|
Mike,
Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the USC?
The case play refers to "flagrant misconduct" and the situation is throwing a bat in anger.
I wouldn't have thought that would cover all kinds of USC. For example, ejecting a batter for making disparaging remarks to the umpire. Or for continued arguing balls and strikes.
Did Henry intend to mean that "whatever is sufficient misconduct to warrant an ejection" is by definition "flagrant"?
If so, then in addition to better rule support, I'd like to see the case play edited to say "unsportsmanlike conduct" instead of "flagrant misconduct."
__________________
Tom
|