Wed Jul 28, 2004, 11:20pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,718
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Semantics, but how can you eject a player for unsportsmanlike conduct if the player didn't do something that was flagrant?
|
I don't know... maybe I haven't truely embraced this interp, but I have more-or-less convinced myself that the case play was intended to address flagrant and dangerous behavior (even though it clearly did not say "dangerous") such as throwing a bat in anger (the specific case play) or "taking out" an opposing player. I hadn't considered standing at the plate and jawing with the umpire to be in the same category. Guess that just shows how isolated a life JO umpires lead. 
|
I don't know if this is what was intended, but think about it.
There is a fair amount of "misconduct" on the field and from the dugout. This is usually stuff umpires handle with a quick admonition. However, for an USC ejection, it almost seems there has to be some sort of flagrant misconduct.
As I've noted before, I'm preparing legislation trying to lock this down in the book.
|
Arguing balls and strikes is not flagrant misconduct, but it is cause for ejection.
|