The coach's act of moving to the outfield wall and signalling the home run was an act meant to ridicule. There was no need for the theatrics of moving down the line or the signal. He had the opportunity to voice his displeasure directly to you.
That act, in itself, would have been
his request to be dumped, or at the very least, sat on the bench for the remainder of the game. His following question:
Is this why the coach from the opposing team chose me for the game
is merely putting the icing on the cake by questioning your personal integrity.
Whether you realize it or not, the coach was asking for you to dump him. No coach could expect to pull such antics and remain in the game---and especially one of his talent, experience, and expertise. Is it adding fuel to the fire? Yes. Still, there is no reason to accept the ridicule and insult presented by the coach. It's your choice whether you wish to accept the abuse and future risk of its continuance during the game, or whether you penalize his actions. That was your choice. Sitting him or ejecting him were both reasonable and justified penalties. Personally, I'd have sat him on the bench. That likely would have led further to his ejection before he ever reached the bench---he was begging for the ejection.
Just my opinion,
Freix
BTW, had there been ANY DOUBT in my mind regarding the correctness of my call, I would have conferenced with my partners and asked if any were
absolutely certain that the ball had left the field. Only if a partner were
absolutely certain would I change such a call. It's possible your partner had a better angle on the play.
[Edited by Bfair on May 13th, 2002 at 09:01 AM]