"Professional managers, coaches, and players have a right to question an umpire's decision if they do it in a professional manner. When they become personal, profane, or violent, they have crossed the line and must be dealt with accordingly"
About this Quote
Evans draws a bright, almost old-school line between “argument” as part of the game and “abuse” as an attempt to break it. The phrasing matters: “have a right to question” grants dissent legitimacy, even dignity, but only if it’s performed “in a professional manner.” That last clause is the tell. He’s not defending umpires from scrutiny; he’s defending the social contract that keeps scrutiny from turning into theater.
The subtext is labor and hierarchy. Managers, coaches, and players are framed as professionals with stakes, expertise, and adrenaline. Umpires, by implication, are professionals too, but uniquely vulnerable: they make high-impact calls in public, often alone, with everyone incentivized to pressure them. Evans is trying to preserve the umpire’s authority without pretending authority is infallibility. Questioning is allowed because it signals engagement; profanity and personal attacks are banned because they signal domination.
“Personal, profane, or violent” isn’t just a list of bad behaviors. It’s an escalation ladder: from disrespecting the person, to poisoning the environment, to threatening bodies. By bundling them, Evans argues that the moment the dispute shifts from the call to the official, the conversation is no longer about accuracy, it’s about power.
The context is a sport that sells emotion but can’t survive if emotion becomes intimidation. Evans’ intent is pragmatic: protect the game’s credibility by making room for disagreement while naming consequences for turning disagreement into coercion.
The subtext is labor and hierarchy. Managers, coaches, and players are framed as professionals with stakes, expertise, and adrenaline. Umpires, by implication, are professionals too, but uniquely vulnerable: they make high-impact calls in public, often alone, with everyone incentivized to pressure them. Evans is trying to preserve the umpire’s authority without pretending authority is infallibility. Questioning is allowed because it signals engagement; profanity and personal attacks are banned because they signal domination.
“Personal, profane, or violent” isn’t just a list of bad behaviors. It’s an escalation ladder: from disrespecting the person, to poisoning the environment, to threatening bodies. By bundling them, Evans argues that the moment the dispute shifts from the call to the official, the conversation is no longer about accuracy, it’s about power.
The context is a sport that sells emotion but can’t survive if emotion becomes intimidation. Evans’ intent is pragmatic: protect the game’s credibility by making room for disagreement while naming consequences for turning disagreement into coercion.
Quote Details
| Topic | Coaching |
|---|
More Quotes by Jim
Add to List
