Back to Back to Back Weekends

[MadMax]

I preface this to the community... this is going to be a long post. I've read this "Ejection Report" exhaustively, and there are more than a few statements in here that really stand out and need to be addressed. One of the most glaring ones is "three silly ejections that came out of nowhere". Ejections are not trivial, and ejections should not be casual – they should be regarded as a "weapon of last resort" or "the nuclear option". Certainly, if it's in the Rules that an action warrants an Ejection, then that's what it is. Or, if a participant crosses that line of protocol (bumping an umpire, for example), then it is of course necessary. But there was a perspective presented by @BRUMP (others have agreed) that all three ejections were (easy or not) avoidable, and @umpire_scott has disputed this perspective.

So, if you the community will humor me, I'll present a rendition of these situations that do not end in ejections. They will contain and rely upon the advice, insight, and observations that many of you (the community) have expressed here. Thing is, Scott, this stuff isn't new, and doesn't take a Rocket Umpire to figure out and infuse into his game-to-game habits, methods, practice and attitude.

EJECTION #1 - My partner had the ejection, but it was well deserved.  Batter in the box R2, RH pitcher.  Pitcher comes set and then starts his pitch.  Batter holds his hand up but does not verbalize time or ask for it and then quickly puts it back down.  Pitcher stops his motion.  Balk is called.  Runner advances to third.  Coach tells his pitcher to just follow through with the pitch.  I know that the batter cannot cause a balk, but it was determined that his action was not sufficient to cause the balk as he did not verbalize time or step out of the box.  In retrospect I think I should have waived the balk off, but I didn't at the time.  A few pitches later the same thing happens except this time the batter verbalizes "time" and steps out of the box.  I call "time" and state "no balk, batter actions caused the pitcher to react".  In the meantime R3 starts to break for home.  DC yells at his pitcher about it and R3 heads back to 3rd.  Pitcher throws to third and he is tagged out.  I immediately say "no play ball is dead, time was called".  DC yells that I can't call time while the ball is in play and that since it wasn't a balk there was no reason to call time. I correct him but to no avail.  After a short time he finally goes back to his dugout.  Next batter hits a gapper to score the go ahead run and comes out of the dugout yelling that we cost his team the game.  My partner gives him a warning then runs him.  How can a coach really think that the ball is still live when a pitcher committed a balk, but the infraction was waived off due to the actions of the batter?

SITUATION #1 - Batter in the box, R2, RH pitcher. Pitcher comes set and then starts his pitch. Batter holds his hand up but does not verbalize time or ask for it and then quickly puts it back down. Pitcher stops his motion. Balk is called.

• "TIME" is called. As per the insights of @Jimurray and @grayhawk, the application of a Balk call can be negated since the batter (inadvertently) caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery. Pitcher and batter start over from scratch, Balk is negated. We still have R2. Pitcher assumes position on rubber, batter in box ready to go, PU calls "Play!" and away we go... No Ejection.
• We don't realize (or remember) that this rule exists, and so we enforce the Balk. I admit, I very likely would have. So, R2 is awarded 3B, pitcher is a bit miffed, but assumes position on rubber, batter in box ready to go. At this point, I tell the batter, "If you want time called, I need a verbal and a hand. Got it?" "Yes sir." PU calls "Play!" and away we go...

A few pitches later, the batter verbalizes "Time?" and steps out of the box. I promptly declare "Time! No pitch!" and step demonstratively to the side (opposite the hitter... getting out from behind the catcher is usually "dramatic" enough to get pitcher's attention, and he doesn't pitch... or throw anywhere... but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that F1 is fixated on R3 and doesn't hear or see me call "Time!"...). R3 breaks for home... "Gentlemen, the ball's dead!" All action ceases, R3 returns to 3B, F1 gets sorted back out and gets back on the rubber, PU (me) gets back into position, the batter back in the box ready to go, PU calls "Play!" and away we go... No Ejection.

