|
I don't get what's wrong with asking, not demanding, an umpire to clean the rubber if the runner cannot see it from first. I can understand where the second part of this incident is inappropriate, but I don't see how a simple question to ask the umpire to have the rubber cleaned is a strike against ejection. What if the runner, rather than the coach made the same request, is that tantamount to a first strike for an ejection? What if the catcher dusts dirt off the plate with his glove, do you consider that action showing up the plate umpire to the point that it is a strike toward ejection? By this logic, you would be ejecting catchers simply for dusting off the plate with their gloves and holding a close pitch for too long after receiving it. That being said, who would you rather have talk to you to bring up a question, the players or the coaches? I can buy the argument that bringing up a previous play warrants an ejection (although I think the manner in which it is brought up has a lot to do with whether a warning or an ejection should be issued), I simply do not buy the "straw that broke the camel's back" theory, with the first straw being a question about dusting off the rubber and the last being a request to be referred to as coach, rather than by a first name. Neither of these acts, even combined, warrant an ejection in my opinion, although I concede that bringing up a previous inning's play could warrant an ejection here.
|