I finally get it....

[stkjock]

As some may know, I'm not a umpire, just a coach trying to expand my knowledge base.  One thing I have been struggling with here as a non-umpire member is the undertone of animosity to coaches and parents. 

So the other night in a LL  game I got a taste of why it exists.

The umpire had a ton of patience, most of you would probably say too much, from what I've taken in here.  I'm surprised there wasn't a ejection.  

He actually said " thanks for not being a prick" to me.  I have always tried to be a gentleman on the diamond, polite and respectful, even when I think a call is totally wrong.

So, in conclusion, while some are, we aren't all pricks.

thanks to all the members for their knowledge and insights. 

[ElkOil]

You get what you give in most cases. I've seen coaches who are very nice guys, easy to get along with and respectful turn into loud-mouths when dealing with umpires who are the opposite. Too many umps don't understand how to build rapport and keep a friendly relationship going, so they overcompensate by being stand-offish. Fortunately, those are the minority of us.

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, ElkOil said:

You get what you give in most cases. I've seen coaches who are very nice guys, easy to get along with and respectful turn into loud-mouths when dealing with umpires who are the opposite. Too many umps don't understand how to build rapport and keep a friendly relationship going, so they overcompensate by being stand-offish. Fortunately, those are the minority of us.

And in many cases, one's ability as an umpire is inversely proportionate to one's ability to avert situations going south quickly. Similarly, many situations are exacerbated by a coach's unwillingness to learn the rules of the game or how to properly manage their assets.

[jjb]

IMHO:

85% of coaches are great people; they understand why they are there and easy to work with.

10% of coaches are great people, provided they're winning. The stress of losing gets to them and they take it out on the players and umpires.

5% of coaches have no business in youth sports.

[ricka56]

16 hours ago, stkjock said:

As some may know, I'm not a umpire, just a coach trying to expand my knowledge base.  One thing I have been struggling with here as a non-umpire member is the undertone of animosity to coaches and parents. 

I don't think most umpires have animosity towards coaches/parents...we just point out stupid stuff they sometimes do.

[stkjock]

Rick

 

while you maybe right, that's not the undertone that this site has.  It's palpayable from my point of readership.  It may not be intended, however, it's certainly my perception.  

[ElkOil]

4 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

And in many cases, one's ability as an umpire is inversely proportionate to one's ability to avert situations going south quickly. Similarly, many situations are exacerbated by a coach's unwillingness to learn the rules of the game or how to properly manage their assets.

It's not the coaches' jobs to learn all the rules. That's our job. The coaches' jobs are to develop and manage players, and execute game strategy (so I agree with you on that point). They need to know the rules insofar as what's required to perform on the field, but I don't have the expectation (or even desire) that they get intimately familiar with them. For example, why should they have to know all the ins and outs of batter interference or base awards on overthrows that go into dead ball territory? It's not going to help them play any better if they do.

What I wish for is that instead of getting mad when we make an obscure of difficult call, they don't assume we're wrong and get mad about it.

[stevis]

2 hours ago, stkjock said:

Rick

 

while you maybe right, that's not the undertone that this site has.  It's palpayable from my point of readership.  It may not be intended, however, it's certainly my perception.  

Keep in mind there's a selection bias.  We're not going to post about the coaches who do a good, quiet job (or even a loud but noncombative job) and don't piss us off.

[Kevin_K]

5 hours ago, ElkOil said:

It's not the coaches' jobs to learn all the rules. That's our job. The coaches' jobs are to develop and manage players, and execute game strategy (so I agree with you on that point). They need to know the rules insofar as what's required to perform on the field, but I don't have the expectation (or even desire) that they get intimately familiar with them. For example, why should they have to know all the ins and outs of batter interference or base awards on overthrows that go into dead ball territory? It's not going to help them play any better if they do.

What I wish for is that instead of getting mad when we make an obscure of difficult call, they don't assume we're wrong and get mad about it.

On this we shall disagree. For should they take the time to know the rules of the game, they will not act like an asshat when I award two bases when F1 disengages and then throws the ball out of play or that their runner will put the BR in jeopardy of also being called out when they coach (and I use that term loosely) R1 to break it up in the middle.