Analysis - You (Scott) talk too much. Despite this, you don't project your voice enough. This line of "no balk, batter actions caused the pitcher to react" is extraneous, irrelevant and unnecessary. That's a mouthful to say, and obviously, while you were saying it (needlessly), a bunch of action was taking place, including R3 being "tagged out". How do you know he was tagged at all? You actually watched that entire sequence happen? Why weren't you emphasizing that the ball was dead? ... Did your partner watch a tag and call him out? If so, why didn't your partner hear you call "Time"? When we call "Time", we should do so so emphatically the infield (at least) hears us.

Another thing I just realized, reading this over for the fiftieth time... How are you (or your partner) calling a balk? Are you saying "Time! That's a balk!" or "That's a balk! ... Time!". There is a difference, and if a coach has been hearing you declare it the first way, then to have you follow it up with that frivolous line of "batter actions blah blah blah", he may just assume any number of things that will lead to some headaches. The predominant method is to call "That's a balk! (pause until action ceases) Time!"

EJECTION #2 - 14U AAA game.  Very competitive, teams don't like each other much.  HT is up 4-3 bottom of 6.  One out R2 and R3.  Batter lifts a fly ball to CF.  Catch is made and both runners tag.  I have a play coming into home and R2 is going to third.  I know I have a timing play as they have no shot at R3.  So I'm slightly up the line to get a good angle to have a clear view of R3 coming home and can still see the timing of R2 coming into third.as I see R2 begin his slide I turn and look at home and see R3 about 3 feet from the plate.  I then turn to my partner see what his call is.  He calls out.  I point to HP and verbalize "run does not count".  Third base coach (also head coach) comes running at me screaming at me that I was not even watching the play.  I sternly told him that I was looking right at the play and called it correctly and then quickly ejected him.  Or rather confirmed his ejection of himself.  The true ejection happened as he was maniacally running at me and screaming.  I'm not perfect, but when I do everything right, as I was trained, and am 100% certain that I got the call correct and they come running out like that it really pisses me off.  Because he was so convincing that his fans were chirping about it to.

SITUATION #2 - 14U AAA game. Been in a whole bunch of these before. I'm PU. HT leads 4-3 bottom of 6. 1 out, with R2 and R3. Batter lifts a fly ball to center field. I step back to approximately the five o'clock position at the rear of the dirt circle so I can line up R3, my BU and F8 in my field of view. Catch is made and both runners tag. I now step to my right to 3BLX, noticing the throw headed towards 3B where my BU has that play. I have the BU and incoming R3 in my sights. A tag is applied at 3B, with my BU calling and signaling "Out!". I focus on the runner (R3), and see that he has not touched the plate yet, so I immediately step towards the plate and bring my arms up, crossing the forearms, and declare, "Run Does Not Score!"... No Ejection.

• I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and add the likely question we all get asked of a "concerned" base coach (and most other coaches and fans)... "Did the run score?" Everyone will notice that I'm in a position to see both my BU and R3 before me, without having to turn my head back and forth and I'll just say, "No, third out before he touched home plate."

Analysis - The part that "really pisses me off" while reading this report is that you give this magnanimous statement of "when I do everything right, as I was trained, and am 100% certain that I got the call correct", yet you were wrong while the ball was in flight to center field. You were wrong in your positioning, you were looking at the wrong things ("R2 coming into third"... that's not your job! Your job is the plate!) and you were wrong in your handling of the impending meltdown of the coach. Oh, and if you "were trained", you were trained wrong! Your positioning up the 3BL reeks of lack of trust in your BU, as if you felt compelled to be on hand to (be closer to) watch the play at 3B and potentially take the call or "give help". Get your a$$ back to the plate. I would have actually bought this Ejection had your BU taken the brunt of it as to whether or not R2 was Out at 3B... Coach blows up at your BU, BU asks you what you saw, you say, "I had a runner incoming to the plate, that call is all yours.", coach goes nuclear, and says, "You were right there looking at it (the play at 3B, not the plate)! You're blind!" BOOM! Done!... but the coach would have been right because that's where you positioned yourself, and that's the way he perceived it.

