THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
An article back in June published in the Washington Post by Nick Eilerson detailed the pandemic that is plaguing our youth, yet getting no attention: the shortage of sports officials.
Specifically, the article's focus makes the claim that the sole reason that the number of officials is dwindling is due to the verbal abuse officials take from players, coaches, parents, and fans. And it's very difficult to argue against any of it. Without diving too deep into it, the statistics provided in the article show some serious issues based on the number of officials that quit officiating at various points throughout their tenures. The attrition rate from the first year of an official's career through his seventh is astounding. Equally as appalling is when the sexism card is played on female officials, which is also referenced in the article. But there are a few points in the article that do not receive the credit they deserve. First, a small portion of the article begins to examine how the school administrators are equally as guilty as any other party to cause this problem to expand. The administrators (and consequently, the coaches, followed by parents and players) care more about wins and losses and the pride the school must feel rather than their actual goal of providing a positive educational experience to the local youth. We see this in media just as frequently, but we don't pay much attention to it for various reasons. Anytime we watch a television show or a movie that focuses on the importance of winning the big high school football game, we are seeing the archetype of the problem. In a nutshell, athletics in school (be it college, high school, or anything else) are meant to be a learning experience for kids/players, not a vehicle to achieve the superficial status that means nothing at the scholastic level. Simply stated, let the kids play; don't force them to choke because you want them to win a useless state championship. There are a few other points that need emphasis as well. Mimicry of professionals as viewed from television provides more reasons for youth to imitate what they see from their idols. The number of travel leagues in each sport create both sociological and practical issues that divide people rather than unite them. But another point to which I could relate is the fact that coaches, schools, and leagues can now dictate in certain circumstances which officials can work which games. In other words, a school can ban an official from working their games simply because they don't agree with a call that official may have made. What's worse is that the officiating organization allows this due to a lack of leverage in negotiations and a need to provide opportunities for officials to work. The fact of the matter is that we have a problem regarding the number of officials, and that problem isn't going away anytime soon.
0 Comments
If you caught any part of the Women's College World Series this year, you might have caught this clip. During a game between UCLA and Texas A&M, a double steal led to an assistant coach bumping an umpire and receiving a two game suspension along with her ejection.
The play? It's the old "runners on 1st and 3rd" scenario where the runner on first base has to get caught in a rundown long enough for the runner at third to score. However, the defense didn't get a single out on the play. The runner on first got caught, the runner on third scored, and the runner from first ended up at third. Lisa Fernandez, the UCLA first base coach, argued over a lack of an obstruction call. You know the rest of the story. What's really crazy, though, is that the story doesn't stop after Fernandez gets ejected and suspended. UCLA head coach Kelly Inouye-Perez actually supported Fernandez and praised her, claiming she had no problem with what she did and discussed how it added to her team's chemistry. Yeah, one of those... Both coaches in question apparently forgot that they are actually educators who are responsible for these young ladies. And that's a crime. Actually, that's a metaphoric crime. Assaulting an umpire may be an actual crime. Back in May/June in the state of Texas, a youth coach was fired for being caught on video instructing his kids to intentionally hit the umpire with a pitch.
It gets worse... This coach had already been banned and shouldn't have even been near these kids or this field. Jeremy Knox is the coach in question. He has a history that mirrors these types of incidents. In fact, according to his LinkedIn profile, he worked as a scout for the San Diego Padres at one point. I can only imagine they fired him when they realized who he was or what he was doing. The articles that discuss this incident do enough of a job shaming Knox and calling him out for such behavior, so to dig deep into the obvious poor sportsmanship is almost redundant. But there is one thing we should examine. How did this get out? Interestingly enough, a player on Knox's team caught the whole conversation where Knox told his kids to hit the umpire on his cell phone, and the kid proceeded to post it to Snapchat so the coach of the opposing team could see it. He even included a note to the coach to explain what he was watching and hearing. The coach then posted it to Facebook to make sure it got out. Kudos to the kid for getting the word out. That kid is wise beyond his years. He deserves a medal. Referee Magazine publishes a supplement to the NCAA Baseball Rules prior to each season. The 2017 supplement began with a cover story titled "Respect and Integrity." It was their way to enforce the importance of reducing the number of conflicts within the sport.
