Negative Interaction w/Player

[SeeingEyeDog]

Men's league, 40+,  9 innings, OBR with 2 man COVID mechanics (U1 in B/C, PU is 1BX or 3BX)...this is the last game of the season. Not a tournament or championship game, but a noticeable pep in everyone's step during pre-game. The game would end 1-0 and was well pitched and well competed. This game was played on an all-turf field and the mound is in bad shape with a deep hole in front of the rubber with maybe 3 inches of non-dug out, flush rubber at the left side as you are looking at it from behind the mound. Both pitchers were struggling with this at various points throughout the game.

In the 4th inning we had no outs, R1, and I'm in the B position. R1 politely asks for time and we call time. He takes two steps off the bag towards me, points to F1 and says, "He's getting signs from the catcher but he's not on the rubber! That's a balk!" I looked at him calmly and said, "You play. We ump." and put the ball back into play and we resumed.

Fast forward to the end of the game...the last out is made and I am walking off the field to the 1B side of the field. F5 comes running up behind me and says, "Blue, is that the rule?"...I turn around and realize I am talking to R1 from above. I take a deep breath, I take a step back from him and consider my options before saying to him, "The game is over and we are done talking about this." He blew up, pointed aggressively at me and said, "I AM NOT YOUR CHILD! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT! I MEAN...I CAN'T EVEN ASK A QUESTION ABOUT A RULE?!?!?" I took another breath and said, "Given what occurred earlier in the game, asking about that rule now is a provocative question..." And before anybody could say anything else, my partner came in and escorted him away still protesting that neither of us would answer his question.

I understood his frustration. I did.

During post-game my partner took a moment to remind me that to our association, men's leagues are an important client and sometimes it plays better to them and our long-term relationship if we are a bit more approachable in our interactions, while at the same time not letting anyone walk over us. His suggestion was that perhaps I could have directed his attention to the mound and said, "Yes, that is the rule. What you think you saw may have been a balk on a properly maintained field but, given what we were working with, both pitchers were struggling to maintain consistent contact with the rubber and we made allowances for that." Alternatively, he went on, I could have turned to R1's manager (since this was a player addressing me) and said, "Hey Fred...do we have anything to discuss?" I said nothing in response to my partner's feedback on this and we moved on to discuss other aspects of our umpiring that night.

I've worked in sales and marketing for nearly 30 years now. I understand client management. I understand there are things you will do for your elite clients that you won't do for other clients. When it comes to umpiring, my preference is to umpire one way, regardless of the age/skill of the players or the stakes. There are different rule sets so different things have to be enforced different ways, of course but in terms of my game management, I operate with one set of parameters.

Ok brothers...I've said enough. What say you?

~Dog 

 

[umpstu]

Unless the pitcher is a foot off the rubber and you're on the B position, how would you be able to see if he's in contact?  Or if he's behind the rubber taking the signs and then coming in contact, that's pretty obvious.   Guys are 40+ years of age, I probably wouldn't have taken such a hard ass stance.  Talk to him and let him know what you saw.

[Senor Azul]

Only in high school rules can a balk be called for a pitcher taking his signs off the rubber (see rule 6-1-1 Penalty). The NCAA assesses a penalty of a ball for this violation of the rule (rule 7-5d).

2019 OBR rule 5.07 Pitching

(a) Legal Pitching Delivery

…Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher’s plate.

There is no penalty listed for this infraction in OBR—so it is what we refer to as a “Don’t do that!”

[maven]

55 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Ok brothers...I've said enough. What say you?

I like your your interpretation of the rule: given the condition of the field, unless he's out of the dirt circle, I'm not even starting to think about this infraction (and this provision is mainly intended to prevent quick pitches, which seemed to play no role in this story).

However, I recommend reconsidering your game management, which seems needlessly inflammatory. "You play, we ump," is dismissive, especially given that the question had a legitimate rule behind it (and was addressed by a fellow adult in a not-totally-disrespectful fashion). You told him to piss off, when he thought he had a reasonable question.

You clearly thought through it, so why not share that? "The mound's awful, he's OK." That expresses that you think the question's legitimate and provides the basis for your ruling, which is a respectful response. If the situation goes bad from there, we can cut it off. We don't have to argue, just explain our rulings.

Chances are, if you explain your thinking in the moment, the end of game scenario never occurs.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 433, p. 289):

There are four pitching infractions in OBR that have no penalty. The pitcher…

·        does not take signs while on the pitcher’s plate (5.07a)

·        disengages the pitcher’s plate after every sign (5.07a Comment)

·        fails to drop his hands to his side when he disengages the pitcher’s plate (5.07a Comment)

·        does not have one hand on his side in the set position (5.07a-2)

Official Interpretation:  Wendelstedt:  Penalty for violation of a “don’t do that” provision:  The umpire should immediately call time and instruct the pitcher to correct his infraction.