EJECTION #3 - I'm on the dish and on the second pitch a ball comes in low and away.  Batter squares to bunt and looks like he begins to offer but then pulls back, F2 moves blocking my view.  I don't have enough to say he clearly offered at the pitch so I verbalize ball.  F2 asks me to appeal to my partner at first so I do and he strikes it.  Count gets to 2-2 and then the next pitch is a ball making it full.  Batter drops his bat and heads towards first.  I return him stating that it's three balls.  He looks incredulous.  So I tell him that the bunt was judged an attempt and therefore that ball was changed to a strike.  Third base coach (HC) asks for an explanation.  I explain that "I assume your batter didn't realize or forgot about the appeal on the bunt attempt".  Coach says "so you assumed the count".  I try to say no I assumed your batter didn't know the count for the reason I mentioned.  He says "Well when you assume you make an ass out of yourself".  Goodbye coach.

SITUATION #3 - I'm PU and on the second pitch, a ball comes in low and away. Batter squares to bunt and looks like he begins to offer but then pulls back, F2 moves blocking my view. From how I tracked it, I called it a "Ball". F2 asks me to appeal, so I do, and my BU mechanics that he did offer (thus, it's a strike). I mechanic a swung strike. Next pitch, a Ball, and I declare the count, "Count is Two Balls, One Strike". Another pitch comes in, it's a Strike. Now, another pitch comes in as a Ball, taking the count full to 3-2, however, the batter drops his bat and heads towards first, thinking that's ball four. I say, "Hey batter, where ya going? That's just ball three." He looks incredulous. "Forgot about that strike, didja? That's alright... Count is now full! Three Balls, Two Strikes!"... No Ejection.

• I'll give you one last benefit of the doubt, and allow for (your) HC/3BC to ask, even with skepticism, why the count isn't at Ball Four yet. More than happy to reply to that one, Coach, since I've trained myself to remember the pitches – without an indicator – and can regurgitate them for this batter, "First ball, then that bunt attempt strike, then a ball, then a strike, then this last ball." Impressed (or dazed), the coach shrugs and we get back to baseball.

Analysis - Again, you talk too damned much. You t/walked that coach right into that ejection. It's like saying to a coach, "Hey coach, what do the letters Why Oh You Ess You Cee Kay Bee Ell You Eee spell?" "You suck Blue" BOOM! This event, and the first one with the "balk", lead me to believe you do not have what we call "Plate Presence" – there isn't an impression that you're in command of this game, let alone of the count. When we (as PU) get within that dirt circle, we should give the impression that we're in command of this entire game (the BU is our sidekick and equally important). You give way too many explanations, and when you do, you have a glint of arrogance and self-righteousness. That command impression is not built by what you say, but in your appearance, your mannerisms, and your voice projection. You also know when to say what you say.
I have to convey that the "Hey batter..." comment is one that I (and others) can "get away with" because we don't act like condescending powermongers and jerks to the players and coaches. I treat nearly every interaction as a "Hey, that's baseball" sort of exchange, instead of a "I'm Umpire! I'm right!" argument / discussion / conversation.

I could go on and on with this, but there's baseball to get back to.

Take from this what you will. If this gets your blood boiling, good, it should. Are you a bad person? Likely not. Do you have to reply or respond to this? No, not at all. I put this out there more for the sake of the (young) community than for you or me. 

[umpire_scott]

There's a difference between having a backbone and being stubborn. You have shown time and again that you are exemplary of the latter. Multiple boards, multiple people have tried to teach you of how to do this properly. Yet it's the rest of us, not you, that is the problem. Given the OP, your immaturity and inability to handle criticism is also exhibited on the field. Not one person has said anything out of line to you. 

You are the only one that has been out of line, Matt.  Kevin was not out of line when he said all three ejections could have been easily avoidable, I simply disagreed with him which adults are entitled to do.  The immaturity comes out when someone disagrees and then they are called "stubborn" for simply disagreeing.  Kevin stated an opinion.  You stated short stabbing insults like "some things never change" and "but you were wrong".  You offered no sensible analysis. Kevin was offering ways that the ejections could have been avoided, which if that is true, could have been helpful.  This was in a thread titled "ejections".  Had Grayhawk, Maven, or any other respected umpire on this site related my stories (minus the improper positioning because they are far better umpires than me), that would have been the story.  There would not have been this immediate need to critique every detail of the situation.  I appreciate the correction on where I should have been positioned.  That is pertinent information.  But why nitpick the rest of it. The real story was how much the coaches overreacted, not what I said or did every step of the way.