The cover included a graphic that discussed the number of ejection/suspension reports submitted during the 2016 season. Of note from that graphic:
So where do we start? How about with the 693 reports??? That means that 693 times in an environment that is supposed to be promoting the educational experience of the student-athlete did a report have to be filed regarding a disqualification and pending suspension. If that happened in a nursery school, the local town would be quarantined. Beyond the graphic, the article discussed how umpires and coaches need to work together to make sure the integrity of the game is met. However, the graphic discussing the submitted reports shows that this is not necessarily the case. If there was a handful of issues reported, it would be different. But preaching this type of relationship when the statistics show differently reeks of the NCAA only paying this idea lip service. And by the way, it's Referee Magazine that is publishing this article. How many coaches and players read this? The fact of the matter is that collegiate athletics still don't understand that they aren't the pros. An article by Ryan Ocenada for theladders.com this year gave us another insight into the world of sports officials. It specifically noted five things that the common man can take from the life of the official and use in his or her own life.
Specifically, those five things were: 1. Criticism rarely goes away, so get used to it. 2. Keep your cool, no matter how bad the other guy is. 3. Control your ego and don't flip out when you're questioned. 4. Be prepared and know your job inside and out. 5. Be charming and well-presented. So much of that makes sense in any walk of life, whether considering your profession or your personal life. How many times have we been in a bad mood around our significant other and lost our cool when we were questioned, no matter whether we were right or not? How many times have we needed to know the minute details of our job in order to persuade our boss that we are competent? How many times have we sealed a deal simply by looking good? That's right, so much in officiating is actually controlled by looking the part. If you walk onto the field with clean and pressed clothes, speak properly, and calmly and respectfully interact with people, you could potentially not know anything about the sport, but coaches may believe you! This point has been proved time and again with the many examples in both business and pleasure, from persuading customers to purchase things they don't need to getting a date. But consider the one point about how criticism doesn't go away. It's the unfortunate truth about how we can find people being critical of everything everywhere. The non-stop news cycle and their respective pundits are constantly doing this. Media members have to write opinionated pieces to sell their product. It makes you wonder why it has to be that way. Taking it a step further, are you a catalyst to that? You don't have to be. Nobody does. That's not to say you're not entitled to your opinion. Sometimes criticism is necessary, even constructively. Perhaps the better plan is to simply think about what you're feeling before you express it. After all, there will always be criticism out there...you don't have to contribute to it. And the many sports officials will thank you for considering that before yelling at them. This year, I had the pleasure of umpiring a consolation game in high school baseball tournament. The game featured two varsity teams from nearby who were facing off after being eliminated from championship contention. I felt very honored that I would be given this opportunity after 11 years of service to high school umpiring.
During the game, there was a close play that occurred at the plate where my partner made the right call, albeit a dicey one. The coach of the team that was not pleased by the call came out to argue with my partner, who did check with me to make sure that we agreed on the call (and we did). After trying to explain to the coach why we were sticking with the original call made (which was the proper call), the coach decided to end the argument with a parting shot at my partner. "That's why you're working a consolation game!" In the world of officiating, making personal comments towards an official is grounds for immediate ejection. People can disagree with the call without calling your ability as an official into question. Further, why is it necessary to even go there? Do people actually feel insulted when a call goes against their team? If so, there are deeper issues in play! Regardless, a word to the wise: don't make it personal with officials. Most officials will be happy to explain their calls and certain adjudications to you. In fact, some officials enjoy the company and the conversation! After all, officials don't have any friends on the field, so chatting with someone over a call can be like having tea with a friend! The epilogue to my story? My partner didn't eject the coach. After the game, I asked him why, thinking I would have tossed him immediately. His answer? "If I have to stay and watch a game that bad, he's going to sit there with me!" The state of Kansas had an interesting problem this year. Due to significant inclement weather, many high school sports were forced to reschedule their games into a more condensed fashion. The problem was actually widespread; it was not just applicable to one sport or season.
