Too quick or just right?

[jlutgen0]

9A game tonight, pretty close game. VT up to bat with two outs and R3. R3 breaks for the plate right when the pitcher gets set, pitcher steps off and guns him out at the plate to end the inning. As I jog out to right field, all of the assistant coaches in the first base dugout (teams were in the wrong dugouts) are up against the fence yelling "That's a balk, he didn't come set." I told them he stepped off and didn't have to come set. They all continue and I said "That's enough, no more." By this point I am probably a couple feet from first base jogging away when one of the assistants shouts loud enough for all to hear "it's okay, you aren't even watching the game." At this point I ejected him for prolonged and personal arguments. Did I get this one right? Also, any advice is welcomed. Part of me says I could have just continued to jog to right field and ignored the comment, but then it could have continued to escalate.

[Replacematt]

Well, you could have ignored the earlier comments and it may have escalated, or you could have engaged them (as you did) and it did escalate. Yes, I know that's not the comment to which you were referring, but the ejection isn't the learning opportunity here. The teaching point is that you don't explain yourself to assistants. If you read the atmosphere and an assistant is politely asking (or implying a question,) you might give a simple answer. Not here. Ignore their statements exclaiming their difference of opinion. If they cross a line, deal with it. People being mad (even loudly so) is going to happen. Don't make the situation worse by joining the battle.

[umpire_scott]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

Well, you could have ignored the earlier comments and it may have escalated, or you could have engaged them (as you did) and it did escalate. Yes, I know that's not the comment to which you were referring, but the ejection isn't the learning opportunity here. The teaching point is that you don't explain yourself to assistants. If you read the atmosphere and an assistant is politely asking (or implying a question,) you might give a simple answer. Not here. Ignore their statements exclaiming their difference of opinion. If they cross a line, deal with it. People being mad (even loudly so) is going to happen. Don't make the situation worse by joining the battle.

I know in upper levels the coaches know the roles of head coach and assistant coach.  But in a 9 year old game I don't know if that is the case so much.  I know in some of the tournaments I do I might have a team two consecutive games and two different coaches come out for ground rules.  Now I could take the time to determine for certain which coach is the head coach and which coach is the assistant but I don't, and I've never had an umpire with me do that either.  At that level we simply treat all coaches the same. Maybe I should determine who the head coach is at every ground rules meeting and make it clear I will only discuss plays with that coach?  But I've always had difficulty with the logic of this.  Let's say there is a play at first that is close and the assistant is the 1st base coach.  He wants to talk to me about a call I made.  He has to call  the head coach over from third base, tell him what he saw, and then the head coach talk to me?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  

It seems to me in the OP that ignoring the question they were asking would have certainly escalated and prolonged the comments.  Once again no proof as he did respond.  I agree with ignoring comments about judgement calls, nothing good can come of that generally.  But I do not agree with ignoring comments about rule interps. They thought he had to come set, the jlutgen0 explained otherwise and went to his position.  I believe ignoring something like that makes you look smug and unapproachable and sets a negative tone.  I would have handled it exactly as the OP did.  

And I do want to point out the level of play would probably matter as well.  In a high school or higher game I could see a more valid reason to ignore it as they should know the proper protocol a little better.

[Thawk]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

Well, you could have ignored the earlier comments and it may have escalated, or you could have engaged them (as you did) and it did escalate. Yes, I know that's not the comment to which you were referring, but the ejection isn't the learning opportunity here. The teaching point is that you don't explain yourself to assistants. If you read the atmosphere and an assistant is politely asking (or implying a question,) you might give a simple answer. Not here. Ignore their statements exclaiming their difference of opinion. If they cross a line, deal with it. People being mad (even loudly so) is going to happen. Don't make the situation worse by joining the battle.

I agree with Matt on this one.  In 9u level, many of the "assistant" coaches are merely dads who want to be on the field.  They don't bother knowing the rules because they believe they know them all.  They also don't seem to know how to behave themselves once they put on the team's shirt.  I would have ignored them from the start.  If they persisted, and got personal, then I would have simply warned them.  At that age level, I would only deal with the HC.