The bottom line is that I was the umpire that was there, so I know more than anyone whether the ejections could have been avoided.  I am the furthest thing from immature on the field.  When it comes to game management I get compliments almost every time I work with umpires that I have not worked with before.  I seldom throw coaches out.  I'm known for the exact opposite actually.  If you could simply explain how your few comments helped to make me a better umpire and contributed positively to the purpose of this board then I will apologize for my remarks.

And let me assure you it is not "me against the world" as you would like to think.  Every time I've stood my ground against the senseless comments such as yours I've received personal messages from multiple other umpires who read but refuse to post, because of the attacks and ridicule that come there way.  So keep on insulting and driving umpires away just to get your rocks being arrogant and condescending.

Trust me I welcome constructive criticism.  But sometimes things just happen, and no matter how good of an umpire you think you are, the coach was going to get ejected.   We can look at any situation and said if you handled it this way then this might have happened.  If I wasn't too wordy in EJ #3 maybe it could have been avoided.  Well there are probably a bunch of other times where because an umpire was unwilling to offer an explanation or ignored the coaches further comments that there attitude caused the ejection.  It goes both ways.  

[umpire_scott]

There's a difference between having a backbone and being stubborn. You have shown time and again that you are exemplary of the latter. Multiple boards, multiple people have tried to teach you of how to do this properly. Yet it's the rest of us, not you, that is the problem. Given the OP, your immaturity and inability to handle criticism is also exhibited on the field. Not one person has said anything out of line to you. 

MadMax,

I appreciate your input.  I hope you also can understand that when someone makes assertions that are not completely in line with the situation I am going to want to clarify them.  I will take everything you said and consider it as I always do.  

In #1 I was BU not PU.  I did yell "balk, , , time".  I then walked towards the pitchers mound and was announcing that the balk was negated due to the batters actions.  If I'm going to negate a balk I need to expain why, right?  How is it irrelevant to call "Balk. . . time", and then not explain why it is no balk?  Trust me when the runner broke for home I was yelling "time has been called".  But the kids were reacting to the play and their coaches yelling.  I guess we can always be more demonstrative and it is true that had the kids not tried to make the play at third then there would not have been an ejection

In #2 I have admitted that I was wrong in my positioning.  When I originally posted that I did everything right I thought I was in the correct position, I now know differently. I was meaning that I without question saw that he did not get to home plate before the tag was applied.  As I stated later it was not all that close of a play.  I was not looking at third to help my partner with the call.  I was looking at home and saw third out of the corner of my eye so I could assess where R3 was in relation to home as the tag was being applied.  I obviously cannot wait for my BU's call because he will make a call well after the actual tag is applied.  I guess I'm confused as to why being outside of the RH batters box means I was looking at 3B?  I was probably about 8 feet from HP and close to 80 feet from 3B.

#3  There are some different schools of thought regarding interacting with coaches.  I believe that giving a short explanation is better than not giving one.  I was not arrogant in the slightest with this coach.  I simply concluded that the batter missed the second pitch being changed to a strike.  Since the coach said "it was just 3-1" he must have missed that too.  I simply reminded him of that.  At no time was I even slightly condescending.  That is why the ejection was so startling to me.  Rather than extrapolate what you assume happened answer me how you would have handled the exact exchange:

Coach:  Time.  That was ball 4.

Me: No it is 3-2, The second pitch was changed to a strike because on appeal it was determined that he offered at the pitch prior to pulling back, I assume your batter didn't realize that.

Coach: So you assumed?

Me: yes I assumed that is why your batter was incorrect on the count.

Coach: Well when you assume you make an ass out of yourself.

Me: Coach you're gone.

Honestly I didn't even want to eject him.  But I felt that given the personal nature of his comment that is what I was supposed to do.