There are so many situations where they should know the rules but do not.

I agree with your closing however.

[stkjock]

5 hours ago, stevis said:

Keep in mind there's a selection bias.  We're not going to post about the coaches who do a good, quiet job (or even a loud but noncombative job) and don't piss us off.

Of course that comes into it.   

I guess it the action of a few that generate the bias from the "group" to have a negative view about coaches. 

[grayhawk]

I honestly have very little trouble with coaches at the levels I work.  Thinking back on the discussions I've had with them this season, I've only had one where the coach even raised his voice.  I had one guy try to big league me after I called a balk, but even then he never approached the line.  I guess he never considered how unimpressed I would be that he played 5 years of professional baseball.

I find that if you go out there and work hard, do a good job, and generally look like you're happy as a clam to be there, then they cut you a fair amount of slack when they disagree with a call.  "Please" and "thank you" also go a long way towards good coach/umpire relations.

[conbo61]

3 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

On this we shall disagree. For should they take the time to know the rules of the game, they will not act like an asshat when I award two bases when F1 disengages and then throws the ball out of play or that their runner will put the BR in jeopardy of also being called out when they coach (and I use that term loosely) R1 to break it up in the middle.

There are so many situations where they should know the rules but do not.

I agree with your closing however.

I had this exact situation last week.  Close game, VT down by 1 with bases loaded, one out, top 7.  Ground ball to F6 flips to F4 for the out and the runner takes out F4 with an illegal slide.  FPSR violation, we get two, ball game over.

VT coach loses it and is ADAMANT that the B/R is not out on that play, that is not the rule, we are wrong, etc., etc., etc.  I could not believe that a coach had such little understanding of a major Fed safety rule.  Especially with all the discussion about the "Utley Rule" this year.

Crack a rule book coach.  You may have just cost your team the game.

[HokieUmp]

10 hours ago, ElkOil said:

They need to know the rules insofar as what's required to perform on the field, but I don't have the expectation (or even desire) that they get intimately familiar with them. For example, why should they have to know all the ins and outs of batter interference or base awards on overthrows that go into dead ball territory? It's not going to help them play any better if they do.

What I wish for is that instead of getting mad when we make an obscure of difficult call, they don't assume we're wrong and get mad about it.

But see, that's the thing - your second paragraph doesn't happen near that much if they actually bothered to learn the rules.  Do they need to know ALL of them?  Probably not.  But if they were more knowledgeable than they are, then they wouldn't make said assumptions.

[ricka56]

12 hours ago, stkjock said:

while you maybe right, that's not the undertone that this site has.  It's palpayable from my point of readership.  It may not be intended, however, it's certainly my perception.  

I can do nothing about your perception of our attitudes towards coaches/parents. It just doesn't have any place in reality to me. If we have a problem, we deal with it...and maybe come here and tell stories...every good story has a villian.

...its not personal. Its strictly business.

[ElkOil]

5 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I honestly have very little trouble with coaches at the levels I work.  Thinking back on the discussions I've had with them this season, I've only had one where the coach even raised his voice.  I had one guy try to big league me after I called a balk, but even then he never approached the line.  I guess he never considered how unimpressed I would be that he played 5 years of professional baseball.

I find that if you go out there and work hard, do a good job, and generally look like you're happy as a clam to be there, then they cut you a fair amount of slack when they disagree with a call.  "Please" and "thank you" also go a long way towards good coach/umpire relations.

I agree. Last week we had a really tight, competitive JV game. I made three difficult calls. One was a balk in a critical situation, the other was an out on appeal for leaving 3B early on a fly out that took a run off the board and the other was umpire interference on myself because the catcher backed into me while trying to throw out a stealing runner.

The balk and INT call affected the home team. Both times the coach wanted an explanation, and I gave it to him. He was particularly interested in the INT call because he didn't know it was even a thing. On the 3B appeal, the visiting coach came up to me and said, "What did you have on that?"

"He left early, coach," I said.