[jlutgen0]

First off, thanks for the replies. By no means am I going to say it wouldn't have worked, as I know in many situations it is the much better option, but in this case it wouldn't have helped. Earlier on in the game they were acting the same way and ignoring did nothing, so this time I decided to give a short explanation as I jogged to right field. I didn't stop to try to have conversation. 

[Replacematt]

25 minutes ago, jlutgen0 said:

First off, thanks for the replies. By no means am I going to say it wouldn't have worked, as I know in many situations it is the much better option, but in this case it wouldn't have helped. Earlier on in the game they were acting the same way and ignoring did nothing, so this time I decided to give a short explanation as I jogged to right field. I didn't stop to try to have conversation. 

Then that goes back to the atmosphere. Don't explain, warn. Shoot a monkey if necessary.

[Replacematt]

52 minutes ago, umpire_scott said:

I know in upper levels the coaches know the roles of head coach and assistant coach.  But in a 9 year old game I don't know if that is the case so much.  I know in some of the tournaments I do I might have a team two consecutive games and two different coaches come out for ground rules.  Now I could take the time to determine for certain which coach is the head coach and which coach is the assistant but I don't, and I've never had an umpire with me do that either.  At that level we simply treat all coaches the same. Maybe I should determine who the head coach is at every ground rules meeting and make it clear I will only discuss plays with that coach?  But I've always had difficulty with the logic of this.  Let's say there is a play at first that is close and the assistant is the 1st base coach.  He wants to talk to me about a call I made.  He has to call  the head coach over from third base, tell him what he saw, and then the head coach talk to me?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  

It seems to me in the OP that ignoring the question they were asking would have certainly escalated and prolonged the comments.  Once again no proof as he did respond.  I agree with ignoring comments about judgement calls, nothing good can come of that generally.  But I do not agree with ignoring comments about rule interps. They thought he had to come set, the jlutgen0 explained otherwise and went to his position.  I believe ignoring something like that makes you look smug and unapproachable and sets a negative tone.  I would have handled it exactly as the OP did.  

And I do want to point out the level of play would probably matter as well.  In a high school or higher game I could see a more valid reason to ignore it as they should know the proper protocol a little better.

Atmosphere. If there's a tone set, then don't deal with him. If not, then work with him. Be on your toes and ready to shut it down. If it escalates, it's going to be (at least) 2 on 1 in a hurry.

[HokieUmp]

On 7/1/2016 at 9:25 AM, umpire_scott said:

Maybe I should determine who the head coach is at every ground rules meeting and make it clear I will only discuss plays with that coach?  But I've always had difficulty with the logic of this.  Let's say there is a play at first that is close and the assistant is the 1st base coach.  He wants to talk to me about a call I made.  He has to call  the head coach over from third base, tell him what he saw, and then the head coach talk to me?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  

It seems to me in the OP that ignoring the question they were asking would have certainly escalated and prolonged the comments.  Once again no proof as he did respond.  I agree with ignoring comments about judgement calls, nothing good can come of that generally.  But I do not agree with ignoring comments about rule interps. They thought he had to come set, the jlutgen0 explained otherwise and went to his position.  I believe ignoring something like that makes you look smug and unapproachable and sets a negative tone.  I would have handled it exactly as the OP did.  

 

For the red part:  it's easy - the guy that shows up for the plate meeting IS the head coach.  Period.  His presence tells you that.

Blue:  Yes, that's pretty much it.  If it's that close a play that "needs" discussion, then the HC will already be heading your way, and doesn't really need what the 1B coach "had,"  He wants a safe call, so he pretty much has his speech ready.

Green:  Good, if it escalates.  By that I mean:  if you're already in shallow RF, and they want to escalate, they have to start shouting, running out, or otherwise acting more the fool than they already are.  That makes them the aggressors, as WELL as being wrong.  Win-win.  I know it goes against your sense of fairness - and that's fine for the regular world - but assistants aren't entitled to explanations or discussions or anything.

I believe, Scott, that you want to talk/discuss/engage far too much on the field.  It does not, and will not, serve you well as an umpire.

