take care of" someone making a legal appeal? If you were a cop would you issue a ticket to someone running too many green lights?  BTW it's usually the catcher that makes the appeal. Going to toss him? Would it then be OK if the sub catcher let a pitch go by?

 

I recall a post years ago where an umpire tossed a coach for protesting a game.  Are you his disciples?

[scrounge]

I must agree with Rich. Just how many check swings are there in a game anyway? Just ask....if it's that obvious, BU isn't gonna change the call.

 

If the coach is a rodent, it will come out in other ways, but this isn't the battle to fight. He's fully within his rights to ask for a checked swing appeal and if you're in an OBR/NCAA game, take the 2 seconds and ask.

[Replacematt]

WHY do you folks think it's OK to "take care of" someone making a legal appeal? If you were a cop would you issue a ticket to someone running too many green lights?  BTW it's usually the catcher that makes the appeal. Going to toss him? Would it then be OK if the sub catcher let a pitch go by?

 

I recall a post years ago where an umpire tossed a coach for protesting a game.  Are you his disciples?

No, unlike him, I know the rules. He's getting tossed for arguing balls and strikes. The appeal is just his way of doing it. WHY do you think it's legal for him to argue balls and strikes.

[MidAmUmp]

If the coach is being an ass and wanting you to get help on every check swing, flinch or fart, I'll oblige him a couple times, then I'm going to tell him to knock it off and that I'll ask if it's a legit appeal, and I'll let him know if he continues I'll eject him. If he doesn't drop it I'll eject him because he ignored my warning.

We're talking an extreme situation here, by the way. When the coach or defensive team is obviously showing you up. I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't check a reasonable check swing.

[millerforrest]

If youre going to ask for help, get the honest answer from your partner. Plain & simple.

[Rulekeep]

If youre going to ask for help, get the honest answer from your partner. Plain & simple.

He's right, you know.

[RichMSN]

 

So let me get this correct for future reference...a guy comes on here and says he had a batter swing at a pitch, ball hits his hand, rolls into fair territory, umpire signals fair, catcher overthrows 1st and batter ends up at 2nd base. Head coach argues the ball is dead. Umpire says hands are part of the bat. Coach says you need to learn the rules. Umpire baits him and ejects him. You are saying we should not correct the umpire on his ruling that lead to the situation that lead to the baiting that lead to the ejection? We should not solve the actual root of the problem, we should just post comments about the main subject of each post?

 

Sure I can help you out with that. If a poster did not give any indication that anything was wrong and one needed to jump to a conclusion to think that something was wrong, then the answer is simply yes, one should stick to the original subject.

 

Its good to hear that you asked for a half-swing appeal on that LHB with no one on. My question is, have you ever refused a request for a half-swing appeal ? Do you always grant the request, no matter how ridiculous it is. Maybe it was only a sixteenth-swing, or maybe B was avoiding a HBP and never initiated a swing, or some other unusual happening that wasn't worthy of an appeal or maybe PITA HC was just trying to undermind your authority and show you who's running the show. Have you ever refused a request?  If so, then you probably had a good reason for refusing. Then why would you jump to the conclusion that the OP didn't have a good reason.

 

Even if one umpires perfectly, there are going to be circunstances beyond our control, and an infinite number of ways that a HC could get under our skin. The root of the problem is an umpire's temptation to deviate from professionalism, not the infinite number of ways that he got to that point.

 

 

I have never refused a request.  

[BaltimoreUmpire]

I never have refused a request, coaches dont ask much though

[Jimurray]

I never have refused a request, coaches dont ask much though

I think I have been asked less times than the number of posts on this thread.

[BaltimoreUmpire]

I never have refused a request, coaches dont ask much though

I think I have been asked less times than the number of posts on this thread.Ive been asked 4 times, including times when I was on the bases

[HokieUmp]

If the coach is being an ass and wanting you to get help on every check swing, flinch or fart, I'll oblige him a couple times, then I'm going to tell him to knock it off and that I'll ask if it's a legit appeal, and I'll let him know if he continues I'll eject him. If he doesn't drop it I'll eject him because he ignored my warning.

We're talking an extreme situation here, by the way. When the coach or defensive team is obviously showing you up. I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't check a reasonable check swing.

 

And Rich knows it, too.  He's just doing the coach "throw words at everything" methodology.  Or the "yeah-buts," as my kids used to do.

[SoCal Lurker]

The rule applies to half swings, not every pitch.  Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a half swing in MLB where the catcher didn't immediately ask for help.  This whole discussion is from a different world in which there are enough half swings that a coach could be an ass about it . . .

[MidAmUmp]

The rule applies to half swings, not every pitch. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a half swing in MLB where the catcher didn't immediately ask for help. This whole discussion is from a different world in which there are enough half swings that a coach could be an ass about it . . .

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding we have a winner!!!! Thank you! That's the point I've been trying to make.

[ricka56]

 

The rule applies to half swings, not every pitch. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a half swing in MLB where the catcher didn't immediately ask for help. This whole discussion is from a different world in which there are enough half swings that a coach could be an ass about it . . .

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding we have a winner!!!! Thank you! That's the point I've been trying to make.

 

I thought the OP was about a PITA coach and an umpire using a half-swing request as an opportunity to bait said coach into saying something stupid to get himself ejected. Saying that if the umpire had obliged the request, he would have avoided the problem is stating the obvious. The umpire wasn't trying to avoid a problem, the umpire was trying to create a problem by intentionally doing something unprofessional to bait the coach (that was what the OP was about, baiting a coach)...refusing the half-swing request (right or wrong) was just the mechanism to accomplish that goal.