But within that issue was another issue: there were not enough officials to cover all of these rescheduled assignments on a given day. Now, in fairness, this problem was somewhat unique. When you take a schedule that is properly spread out over a decent amount of time and are forced to condense it into a smaller window, there's definitely going to be some people scrambling. It actually happened to me this year! Due to rain, I was scheduled to work a last-minute doubleheader on Mother's Day! However, the article that discussed this issue in Kansas looked into the other causes or related factors. The results were not surprising. The number of people who leave officiating (or who never enter it when they should) continues to grow due to three common factors: the pay, the hours, and the lack of respect. The hours are an unfortunate conflict, and there really isn't a solution for this. High school sports are usually played immediately after school, and the average working adult doesn't leave work until 5pm. So the chances of getting out early to make a 4pm start are not always high. Not everyone has the ability to change their schedule to get to games. The perfect people for jobs as officials are teachers, the self-employed, and the retired...or professional musicians. The pay is an interesting discussion. In New Jersey high school baseball, varsity officials make $81 per game. Sub-varsity officials (JV through middle school) make $60 per game (unless you're working by yourself, in which case you make a varsity fee). And in Mercer County, we are fortunate enough to negotiate for some travel fees for schools that fall outside our county-contracted schools. It's not a terrible rate (especially for varsity); whether you do the math based on the time you spend actually on the field, or if you factor in travel and prep time, it actually seems somewhat fair for what amounts to a part-time job. The issue with pay actually lends itself into the argument regarding the lack of respect. For the amount of abuse that officials take, the pay simply doesn't seem like it's enough. In fact, an interesting argument within baseball officials is whether or not fewer arguments would occur if the standard for officiating was to use three officials instead of two. Of course, though, adding a third official would require more money from the schools. And if pay is already where it is, it's doubtful schools will have the budget for that. Outside of the pay, though, the lack of respect can take on a life of its own. Many officials deal with so much abuse that they determine officiating is not for them and quit. One wonders how those abusers would feel if they knew that their antics actually caused a human being to quit his or her profession of officiating. Regardless of how it is dissected, though, the fact that the number of officials continues to decline while the average age of the officials increases is one that points to an obvious truth: we need officials, especially if we are going to keep youth sports going. Last week, we discussed an article about the unwritten rules of baseball. I was reluctant to discuss the article specifically and decided to focus on its content, namely plunking batters in retribution. However, I've gone back on that decision with new evidence.
As Yankees radio voice John Sterling has pointed out numerous times, writers and media hosts have to come up with opinions in order to talk about something. Their job is to fill the space (whether it is print/Internet media or broadcast air) with content, specifically content that will attract readers/viewers. The problem is when the opinions of those people become so ludicrous that it actually turns people away from the person producing the content. Take Tom Gatto, for example. Gatto wrote the article about the unwritten rules of baseball. I've never met Gatto, nor do I care to. However, shortly after he wrote the article on the plunking, he produced a few other articles that were equally as ridiculous. First, he goes on a spree about MLB umpire CB Bucknor. During a game between the Braves and the Nationals in April, Bucknor had a questionable strike zone that led Nationals outfielder Jayson Werth to immaturely charge the umpire after his team had won the game. Werth was taking a page out of the book of immaturity written by Bryce Harper, who dropped an f-bomb directed towards umpire Brian Knight the previous year after Knight ejected Harper (rightly so), only to have the Nats walk off shortly thereafter. (Harper rushed back onto the field after he had been ejected, which is not allowed, pointed at Knight, dropped the naughty word, and the cameras caught it