[Replacematt]

You are the only one that has been out of line, Matt.  Kevin was not out of line when he said all three ejections could have been easily avoidable, I simply disagreed with him which adults are entitled to do.  The immaturity comes out when someone disagrees and then they are called "stubborn" for simply disagreeing.  Kevin stated an opinion.  You stated short stabbing insults like "some things never change" and "but you were wrong".  You offered no sensible analysis. Kevin was offering ways that the ejections could have been avoided, which if that is true, could have been helpful.  This was in a thread titled "ejections".  Had Grayhawk, Maven, or any other respected umpire on this site related my stories (minus the improper positioning because they are far better umpires than me), that would have been the story.  There would not have been this immediate need to critique every detail of the situation.  I appreciate the correction on where I should have been positioned.  That is pertinent information.  But why nitpick the rest of it. The real story was how much the coaches overreacted, not what I said or did every step of the way.

The bottom line is that I was the umpire that was there, so I know more than anyone whether the ejections could have been avoided.  I am the furthest thing from immature on the field.  When it comes to game management I get compliments almost every time I work with umpires that I have not worked with before.  I seldom throw coaches out.  I'm known for the exact opposite actually.  If you could simply explain how your few comments helped to make me a better umpire and contributed positively to the purpose of this board then I will apologize for my remarks.

And let me assure you it is not "me against the world" as you would like to think.  Every time I've stood my ground against the senseless comments such as yours I've received personal messages from multiple other umpires who read but refuse to post, because of the attacks and ridicule that come there way.  So keep on insulting and driving umpires away just to get your rocks being arrogant and condescending.

Trust me I welcome constructive criticism.  But sometimes things just happen, and no matter how good of an umpire you think you are, the coach was going to get ejected.   We can look at any situation and said if you handled it this way then this might have happened.  If I wasn't too wordy in EJ #3 maybe it could have been avoided.  Well there are probably a bunch of other times where because an umpire was unwilling to offer an explanation or ignored the coaches further comments that there attitude caused the ejection.  It goes both ways.  

I said nothing out of line or insulting. Being told you are wrong or that you are behaving the way you have a tendency to do are not insults. You argued/quibbled/whatever word you want to use with multiple posters here before I even said anything. If you cannot handle being told you are acting inappropriately, that is on you. I said nothing insulting or personal--I addressed what you were doing.

The problem is that when someone subtly tries to work with you, it goes over your head. When someone is blunt with you, it's a personal attack in your eyes. Based on your behaviors here and what happened in these three situations, you have a hard time accepting your role in things. Take this, for example: "The real story was how much the coaches overreacted, not what I said or did every step of the way." No, you are here on an umpire's forum. They are not here, and this is not a forum for coaches. This is a place to learn about the one thing we can control, and that is our umpiring. You are absolving yourself of responsibility and your role when you minimize it, claiming (incorrectly, mind you) that what they did was the important thing. Hell, you even told a coach your magical powers of mindreading and threw your SH*#storm on a (youth) batter. If that's not avoiding responsibility, I don't know what is. (As for that EJ, he had to get tossed to protect his players from the BS you just did. Hopefully you can put yourself in his shoes and see why.)

Now, for this: "The bottom line is that I was the umpire that was there, so I know more than anyone whether the ejections could have been avoided. " That's a copout. By that logic, no one should ever post here or give advice, because the ejecting umpire was the only one there. You have at least seven people telling you they could have been avoided, and yet you still disagree. That's not standing your ground, that's being stubborn. Others have pointed it out, not just me. Then you have the gall to claim that I'm the one acting inappropriately by, what do you know, insulting me. You can sit there and claim that you get PMs and all sorts of assorted tales--if (and that's a big if) true, it's probably from people like you (and I can think of one in particular) who are often wrong and obstinate, can't handle blunt truth, and can't handle people like me who refuse to suffer fools.

"Trust me I welcome constructive criticism." Yet you argue, argue, argue. "But why nitpick the rest of it." Because you contributed to all of them, and caused #3. If that had happened in many associations, you would have had your schedule pulled and fined the amount of any ejection fee.