In the 2013 edition of his rules interpretation manual (p. 97), Mr. Wendelstedt lists the infraction of a pitcher taking his signs off the rubber as a restriction without penalty.

[LRZ]

10 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

When it comes to umpiring, my preference is to umpire one way, regardless of the age/skill of the players or the stakes. There are different rule sets so different things have to be enforced different ways, of course but in terms of my game management, I operate with one set of parameters.

Treating adults (40+) versus teenagers versus preteens (8-12) alike will result in at least one group being treated inappropriately--one size does not fit all. You can chastise a youngster who does something wrong, but try the same thing with an adult? That won't work. For example, if a pitcher repeatedly jumps up and down and scowls at your strike zone, how do you react? An adult might be ejected for arguing balls and strikes. With a 10 y/o, a "knock that off" or, if necessary, a "Coach, are you going to deal with that or shall I?" might be more appropriate, more educational. Kids are still learning the game, and our interactions are part of that education; adults think they already know everything.

As for your story, why be so unapproachable and not even entertain the question? Instead of being approachable, you twice blew off reasonable requests from the player, asking about the ruling. It was your disregard that finally set him off. A "provocative question"? Don't be so defensive. 

Moreover, even with your "one set of parameters" approach, what is that parameter? Is it a "I brook no questioning whatsoever" or "I will respond to reasonable requests"? A quick, simple explanation to reasonable questions would likely avoid explosive situations, as well as being good game management and preventive officiating. Whether the player is 8 y/o or 45, a simple "It's not a balk, it's a 'don't do that'" or a "Look at the mound" would be a more informative, respectful response. This, it seems to me, was what your partner was getting at--and rightfully so.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Thank you, brothers...I really appreciate all the feedback here on this. If I didn't think there might have been opportunities to be better, I wouldn't have posted it...

@LRZ, I have generally found that no matter how respectfully and politely a coach or player asks about a rule, if they just had a call go against them on that rule? That's generally a bait question. That was why I used the phrase "...a provocative question." because he was baiting me and I was genuinely attempting to end the conversation. Clearly, poor word choice on my part...

I can't recall a single situation where a coach or player legit asked about a rule that was just applied in their favor. When asking what is the rule, the next question is then...well, why didn't you call it that way? And again, even if I use words and phrasing that try to de-escalate a situation, we eventually find ourselves in a place where (unless it's truly rule interpretation...)...it's my judgement as the umpire on the field.

I wonder how this beautiful game would look if players and coaches were also required to take rules exams...

~Dog

[Aging_Arbiter]

3 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

I wonder how this beautiful game would look if players and coaches were also required to take rules exams...

Then they wouldn't need us Dog.

[Replacematt]

18 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

I can't recall a single situation where a coach or player legit asked about a rule that was just applied in their favor. When asking what is the rule, the next question is then...well, why didn't you call it that way? And again, even if I use words and phrasing that try to de-escalate a situation, we eventually find ourselves in a place where (unless it's truly rule interpretation...)...it's my judgement as the umpire on the field.

It's not an argument until it is. 

I'm guessing (due do the way our brains are wired) that those examples of times where questions have been non-inflammatory have not stuck out in your brain, but they have existed.

[aaluck]

On 8/17/2020 at 8:42 PM, SeeingEyeDog said:

When it comes to umpiring, my preference is to umpire one way, regardless of the age/skill of the players or the stakes.

As stated above, I would adjust this a little. I understand what I THINK you are saying and that is, we all have a certain personality and we go with that until we need to make a change to get things tightened down. But I officiate a youth game much, much, much (did I say much) different than a college game.

In a youth game I'm there to call balls, strikes and outs--keep things moving.  I do everything I can to help the kids/coaches understand the game and learn to play it correctly--which also saves me, and other umps, a lot of headaches in the future, hopefully. That's not to say I explain every call or rule, but if asked I will cite a rule and even talk with a coach between innings or after the game about a rule he doesn't understand, or should I say didn't know existed.  This is something I would never do in HS or college because they are getting paid to know the rules and for that reason we have very few discussions about the rules, mainly (95%) judgment calls. Thats why in your situation I probably would have acknowledged the concern and explained my decision. "Hey the mound is a piece of junk" or "he's getting no advantage" or "hey, stop taking signs off the rubber".

I may be in the minority here but I think youth baseball should be FUN, yes I said it FUN. Not "everyone gets a trophy" fun, but "I can't wait until next year fun".  It keeps the kids in baseball which builds all kinds of life lessons. I want to encourage that, not scare them all away. We have actually had two guys blacklisted from parks because the kids were scared of them--hell I was scared of them. Never knew when they would explode.

We can quickly get a feel for a game. We usually know pretty quick if we are going to have to be a d*ck. The key is not coming onto the field fully hard.

[LRZ]

Here is my advice, fwiw: be open to the first politely-asked question and provide a brief answer; if the player/coach wants to continue or escalate, then shut them down, if you think that's appropriate. But be open, initially. Why assume the worst?