 

[Jimurray]

On July 1, 2016 at 8:25 AM, umpire_scott said:

I know in upper levels the coaches know the roles of head coach and assistant coach.  But in a 9 year old game I don't know if that is the case so much.  I know in some of the tournaments I do I might have a team two consecutive games and two different coaches come out for ground rules.  Now I could take the time to determine for certain which coach is the head coach and which coach is the assistant but I don't, and I've never had an umpire with me do that either.  At that level we simply treat all coaches the same. Maybe I should determine who the head coach is at every ground rules meeting and make it clear I will only discuss plays with that coach?  But I've always had difficulty with the logic of this.  Let's say there is a play at first that is close and the assistant is the 1st base coach.  He wants to talk to me about a call I made.  He has to call  the head coach over from third base, tell him what he saw, and then the head coach talk to me?  That just doesn't make sense to me.  

It seems to me in the OP that ignoring the question they were asking would have certainly escalated and prolonged the comments.  Once again no proof as he did respond.  I agree with ignoring comments about judgement calls, nothing good can come of that generally.  But I do not agree with ignoring comments about rule interps. They thought he had to come set, the jlutgen0 explained otherwise and went to his position.  I believe ignoring something like that makes you look smug and unapproachable and sets a negative tone.  I would have handled it exactly as the OP did.  

And I do want to point out the level of play would probably matter as well.  In a high school or higher game I could see a more valid reason to ignore it as they should know the proper protocol a little better.

You cannot expain rules when that tone is set at that level. You would have to give a treatise. @jlutgen0's words will only be used against him or another umpire. Eg: next inning, F1 comes set, as in the OP, and R3 breaks for home, F1 pitches and batter misses squeeze or whatever, F2 tags R3 for the out. Picture me what the monkeys you splained to are screaming now.

[umpire_scott]

23 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

For the red part:  it's easy - the guy that shows up for the plate meeting IS the head coach.  Period.  His presence tells you that.

Blue:  Yes, that's pretty much it.  If it's that close a play that "needs" discussion, then the HC will already be heading your way, and doesn't really need what the 1B coach "had,"  He wants a safe call, so he pretty much has his speech ready.

Green:  Good, if it escalates.  By that I mean:  if you're already in shallow RF, and they want to escalate, they have to start shouting, running out, or otherwise acting more the fool than they already are.  That makes them the aggressors, as WELL as being wrong.  Win-win.  I know it goes against your sense of fairness - and that's fine for the regular world - but assistants aren't entitled to explanations or discussions or anything.

I believe, Scott, that you want to talk/discuss/engage far too much on the field.  It does not, and will not, serve you well as an umpire.

 

Had a game today where there was a play at second R2 got picked off and was attempting to return to the bag.  F6 attempted to apply the tag but R2 dodged it and got back to the bag.  Coach comes out and asks for time.  I'm the PU and grant him time, he goes to my partner and is arguing that R2 should be out for leaving the base path to avoid a tag. I am not involved in the conversation so I do not hear what is being said.  But the conversation ends with my partner saying "You can go to the dugout or go home".  The coach turns and walks back to the dugout.  In between innings that coach calls me over and states that he is incensed by how disrespectfully he was treated by my partner.  As he is explaining this my partner walks over and listens to the last part of the coaches statement.  So I don't respond at all and in my partner;s explanation he states "you are not even the head coach so I handled it accordingly" at which point the coach says "I am the head coach.  My assistant came out because I just had leg surgery".  

FWIW I have not had to eject a coach this year.  And I can't even recall the last time I did.  I give coaches respect no matter what their position is until they give me reason not to.  It's hard for me to comprehend a better approach than that.  I just cannot agree with your statement that "assistants are not entitled to explanations or discussions or anything".  That seems to be to be a very adversarial attitude and I just won't approach my games that way.  I'm not saying you are wrong, we just disagree on approaches. 

