Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Reed
I would expect that the AD would like to know whether the ejection was automatic or if additional bad behavior aggravated the offense. He'd probably like to get a sense if the F-bomb was a single event or an escalation of profanity. He undoubtably knows that umpires vary widely in their tolerance for profanity, and in which words an umpire considers to be profanity. I suppose that the AD would like to have a short discussion to get more color than is likely to be included in the ejection report. He can then compare that information with the account that the player and coach provide, and decide what additional punitive or remedial action is needed.
|
If MTD was a good report-writer, he would have any extenuating circumstances listed. If the AD was
that worried about the situations surrounding the profanity, he could have asked it better:
Quote:
AD: Thanks for calling, Mark. I was informed from the coach by email about the ejection, but he didn't have any details. Was there anything beyond the profanity that caused the ejection?
MTD: No sir. It was just the profanity that caused the ejection. He used the "f word" after missing a play on the bases. After the ejection, he left the field without incident and the delay was minimal. There will be more details in my ejection report to the state, which I believe is sent to you by them.
AD: Great. Thanks a lot, Mark. Have a good day.
|
I'm not trying to defend MTD blindly, but if you're correct on the AD's intentions, he should have been more clear. As it is, it appeared the AD was trying to get MTD to claim he either ejects on all profanity or doesn't. Either way he answered, the AD could have used it against him.