Coaches jawing at each other

[ousafe]

I'm used to coaches being upset with umpires, and the game management associated with that.  But I'm not used to coach on coach action.

10U tournament (of course!), 3-man championship game.

But I ran into a situation today where a base coach took exception to the play of an opponent, and was accusing the opposing manager of teaching his kids to play dirty (or something like that).  I actually have no idea what the beef was about.  I didn't see any dirty play.  But between innings the jawing started, and they had a heated exchange.  I got concerned when I heard one coach telling the other coach "let's go, let's go".  We had a bit of a goat rodeo as the defense was coming onto the field.  I asked them what was going on, and both coaches told me "we're fine", but then returned to jawing.  I got the tournament director's attention and said we had an issue.  They continued to talk and then parted ways without any punches thrown.  But not thanks to anything I did.  We got the new half inning started quickly enough, but everyone was definitely agitated after that, including the fans.  My sense was that there was some bad blood from a previous game that I was not a part of.

I obviously need a playbook for this situation.  What would you have done?

[ElkOil]

By the time the exchange was heated, it was too late. If you saw something weird before that, nip it by telling them it won't tolerated and perhaps warn them. That way, if something else does occur, you can quickly eject the offender. But when it got to where one coach was goading the other into a fight, that's got to be the end of his day at the field.  Eject him. That cannot be tolerated and very few things go well once people reach that level of anger.

I'm guessing these were father coaches who got entirely too wrapped up in their egos or whatever. But it was a game for 10 year old kids. Nothing more. 

I take it the tournament director didn't do anything, which given stories I've heard isn't a surprise. You'll have to rely on your game management abilities.

[johnpatrick]

Tell both coaches to "keep your comments directed at your own team...if not, you're done".  Follow through.

[CJK]

Absolutely nip it.

My game management style is more cooperative and less authoritarian, but it fits my personality.  As soon as they start with each other, I'd call to them as I started to move toward them, using their first names if I know them.

And as soon as I could get close enough that only the coaches could hear, I would say, "Mike, Greg, your players are going to learn a lesson in sportsmanship right now.  Either you can teach it, or I can teach it, so here's your one chance to do the right thing."

And each of them will follow one of three courses of action:

• S/he can realize that s/he's embarrassing himself and the team, and sincerely apologize, which is fine, because we can get back to the game;
• S/he can just pretend to let it go and then sulk in the dugout, which is fine, because we can get back to the game; or
• S/he can continue the conflict, thereby earning an ejection, which is fine, because we can get back to the game.

Please, if this doesn't fit your personality/style, don't try to use it.  There's no one way to manage a game, and you have to find your personal sweet spot.  Game management advice is always like a workshop; there are lots of tools available, and you take and use the tools that you feel comfortable with and know how to use.  If you try to use a tool that you don't understand or that you're not comfortable using, you can quickly make things much worse.

[blue23ll]

If assistant coaches are causing a rukus, get the head coaches together and tell them to get it stopped. In HS FED ball, if we eject an assistant the head coach is restricted to the bench. 

Now in tourny ball, I would warn both managers and if it doesn't stop, start ejecting people, get the TD involved if it won't stop, and stop the game if that all doesn't help. 

 

[LRZ]

1 hour ago, CJK said:

Please, if this doesn't fit your personality/style, don't try to use it.  There's no one way to manage a game, and you have to find your personal sweet spot.  Game management advice is always like a workshop; there are lots of tools available, and you take and use the tools that you feel comfortable with and know how to use.  If you try to use a tool that you don't understand or that you're not comfortable using, you can quickly make things much worse.

This is a wise caution. I would also add that, imo, rather than warning a coach "if not, you're done," leave your "remedies" implicit. Why paint yourself into that corner? Just my take.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

Tell both coaches to "keep your comments directed at your own team...if not, you're done".  Follow through.

The only consideration here - and you can decide for yourself how much you think it's "your problem" - is if you eject both coaches you have just become party to a fight in the parking lot.  Eject one of them.

[blue23ll]

2 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The only consideration here - and you can decide for yourself how much you think it's "your problem" - is if you eject both coaches you have just become party to a fight in the parking lot.  Eject one of them.