all. Harper was suspended one game for this, which ended up being one half of a doubleheader.) Prior to Werth's actions, however, Bucknor kicked a call that would have ended the game. On a swinging strike three that would have been the final out of the game, Bucknor actually called it foul, even though the bat missed the ball by almost a foot. The Nats were already on the field celebrating (as was the grounds crew doing its post-game work), when the umpires huddled and declared the game not over. Thankfully, the Nats won just after that, but the scene was a circus. You know what umpires call that? A bad day. Or a bad game. Bucknor had a bad game. It happens to all of us. What we don't need is Tom Gatto (and every other sports pundit) demeaning him for his error. It's true that CB Bucknor was notoriously known as being a poor official. He has been in the big leagues for approximately two decades, and his reputation precedes him from time to time. However, Bucknor, like fellow official Angel Hernandez, has actually worked on his craft to try and improve. The league has noticed this because Bucknor (like Hernandez) has received some postseason assignments. The problem is that the average fan or writer (read: Gatto) only sees it when an official makes a mistake. Nobody notices when an official is perfect or right. Therefore, Bucknor (like Hernandez) gets ripped when he has a bad game, not recognizing the fact that he may have had a streak of good games prior. An umpire colleague relayed this story to me. When he was walking off the field after a game, a fan yelled at him, saying he had missed ten pitches that game. My colleague politely replied, "Thank you! That means I got the other 290 calls right!" Umpires cannot win. They are expected to be perfect, and then improve from there. And to clueless people who don't have the ability to empathize or see the big picture (like Gatto, who needs to fill space with his opinions), this is perfect banter that will attract readers. A few days later, Gatto wrote an article about a game between the Rays and the Tigers. In the bottom of the ninth, the Rays were trailing by one run and had the bases loaded with nobody out. On a full count pitch, Steven Souza Jr. attempted to check his swing, then dropped his bat and started heading to first, assuming he had just received a base on balls. The problem? Home plate umpire Larry Vanover called it a swinging strike and pumped Souza out. Rays manager Kevin Cash came out to argue and was immediately ejected by Vanover. After a prolonged argument, the next pitch was hit for a routine double play that was supposed to end the game. However, when Jose Inglesias tried to make the turn at second base, he slipped on second and fell down, causing his throw to go wildly past first base and allowing two runs to score, giving the Rays the win. There was no fault on the Rays for interference; Inglesias lost his footing by himself. However, the runner who was bearing down on him legally slid into second and right into Inglesias' face, causing him to lay on the ground in clear pain while the Rays celebrated a come-from-behind victory. So what does Gatto do in his article? He rips Vanover, says the Rays win on the good "juju" from Cash's ejection, and barely mentions the fact that Inglesias was hurt. Can we clear something up here? Whether Paul O'Neill agrees with it or not, it is the home plate umpire's call first and foremost on whether a batter swung at a pitch. If he thinks he swung, he can call it. He doesn't need to get help from a base umpire. Secondly, the home plate umpire can only go for help when he calls the pitch a ball and doesn't call the batter on a swing; only then can he honor the appeal and go to the base umpire to see if the batter actually swung. These are the damn rules of the game! Vanover got everything right! (And for what it's worth, replays show Souza swung.) Analysis of all these plays aside, why do people like Gatto need to write this stuff? And more importantly, why does the general public eat this stuff up? Are people that stupid that they can't see into the opinions of media members and make a personal and individual decision not to believe everything they read? I'll stop there because I could cross the line into politics, which is not my goal. The intent here is to call Gatto out for his poor choice in topics and opinions and to get people to take a step back and understand a little more about how the game of baseball works in conjunction with humanity. An article published in Referee magazine at the end of 2016 made some rounds in early 2017 again, discussing the topic of why coaches yell, specifically at officials.
