Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja
Fair enough. I felt, in my opinion, that getting nailed the way he did would teach him more of a lesson than a 1 game suspension (league rule) would have.
We, by league rule, are required to document, any unusual situation that occurs during a game. In this case our supervisor of officials got three reports. One from me, one from the UIC who was watching the game, and a third from the coach who was hit.
Our league rules specify that the penalty for an ejection shall be 1 game, unless a different penalty is determined by the supervisor of officials or his staff. In this case, the three of us all felt his actions and resulting punishment (getting nailed) were enough punishment.
We also have a rule in our league that we don't eject after a game concludes. This is covered under a different section of the rules, which is post-game conduct. Once the game ends, the post-game conduct rule applies. Since the game ended and he spoke no additional words after the game ended (when the runner touched home), I did not invoke that rule.
Had this been the first game of a DH, or a tourney game, he would have been ejected, and out for the next game at a minimum.
|
Until the last sentence, all you had was double-talk as you attempted to justify your inaction. If the appropriate penalty would be an ejection had he NOT been hit by the ball, then that would still be the appropriate penalty despite being hit by the ball. So far, you taught him to stay out of the line of the throw, NOT that he cannot run on the field during live play, and NOT that he cannot disregard the umpire's directions under the rules. Because you allowed there to be no consequence.
And, until the last sentence, I (and I suspect the vast majority of readers) simply disagreed with how you handled it. Now you make it clear that you really just don't get how to manage his actions, since you admit applying your own double standard.
Good luck.