You don't want blunt commentary? Then stop arguing and learn to use your ears more than your mouth. Then you won't have gadflies surrounding your head. The other thing to learn is that not everything is up for discussion--sometimes one is quite simply wrong, and adjust accordingly.

 

[umpire_scott]

I said nothing out of line or insulting. Being told you are wrong or that you are behaving the way you have a tendency to do are not insults. You argued/quibbled/whatever word you want to use with multiple posters here before I even said anything. If you cannot handle being told you are acting inappropriately, that is on you. I said nothing insulting or personal--I addressed what you were doing.

The problem is that when someone subtly tries to work with you, it goes over your head. When someone is blunt with you, it's a personal attack in your eyes. Based on your behaviors here and what happened in these three situations, you have a hard time accepting your role in things. Take this, for example: "The real story was how much the coaches overreacted, not what I said or did every step of the way." No, you are here on an umpire's forum. They are not here, and this is not a forum for coaches. This is a place to learn about the one thing we can control, and that is our umpiring. You are absolving yourself of responsibility and your role when you minimize it, claiming (incorrectly, mind you) that what they did was the important thing. Hell, you even told a coach your magical powers of mindreading and threw your SH*#storm on a (youth) batter. If that's not avoiding responsibility, I don't know what is. (As for that EJ, he had to get tossed to protect his players from the BS you just did. Hopefully you can put yourself in his shoes and see why.)

Now, for this: "The bottom line is that I was the umpire that was there, so I know more than anyone whether the ejections could have been avoided. " That's a copout. By that logic, no one should ever post here or give advice, because the ejecting umpire was the only one there. You have at least seven people telling you they could have been avoided, and yet you still disagree. That's not standing your ground, that's being stubborn. Others have pointed it out, not just me. Then you have the gall to claim that I'm the one acting inappropriately by, what do you know, insulting me. You can sit there and claim that you get PMs and all sorts of assorted tales--if (and that's a big if) true, it's probably from people like you (and I can think of one in particular) who are often wrong and obstinate, can't handle blunt truth, and can't handle people like me who refuse to suffer fools.

"Trust me I welcome constructive criticism." Yet you argue, argue, argue. "But why nitpick the rest of it." Because you contributed to all of them, and caused #3. If that had happened in many associations, you would have had your schedule pulled and fined the amount of any ejection fee.

You don't want blunt commentary? Then stop arguing and learn to use your ears more than your mouth. Then you won't have gadflies surrounding your head. The other thing to learn is that not everything is up for discussion--sometimes one is quite simply wrong, and adjust according

You are 100% incorrect.  Go back and re-read the thread.  Grayhawk corrected me on my positioning.  I asked for clarification, and in the midst of my asking I even figured it out that I was on the wrong side of home plate.  Never disputed it at all.  The ONLY thing I disputed was the mention that all three could have been easily avoidable.  As an umpire how is it not insulting for someone that was not even there to make that claim.  It is a very arrogant assessment to make.  Next time you post an ejection story I'll post that I think it was easily avoidable and let's see your reaction.  And I was not upset or insulted by Kevin's assessment, that was his opinion with limited knowledge of the situation.  I simply did not agree and posted my reasons why.  In each of those situations I could have done everything perfectly and there is a high probability all three ejections would have still occurred.  

I have no problem taking constructive criticism.  I also know how to treat people with respect.  When I'm not treated with respect I let people know about it.  What Kevin said, while I found it arrogant, was not disrespectful. So I responded that I disagreed and explained why.  I can't understand why that is met with such dismay.  I felt it ws simple give and take.  No big deal.  I was defending my position, that others did agree with mind you, that the ejections were not avoidable.  What you said was disrespectful.  It was uncalled for.  It served no useful purpose.  Exactly what "constructive criticism" does "some things never change" offer.  If you classify that as "constructive criticism" then I suggest you take a communication class.

This argument is going nowhere and is quite pointless but please do explain your stance on me "causing" ejection #3 and how that would have caused me to have my schedule pulled.  

[LMSANS]

We are done here.