Ironically, one of the reasons the article gave regarding why coaches yell at officials is simply because the coach is often significantly far away from the official, ergo requiring raising his/her voice just to get the attention of the official. To that, I must say, "Thank you, Captain Obvious." But the article went on to discuss other more logical reasons why coaches yell. The problem is that the reasons and examples provided as to why the coaches yell were not fully acceptable or morally sound, even if they happen to be the truth. First, the article mentions one of the reasons being that coaches have multiple responsibilities on a team, thereby not being able to follow the game as closely as an official may. That may be true, such as tending to injured players, determining when substitutes need to be deployed, or discussing strategy. But to play devil's advocate, is that really an acceptable excuse? Doesn't a good coach have the ability to follow the game and do all these other things? A second reason, and one more damning and popularly used (especially at professional levels, which means lower levels mimic it), is to inspire a team. Many stories have been passed down that a large majority of arguments between managers and umpires in baseball are not actually about a disagreement over a call, but as a tactic to inspire a team to perform better. A coach who comes storming out of a dugout and starts going ballistic may actually be asking the umpire about where his dinner reservations are for that evening. There are two problems with this method. First, it rarely works, especially at youth levels. Younger athletes tend to crawl back into a shell when this type of behavior is exhibited; they begin to play in fear of getting yelled at in a similar measure. Second, why does the official have to be subject to a misnomer from onlookers? The manager or coach may not actually be mad at the official, but the fans certainly can be deceived by this action. "If the manager of my team is mad, that gives me, the fan, the right to be mad!" Or, "Perhaps I should be mad too!" One thing that is never acceptable is when a coach uses this method in a derogatory way against an official. It's bad enough when a coach puts on a mad display when he's not actually yelling at the official; but if the coach is actually criticizing the official to motivate his team, then that's grounds for ejection. It comes down to this: officials shouldn't have to take abuse from coaches or anyone else. If a coach has to yell just to get the attention of the official due to physical distance, that's fine. But it makes zero sense to yell at an official for any other reason. And if you are someone who still wants to yell at an official, be prepared to face the consequences. Back in February, ArbiterSports (the company responsible for providing electronic services to assign officials to games) published an article in one of its blogs about the relationship between the coach and the official. The thesis of the argument is simple: coaches and officials need to find ways to get along since they each have the common goal of providing a great experience for the student-athletes.
The article went on to provide some tips for officials to consider on how to cultivate the relationship from their end. Many of the tips were self-explanatory: practice empathy, be proactive, stay calm, etc. However, there was one point that made me raise an eyebrow... Under the heading of discussing the tip about practicing empathy, the article goes on to describe coaches at the high school level expecting high results for the purposes of pleasing their superiors...perhaps I'm grossly over-stating it, but the idea is that results are demanded and the difference between success and failure could mean the difference between having a job and getting fired. I might expect this as the professional level, but at the high school level? Did I just read that right? In my travels as an umpire, I've experienced many things, and unfortunately, this is something I've seen from time to time. In any scenario where the athletes are amateurs, student-athletes, or simply kids having recreational fun (even when they have to try out and make the team), the idea of having to produce results so that job security is optimal for coaches shows a real problem with society. This is even a problem at the collegiate level, but the issue with collegiate athletics goes so much farther beyond the scope of this argument that we would be here for a while. Let's stick just with what was specifically referenced in this article. According to this post, high school sports should be classified under the heading of the level that demands results from its athletes, specifically for the validation of the coaches and the future of their jobs. Frankly, my response is this simple: if any high school program is using game/championship results to specifically determine whether or not a coach/employee is worthy of keeping his/her job, that program should be removed from the face of this Earth. High school coaches should be judged not on the win/loss record of a team, but rather on the general experiences of the members of the team. Now, that might be easier said than done these days, especially in this litigious society where you simply cannot please everyone, and those who are not pleased may try to find some legal loophole that might be the catalyst to a ridiculous law suit, but the idea is still true. If a team goes 3-20 on the season, but the kids have a good time, the coach shouldn't just be outright fired! Maybe the kids were just terrible in that school! And that is supposed to cost the coach his job? I know it's a lot easier said than done based on the variables that come with each specific case. But perhaps even a few administrators can consider this argument and realize that the success and failure of a team may not rely on wins and losses, but on the experience of the student-athletes. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|