If two are making problems then eject both problem children. If you eject just one then the you will become the issue, not the idiots who are creating the problem. I don't give two cents about two grown adult men wanting to fight in the parking lot, that's game admin's problem. 

[LRZ]

Just now, beerguy55 said:

The only consideration here - and you can decide for yourself how much you think it's "your problem" - is if you eject both coaches you have just become party to a fight in the parking lot.  Eject one of them.

One problem with coaches yelling at each other is the likelihood that players begin to act similarly. That is most definitely an umpire's problem, so some preventive officiating is appropriate.

I don't see how you can eject one but not the other, when they are both acting objectionably. And what happens between adults in the parking lot is not my concern.

[ElkOil]

52 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

The only consideration here - and you can decide for yourself how much you think it's "your problem" - is if you eject both coaches you have just become party to a fight in the parking lot.  Eject one of them.

You haven't really become a party to anything that happens off the field. They're responsible for their actions, so they're on their own with that stuff. As long as the problems leave the field, that's the best we can hope.

[maven]

My preferred approach: "Knock it off!" That's it. They know exactly what I'm talking about, but if they want to make it a bigger problem, I'll address the bigger problem they make.

4 hours ago, johnpatrick said:

Tell both coaches to "keep your comments directed at your own team...if not, you're done".  Follow through.

I like this too, though the explicit threat could just as easily remain implicit.

3 hours ago, CJK said:

I would say, "Mike, Greg, your players are going to learn a lesson in sportsmanship right now.  Either you can teach it, or I can teach it, so here's your one chance to do the right thing."

Too many words, and a bit too patronizing for me: the basis is correct, and they are indeed setting a poor example, but if the game is already hot then they're probably not going to be able to hear that.

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

you have just become party to a fight in the parking lot.

Not true, unless I have (uncharacteristically) directed them to "go fight in the parking lot."

In general, it's fine to address inappropriate behaviors by telling people to stop doing them, but be careful offering a substitute (especially with adults).

[blue23ll]

I have learned the hard way about these kinds of situations. If you don't handle them immediately and aggressively they will progressively get worse and maybe to the point of unmanageable. Give one warning to both head coaches, this behavior will stop NOW. If it doesn't....toss the offenders. What they want to do once they leave sight and sound of the field is their problem. 

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, blue23ll said:

I don't give two cents about two grown adult men wanting to fight in the parking lot, that's game admin's problem. 

 

3 hours ago, LRZ said:

And what happens between adults in the parking lot is not my concern.

 

2 hours ago, maven said:

Not true, unless I have (uncharacteristically) directed them to "go fight in the parking lot."

 

3 hours ago, ElkOil said:

You haven't really become a party to anything that happens off the field. They're responsible for their actions, so they're on their own with that stuff. As long as the problems leave the field, that's the best we can hope.

And there it is - SEP....or OOSOOM....or NMJ.

Yes, they're adults.  And yes, you can't control the decisions they make.  And yes, you've "done your job" and made things all happy happy on the baseball field.  And, yes, a TD or field administrator should be close by to diffuse anything once you eject.   

All I'm saying is if the coaches are Someone Else's Problem try to make sure that there is "someone else" around before just making the coaches not your problem.

If you take a volatile situation, and two "men" who are obviously angry with each other, and possibly on the verge of throwing punches, and "solve" the problem by having them leave your presence you're just kicking the can down the road....that it's now out of your purview, because you don't administer the parking lot, does not forgive you of culpability if something escalates, whatever you may have rationalized to yourself.   You have a responsibility, if not as an umpire then as a human being, to recognize this possibility.  But unlike the spectators, who aren't forgiven of culpability either, as many of them are hoping to see a fight rather than wanting to stop one, you have created the opportunity and situation by ejecting them while they are in a heated argument.   Diffuse the situation on the field if you can.  If you need to eject, then make sure someone else of authority is there to take responsibility as they leave your area of concern - and I don't care if that's a TD or a cop.  But to take two people who are at each other, and visibly angry/agitated, and just tell them "get out of here", with no consideration of the consequences or implications, is irresponsible.  But, heh, they're out of your hair and you can finish the game.

