Jump to content

Maybe a first in baseball

adminbaberuth
 Share

Recommended Posts

CoachB

CoachB

Posted
Posted

I have seen this happen a few times in baseball...For instance, maybe there was a glare from the lights where the umpire behind the plate couldn't call a good game, or maybe one of his appendages was hurting so bad where he was forced to switch.  I am sure there is more to it, then just the head coach telling them to switch.  Especially in a JV game.  If that was the case, I am sure the jv coach as some explaining to do to his head coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlatsMaster

FlatsMaster

Posted
Posted

Mr Ump...you bring up a point that has irritated me as a fan of baseball since they put this into effect....I don't understand why these coaches have to suffer and make a trip to austin because some umpires are just completely wrong or just bad or to lazy to get in position to make a call.  Not to rant but I just wanted to get that out there.  Now don't get me wrong if the Coach is in the wrong then he should have discipline action

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrUmp1

MrUmp1

Posted
Posted

The whole key to that is, there is a line that a coach shouldn't cross when arguing his point. That's what gets them in trouble. Most umpires are only going to listen to so much about a strike zone mainly because it plainly states in the rule book that arguing balls and strikes is an ejectable offense. I have my way of handling coaches that for the most part works fairly well. One thing also is, just because a coach is thrown out of a game, that means reports are written and then the UIL board brings the coach in and makes a decision about what happened. Last I heard from the UIL, about 95% of ejections were upheld. So in 5% of the cases the coach was found that he was wrongly ejected and such was not disciplined or his name mention in the UIL leaguer for a violation or possible probation. So there are checks and balances to the system to try and make sure that a coach is not falsely accused of mis conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rockin A

Rockin A

Posted
Posted

seems like a conference call could handle this instead of driving to austin

As a former umpire, I can say that most of this should be handled on the field between professionals.  However, because too many coaches cross the line, UIL had to do something.  It should make a coach think twice before he continues to argue a judgment call, likes balls and strikes.  Judgments calls are just that, the umpire's judgment...no matter how bad the coach believes the umpire's judgment is wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest patriot117

Guest patriot117

Posted
Posted

In this day and age I think some sort of conference call does sound right. Great suggestion. Who knows why it is done that way. It's the UIL's thang.

The UIL wants to make it as much of an inconvenience as possible. That way you are less inclined to "cross" the line. They also require your principal and AD accompany you on that trip to Austin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jasperfan

Jasperfan

Posted
Posted

Mr. Ump1, not trying to open a can of worms because I agree with everything you have said, but I have seen a few cases where umpires clearly have had a direct impact on the result of the game because of their lack of knowledge of the rules or are to bullheaded to ask for help on questionable calls. We, as fans, just want you to get the call right(whether it is for us or against us). My question is this, what type of evaluation system is used on umpires to determine whether they are qualified to call a high school game. I'm not trying to bash, I'm just curius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...