He nodded and just said, "I disagree," and walked away.

And that was all the fallout I got. My partner and I worked well together, knew what we were doing and called a good game. As a result we earned the trust and respect of the coaches. They questioned some things, but accepted our explanations. After the game, the coaches even gave us handshakes and thank-yous.

[ElkOil]

7 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

On this we shall disagree. For should they take the time to know the rules of the game, they will not act like an asshat when I award two bases when F1 disengages and then throws the ball out of play or that their runner will put the BR in jeopardy of also being called out when they coach (and I use that term loosely) R1 to break it up in the middle.

There are so many situations where they should know the rules but do not.

I agree with your closing however.

 

2 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

But see, that's the thing - your second paragraph doesn't happen near that much if they actually bothered to learn the rules.  Do they need to know ALL of them?  Probably not.  But if they were more knowledgeable than they are, then they wouldn't make said assumptions.

Don't get me wrong, guys. I absolutely agree with the premise of what you're saying. The reality is coaches have many other things they focus on than learning whichever magic rules we think they should learn in order to be easier to work with. You both said something very interesting. You both mentioned -- and I'm paraphrasing -- they don't need to know every rule. So which ones should they learn to appease you, and how would they know what those are? I look at it this way: Coaching disagreements are as much a part of this game as hitting, throwing, catching, and running. It comes with the territory, so my priority is learning how to work as well as I can with them and all their various states of rules knowledge instead of hoping against hope they'd learn more of the rules.

 

[stkjock]

6 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I can do nothing about your perception of our attitudes towards coaches/parents. It just doesn't have any place in reality to me. If we have a problem, we deal with it...and maybe come here and tell stories...every good story has a villian.

...its not personal. Its strictly business.

I understand Rick, perception and reality often differ. However posts like these show what I refer too, they stand out to a reader more than those that defend the coaches. 

These are mostly just from the last year our so, yes I took the one that best illustrated my point, yes, there were comments taking the other side in the threads they came from.

Quote

@l. If I remember you're relatively new to umpiring. @R is right. We don't owe these self-serving, entitled pricks anything except consistency of judgment, hustle and strong knowledge of the rules. I am cordial and if they reciprocate we have a nice time. But remember this; they will turn on you for any reason, tell their coaches and teammates EVERYTHING you say to them but twist it to suit their needs and desires and take umbrage at any call you make that doesn't serve their purposes. 

Sorry but you're just wrong on this one. Get about five to ten more years of experience and you'll know what I'm taking about and agree with Rich as well. 

 

Quote

Coaches are rats and will do whatever they can to try and gain an advantage. Impose the proper penalty and then make sure the issue does not repeat.

Quote

Yeah, that's usually why they get dumped.  They ("rats"...managers and coaches, alike) say something the umpire doesn't particularly care

Quote

ALL coaches are known as Rats, not just Asst. coaches!

 Like this

This guy seems to see it as well:

Quote

But seriously...how some of you guys take on this "us against them" mindset is kind of fascinating. With some of you guys, the managers and coaches are always effing "rats" and the umpires are always to be defended. I've played. I've managed. I've umpired. I've worn all the hats. Hey, we umpires screw up too. This guy IMO, makes a rookie move in a critical situation and ol' Mike was just letting him know.

 

[noumpere]

7 hours ago, ElkOil said:

 

Don't get me wrong, guys. I absolutely agree with the premise of what you're saying. The reality is coaches have many other things they focus on than learning whichever magic rules we think they should learn in order to be easier to work with. You both said something very interesting. You both mentioned -- and I'm paraphrasing -- they don't need to know every rule. So which ones should they learn to appease you, and how would they know what those are? I look at it this way: Coaching disagreements are as much a part of this game as hitting, throwing, catching, and running. It comes with the territory, so my priority is learning how to work as well as I can with them and all their various states of rules knowledge instead of hoping against hope they'd learn more of the rules.

 

It isn't that they question rules they don't know, it's that they actively argue the "wrong" side of the rule.