[BobUmp]

Yeah, this stuff is the hardest to manage, because every interaction is different - different people, ages, situations, etc..

I think, given the result, you will probably in a similar situation next time, adjust your first interaction to maybe keep it from escalating (maybe).

I suggest when they ask a question (legit, like a rules interp such as isn't that a balk?), you broadcast body language for "listen mode" (maybe hands in back pockets, and one or two steps in their direction so they know they have your attention and you're thinking about their question), and then wait two or more seconds before giving an answer. It shows you are considering their question/POV, and gives you a chance to read if you need to be defensive or need to just give an explanation. In this case, maybe a "the mound is crappy today, so I'm judging that he's OK like that", would have done the trick. If not, he would just dial up and then you can shut him down like you did.

Just a suggestion- no guarantee that would placate every situation - sometimes they just want to battle you

 

[Mad Mike]

If the real intent of the rule requiring the pitcher to take signs while on the rubber is to say prevent a quick pitch from happening, then perhaps you could smooth this over with the player by not simply addressing the rule, but mentioning the spirit of the rule and why/when it is called and when it is ignored. If the pitcher was not quick pitching anyone, then you could simply say you interpret the rule to prohibit quick pitches for safety reasons. Since the intent of the rule was being met, there was/is no infraction.

[Senor Azul]

I don’t think that was the purpose of the rule—here’s how it looked in 1950 (to be honest I always thought the rule was there to prevent the pitcher from faking being the pitcher)—

1950 OBR NOTES—CASE BOOK—COMMENT

8.02(b) Pitchers, particularly non-professionals, most frequently delay the game by taking their catcher’s signs from positions off the pitcher’s rubber. This is a bad habit and should be corrected by managers and coaches.

1967 OBR page 3—Changes made in the Official Playing and Scoring Rules for 1967 are shown in bold-face, underlined type…

1967 OBR 8.01 Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber.

(1967 this comment still in the book)—(deleted in 1968 edition)

8.02(b) Pitchers frequently delay the game by taking their catcher’s signs from positions off the pitcher’s rubber. This is a bad habit and should be corrected by managers and coaches.

[maven]

The trick is: stand straddling the rubber to hold the runner on the base. Take your sign that way. Maybe fake a pick. Then hop on the rubber and pitch. 

There's a faction that maintains that this rule requires F1 to take a sign, and that if he doesn't, he's violated this provision (with whatever penalty the code includes for that). The alternative view interprets the rule hypothetically: IF F1 takes a sign from F2, THEN he must do so from the rubber.

An even less plausible interpretation holds that F1 may not take signs from the dugout (say, verbally, from the coach), but only from F2.

I don't like this rule much, as it doesn't do any useful work (quick pitches and delay are both already well defined and independently illegal), and is open to too much misinterpretation.

[Senor Azul]

2019 LL rule 8.01 - Legal pitching delivery. There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time. Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the pitcher’s plate. Pitchers may disengage the pitcher’s plate after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the pitcher’s plate and pitch. This may be judged a quick pitch by the umpire. When the pitcher disengages the pitcher’s plate, he/she must drop the hands to the sides.

INSTRUCTOR’S COMMENTS:

EXAMPLE: The pitcher may take signs from the manager or coach while on the pitcher’s plate as long as he/she does not “unnecessarily delay” the game. This is also to prevent the pitcher from throwing a “Quick Pitch” by taking the sign while off the pitcher’s plate and quickly walking through the pitching motion. If the manager/coach insists on calling pitches, the manager/coach should give the signs to the catcher who relays it to the pitcher while the pitcher is on the pitcher’s plate.

[noumpere]

from JEA (an old version); Appendix 31:

[beerguy55]

On 8/21/2020 at 1:14 PM, Mad Mike said:

If the real intent of the rule requiring the pitcher to take signs while on the rubber is to say prevent a quick pitch from happening, then perhaps you could smooth this over with the player by not simply addressing the rule, but mentioning the spirit of the rule and why/when it is called and when it is ignored. If the pitcher was not quick pitching anyone, then you could simply say you interpret the rule to prohibit quick pitches for safety reasons. Since the intent of the rule was being met, there was/is no infraction.

I think it's more about delay then quick pitch...because you can quick pitch just as easily as soon as you get your sign, but I think either way your approach applies.

The rule is a little silly (and as said above, redundant), since the catcher, or coach, can give their signs at anytime and nobody may even realize it has happened, and without any delay - we had scenarios where the signs given by the catcher were a decoy...the pitcher/catcher had already determined the pitch/action before that, without pausing or delaying any action, before the pitcher got on the mound, let alone the rubber - as long as the pitcher isn't actually stepping off, or waiting to step on, to get signs it's probably a rule that could be mostly ignored, under the same reasoning you give - the intent of the rule has been met.

And if F1 is looking for some incognito coach in the stands for signs, or something stupid like that, there are rules for that too.