[HokieUmp]

11 hours ago, umpire_scott said:

Had a game today where there was a play at second R2 got picked off and was attempting to return to the bag.  F6 attempted to apply the tag but R2 dodged it and got back to the bag.  Coach comes out and asks for time.  I'm the PU and grant him time, he goes to my partner and is arguing that R2 should be out for leaving the base path to avoid a tag. I am not involved in the conversation so I do not hear what is being said.  But the conversation ends with my partner saying "You can go to the dugout or go home".  The coach turns and walks back to the dugout.  In between innings that coach calls me over and states that he is incensed by how disrespectfully he was treated by my partner.  As he is explaining this my partner walks over and listens to the last part of the coaches statement.  So I don't respond at all and in my partner;s explanation he states "you are not even the head coach so I handled it accordingly" at which point the coach says "I am the head coach.  My assistant came out because I just had leg surgery".  

FWIW I have not had to eject a coach this year.  And I can't even recall the last time I did.  I give coaches respect no matter what their position is until they give me reason not to.  It's hard for me to comprehend a better approach than that.  I just cannot agree with your statement that "assistants are not entitled to explanations or discussions or anything".  That seems to be to be a very adversarial attitude and I just won't approach my games that way.  I'm not saying you are wrong, we just disagree on approaches. 

I got lost here, with the references to the coach - I can't tell from the description which coach was which at a certain point, so my questions are not intended to be sarcastic. Which coach was incensed - the one that was told "go away or go home?"  Well, too bad.  That's effectively his warning that he's approaching the line - since there are so many people that want advance notice, he got it.  But I don't follow who spoke to you later - it reads as if it was the guy that went out, but then that last sentence has the person saying his assistant went out.  So how was HE disrespected, if he was sitting in the dugout while the AC went out?  I'm lost.

Anyway, why on Earth are you entertaining a discussion between innings about it?  One of the Ps is prolonged - this guy wants to bring up something that happened in the past, and ALSO file his Official Hurt Feelings Report.  And you're letting him?  Please explain to me why?  Who CARES if he's incensed?  If he's a grown up, he'll control himself.  If he's not, he'll get his ass run.  Baseball is a very simple game, if we let it be that way.

Quote

FWIW I have not had to eject a coach this year.  And I can't even recall the last time I did.  I give coaches respect no matter what their position is until they give me reason not to.  It's hard for me to comprehend a better approach than that.  I just cannot agree with your statement that "assistants are not entitled to explanations or discussions or anything".  That seems to be to be a very adversarial attitude and I just won't approach my games that way.  I'm not saying you are wrong, we just disagree on approaches.

And for what it's worth, I haven't ejected a coach either, and my last coach was six years ago.  My only EJ in that time was the post I put here about a week or so ago.  You may believe that I'm a red-ass, but I don't think my numbers back that up.  ACs AREN'T entitled to explanations or discussions - solid fact.  Do I NEVER give them one?  Never said that.  But where you and I differ is that you seem to say far too much (giving them more opportunity to turn your own words back on you), and you almost go looking to ingratiate yourself to them - to seem 'extra fair.'  I believe - no, I KNOW - life ain't fair.  They want to be seen and heard?  Go be the HC somewhere.

But in the OP, he had ACs chirping at the dugout fencing, and decided to engage.  And it led to an ejection.  This is one of those times where ACs aren't acknowledged, never mind given answers.

And to you point about lower levels?  Maybe they DON'T know what they can/can't do.  Like the players, this is where they learn.  My last coach toss was a LL Majors FALL ball game, when the HC decided to holler from the 3B coaches box "That's TWO, blue!" - referred to fair/fouls he didn't like.  I replied "You won't see a third" as I made the EJ motion.  Now he knows not to do that.

[umpire_scott]

12 hours ago, HokieUmp said:

I got lost here, with the references to the coach - I can't tell from the description which coach was which at a certain point, so my questions are not intended to be sarcastic. Which coach was incensed - the one that was told "go away or go home?"  Well, too bad.  That's effectively his warning that he's approaching the line - since there are so many people that want advance notice, he got it.  But I don't follow who spoke to you later - it reads as if it was the guy that went out, but then that last sentence has the person saying his assistant went out.  So how was HE disrespected, if he was sitting in the dugout while the AC went out?  I'm lost.