 

3 hours ago, LRZ said:

I don't see how you can eject one but not the other, when they are both acting objectionably

Common practice in NHL with penalties with two players tussling.  Refs can assess offsetting penalties, but that doesn't really create any punishment as neither team sees any impact.  Sure, both players go to the penalty box for two minutes - but they'd go to their bench for almost two minutes until their next shift anyway.   But if the nonsense continues with other players later on refs will often only penalize one of the two players/teams, even if both were objectionable, letting the teams know that this behavior will not be tolerated, and that I will create a disadvantage for one of you if it keeps up.

Lots of ways to skin a cat.  You can punish the one who was "worse"...or the one that "started it"....or "instigated"...or "retaliated".

You feel you need to eject both, eject both.  But to have this laissez-faire attitude of who cares, not my problem, is a little too bureaucratic for my liking.  "Not My Job" is about the worst expression in the English language.

You can't control everything that happens once they leave, but you have to recognize when you might need to do a little extra to prevent an incident.

 

[Tborze]

Alright guys, here we go. The kids are ready to play ball! And so am I!  10U, wow!<Wouldn't say that. Probably?

[blue23ll]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

 

 

 

And there it is - SEP....or OOSOOM....or NMJ.

Yes, they're adults.  And yes, you can't control the decisions they make.  And yes, you've "done your job" and made things all happy happy on the baseball field.  And, yes, a TD or field administrator should be close by to diffuse anything once you eject.   

All I'm saying is if the coaches are Someone Else's Problem try to make sure that there is "someone else" around before just making the coaches not your problem.

If you take a volatile situation, and two "men" who are obviously angry with each other, and possibly on the verge of throwing punches, and "solve" the problem by having them leave your presence you're just kicking the can down the road....that it's now out of your purview, because you don't administer the parking lot, does not forgive you of culpability if something escalates, whatever you may have rationalized to yourself.   You have a responsibility, if not as an umpire then as a human being, to recognize this possibility.  But unlike the spectators, who aren't forgiven of culpability either, as many of them are hoping to see a fight rather than wanting to stop one, you have created the opportunity and situation by ejecting them while they are in a heated argument.   Diffuse the situation on the field if you can.  If you need to eject, then make sure someone else of authority is there to take responsibility as they leave your area of concern - and I don't care if that's a TD or a cop.  But to take two people who are at each other, and visibly angry/agitated, and just tell them "get out of here", with no consideration of the consequences or implications, is irresponsible.  But, heh, they're out of your hair and you can finish the game.

 

Common practice in NHL with penalties with two players tussling.  Refs can assess offsetting penalties, but that doesn't really create any punishment as neither team sees any impact.  Sure, both players go to the penalty box for two minutes - but they'd go to their bench for almost two minutes until their next shift anyway.   But if the nonsense continues with other players later on refs will often only penalize one of the two players/teams, even if both were objectionable, letting the teams know that this behavior will not be tolerated, and that I will create a disadvantage for one of you if it keeps up.

Lots of ways to skin a cat.  You can punish the one who was "worse"...or the one that "started it"....or "instigated"...or "retaliated".

You feel you need to eject both, eject both.  But to have this laissez-faire attitude of who cares, not my problem, is a little too bureaucratic for my liking.  "Not My Job" is about the worst expression in the English language.

You can't control everything that happens once they leave, but you have to recognize when you might need to do a little extra to prevent an incident.

 

You don't want to eject the offenders because we need to do more to prevent them acting like idiots? What do you suggest?

[grayhawk]

7 hours ago, blue23ll said:

In HS FED ball, if we eject an assistant the head coach is restricted to the bench. 

 

As a general statement, this is not correct.  We are only required to restrict (or eject) the head coach if we either restrict or eject an assistant for leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire.  For other behaviors by an assistant coach, we should use the warning progression (truncate as necessary) with him without also penalizing the head coach.

[beerguy55]

13 minutes ago, blue23ll said:

You don't want to eject the offenders because we need to do more to prevent them acting like idiots? What do you suggest?