[ALStripes17]

I'm known in my area as a student of the rules. Coaches and players know what to expect when I'm on the field. I actually get more inquisitive questions about rulings then I do coaches getting upset. Yes they will be animated in the moment but my reputation precedes me in that they know I work my tail off to give the best and most fair game to both sides. Honestly, runners lane INT and FPSR are two rules that coaches should be aware of... The downside of that is that many umpires I see don't know those 2 rules (or don't know exactly what to look for don't or want to make themselves the center of attention by calling it) and that does give coaches more ammo against those guys.

But hey... I like to keep the standards as high as possible

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[HokieUmp]

stkjock:

I believe I understand the point you want to make.  But here's the thing:  as I said to Rich Ives once, a while ago, there's this place where the down-trodden coach can hide from the tyranny of we umpires:  it's called the rest of the Internet.

Ever read comment blocks out there?  Deadspin, Yahoo! Sports, CNNSI, etc, etc, etc, etc.  Any time there's a controversy, it's either blamed on the umpires directly in the articles, or at least in the aforementioned comment blocks.  Because the coaches and players can't POSSIBLY be wrong, and not know the rules of the sport they play.

Example:  Kinsler letting the ball drop yesterday.  So, it's a ground ball now, right?  Well, not if you're an announcer - one of them called it an infield fly, and went on about it.  And not if you're a manager - both managers had to come out to talk to the umpires.

As to your quote list:  thing is, it IS the case that players/coaches WILL turn on you in a second.  They WILL twist what you say.  They DON'T want consistency, unless by "consistency," you mean "always going MY way."  Not all of them, by any means - the vast majority are neutral or virtually ignore us;  I think those are my favorites.  But because there are those guys that are ready to turn everything into a giant s--tstorm, it's far better to be wary and just on your guard at all times.  Like it or not, the relationship IS adversarial, so it's best to be a realist and approach it that way.

[stkjock]

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

stkjock:

I believe I understand the point you want to make.  But here's the thing:  as I said to Rich Ives once, a while ago, there's this place where the down-trodden coach can hide from the tyranny of we umpires:  it's called the rest of the Internet.

Fair point Hokie - I never took it personally, I realize the internet is a place where many make comments that would never be made face to face, many times just venting. In the end this is a site for Umpires and hence it's focus and gestalt. 

I appreciate your comments and insights.

 

1 hour ago, HokieUmp said:

Like it or not, the relationship IS adversarial, so it's best to be a realist and approach it that way.

well that's sad then IMO, At least at the lower levels

[ALStripes17]

well that's sad then IMO, At least at the lower levels

Just got a phone call about a buddy of mine having to eject a 7-8 year old coach for being a toolbag.

R1, 1 out. Ground ball to F6. F6 throws over F3's head and ball goes into dugout. Easy two base award (R1 to 3B and BR to 2B). Not according to daddy coach. He was adamant that it was only a 1 base award and apparently wouldn't let it go. Things like that are asinine and par for the course many a times.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

Just got a phone call about a buddy of mine having to eject a 7-8 year old coach for being a toolbag.

IMO that's too young to be a coach.

[ElkOil]

16 minutes ago, maven said:

IMO that's too young to be a coach.

I disagree. I've met some as young as six who were pretty good.

 

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

Just got a phone call about a buddy of mine having to eject a 7-8 year old coach for being a toolbag.

R1, 1 out. Ground ball to F6. F6 throws over F3's head and ball goes into dugout. Easy two base award (R1 to 3B and BR to 2B). Not according to daddy coach. He was adamant that it was only a 1 base award and apparently wouldn't let it go. Things like that are asinine and par for the course many a times.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

But it's way too young to be a dad.

[kylehutson]

On 4/17/2016 at 7:16 AM, jjb said:

IMHO:

85% of coaches are great people; they understand why they are there and easy to work with.

10% of coaches are great people, provided they're winning. The stress of losing gets to them and they take it out on the players and umpires.

5% of coaches have no business in youth sports.

That's a pretty good estimation, IMHO.

And @stkjock, thanks for not being a prick. Coaches who are respectful, even when they disagree, find it easier to find umpires for their games.