Anyway, why on Earth are you entertaining a discussion between innings about it?  One of the Ps is prolonged - this guy wants to bring up something that happened in the past, and ALSO file his Official Hurt Feelings Report.  And you're letting him?  Please explain to me why?  Who CARES if he's incensed?  If he's a grown up, he'll control himself.  If he's not, he'll get his ass run.  Baseball is a very simple game, if we let it be that way.

And for what it's worth, I haven't ejected a coach either, and my last coach was six years ago.  My only EJ in that time was the post I put here about a week or so ago.  You may believe that I'm a red-ass, but I don't think my numbers back that up.  ACs AREN'T entitled to explanations or discussions - solid fact.  Do I NEVER give them one?  Never said that.  But where you and I differ is that you seem to say far too much (giving them more opportunity to turn your own words back on you), and you almost go looking to ingratiate yourself to them - to seem 'extra fair.'  I believe - no, I KNOW - life ain't fair.  They want to be seen and heard?  Go be the HC somewhere.

But in the OP, he had ACs chirping at the dugout fencing, and decided to engage.  And it led to an ejection.  This is one of those times where ACs aren't acknowledged, never mind given answers.

And to you point about lower levels?  Maybe they DON'T know what they can/can't do.  Like the players, this is where they learn.  My last coach toss was a LL Majors FALL ball game, when the HC decided to holler from the 3B coaches box "That's TWO, blue!" - referred to fair/fouls he didn't like.  I replied "You won't see a third" as I made the EJ motion.  Now he knows not to do that.

The coach that came out was the head coach.  My point was that my partner implied that the reason he was so short with him was because he was only an assistant.  My partner assumed he was an assistant because he was not the coach at the plate meeting.  I was not privy to the conversation that they had so I don't know why my partner decided to end it with "you can go to the dugout or go home".  The conversation was never heated and didn't take that long, but it could have been that my partner said what he had to say and the coach kept debating the point.

As for entertaining a discussion between innings I didn't know what he came to talk to me about. He walked up to me and started saying that he was very upset because he has been a coach for years and is known for treating umpires with respect and he didn't appreciate how my partner talked to him and that he was about to call the tournament director and voice his concerns.  I never said a word.  About 5 seconds into his dialogue my partner came in and engaged the coach in further conversation.  Had my partner not come up and gotten involved all I planned on saying was that I was not a part of the conversation so I have no idea what was said that led to my partner saying "go to the dugout or go home".  

I had coaches question multiple plays this weekend.  In each case I explained what I saw and what I called and I did it with civility and respect.  I never had to even warn a coach during any of these instances.  They disagreed with my call, but my explanation left no room for anything other than to agree to disagree.  But I also made sure I did not say anything to promote an adversarial situation.  At the same time I saw the two different guys I worked with get into adversarial situations with coaches because they took it personally when the coach questioned their call.  Their explanation was short and then when the coach persisted in the slightest they shut him down like he was a little kid.  

I will say that this sight has really helped me to deal with coaches better than I used to.  I've had almost no issues this year and I've found that I am keeping my calm much better and giving coaches better explanations (i.e. ones they can't use against me).

EX:  I had SB play at second.  Throw came in a little towards first base.  R1 was under tag, but tag was on helmet and I had tag prior to foot hitting bag.  As all coaches seem to think (at least all offensive coaches) he felt that since the tag was not on the foot then he must have been under the tag and thus safe.  He came out and asked "where did he tag him".  I said "on the helmet".  He said "right so he had to be under the tag".  I said "no the slide was to the outside of the bag and the tag was applied well in front of the bag before his foot got there".  The coach looked at me and said "okay".  What else could he say?  It seems to me that you would have had me stop and after he said "right so he had to be under the tag" I should have replied "no and we are done discussing this coach".  I just don't see how that is better.

 

[Mudisfun]

Working a LL Majors game the other day... R1 no outs. 

Line drive to F4 for the catch and the quick throw back to first to double R1. Close but I have an out.

Assistant coach politely... he did not make it? Me: I have the ball beating him back coach. End of discussion and game went on. Coach was polite, no argument just a quiet inquiry. Based on his demeanor I decided to answer his question however if his attitude had been different? Most likely a different reply.  

Like most things in life how you are approached dictates how you reply.