One - If you're going to eject both, make sure there is a TD, field administrator, security, whomever appropriate, present to handle these two people after they leave the field - you can reasonably foresee that this could escalate, and you have an obligation to make a reasonable effort to avoid it - it's one thing to believe this is someone else's problem, it's another to not really care if someone else is actually present

Two - eject just one - the worst, the instigator, the one who is taller, the one with a moustache...don't care

Three - restrict to bench, tell them the first one who says another word is gone, then revert to two

Four - Kiss one on the lips and say "I know it was you, Fredo.  You broke my heart."

 

There are probably 150 different options that are better than "well, once they're off my field they can kill each other for all I care". 

[blue23ll]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

As a general statement, this is not correct.  We are only required to restrict (or eject) the head coach if we either restrict or eject an assistant for leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire.  For other behaviors by an assistant coach, we should use the warning progression (truncate as necessary) with him without also penalizing the head coach.

"Both the HC and offending coach shall be given a written warning and restricted to the bench unless the offense is so severe the offender may be ejected and restrict or eject the HC." That is how the rule reads. Now, in this situation, if the offender is an Assistant, I would have no problem ejecting him. Prior that that I would have verbally warned the HC and assistant both. As a general rule, we should use the progression of verbal, written/restrict and eject protocols.

[scrounge]

I categorically reject the bizarre notion that I am in any way responsible or have any obligation to avoid the actions of two adults who choose to act like idiot children.

Period.

[blue23ll]

7 minutes ago, scrounge said:

I categorically reject the bizarre notion that I am in any way responsible or have any obligation to avoid the actions of two adults who choose to act like idiot children.

Period.

Agreed, 100%. I refuse to be an enabler to that train of thought, as well as the thinking that you pick one offender to eject and ignore the other. In this scenario there is no 'restrict to the bench' option...

[grayhawk]

38 minutes ago, blue23ll said:

"Both the HC and offending coach shall be given a written warning and restricted to the bench unless the offense is so severe the offender may be ejected and restrict or eject the HC." That is how the rule reads. Now, in this situation, if the offender is an Assistant, I would have no problem ejecting him. Prior that that I would have verbally warned the HC and assistant both. As a general rule, we should use the progression of verbal, written/restrict and eject protocols.

You are missing the critical part:  "For violation of F(6)..."

Here is F(6):  

6. any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire.

[maven]

45 minutes ago, blue23ll said:

"Both the HC and offending coach shall be given a written warning and restricted to the bench unless the offense is so severe the offender may be ejected and restrict or eject the HC." That is how the rule reads.

Incorrect. That's how the penalty reads. The rule covered by this penalty is the one grayhawk posted, which does not address the action under discussion.

[LRZ]

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

I categorically reject the bizarre notion that I am in any way responsible or have any obligation to avoid the actions of two adults who choose to act like idiot children.

Period.

Awright, my man scrounge! I'm with you, brother!

[Kevin_K]

Once again I refer to the wise words of @BigUmpire  ...

If you shoot one monkey, the rest will tend to fall in line rather quickly

And of course the venerable @mstaylor .... 

"You will only regret the ejection you missed"

[blue23ll]

2 hours ago, maven said:

Incorrect. That's how the penalty reads. The rule covered by this penalty is the one grayhawk posted, which does not address the action under discussion.

The general over-arching penalty for all violations in Section 3 - Article 1 F 1- 7 and G -K is: 

PENALTY: The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur.

There is a SPECIFIC penalty called out for F6, as you stated. However the way I interpret the behavior of these coaches, F2 or F4 may also apply. We can, if we judge the offense to be major we may eject without following the warning procedure. We always have the option to eject without warning for severe violations.

[ElkOil]

9 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

that it's now out of your purview, because you don't administer the parking lot, does not forgive you of culpability if something escalates, whatever you may have rationalized to yourself.   You have a responsibility, if not as an umpire then as a human being, to recognize this possibility. 

To forgive culpability insinuates I was culpable in the first place. I was not. Nor are any of us culpable for the behaviors of anyone else. I can't make sense of assigning culpability to anyone but the two coaches in this scenario, nor are any of us responsible for the actions of others... whatever you may have rationalized to yourself.