Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
A very interesting discussion, and while I think I understand the points Warren is making, I also understand, and empathize more with, the guys who think Warren has staked out a position that is a little too black and white, and too non-discretionary in dealing with ejectable offenses.
The rule citation that began this thread says this:
9.01(d) Each umpire has authority to disqualify any player, coach, manager or substitute for objecting to decisions or for unsportsmanlike conduct or language, and to eject such disqualified person from the playing field.
Notice it says "has authority to," not "shall." This strongly suggests that the umpire does have, and in fact is expected to use, discretion and judgment in assessing the level of severity and the appropriate response, when a participant objects to decisions or displays unsportsmanlike conduct or language.
|
Okay, Dave, I'm going to both agree AND disagree with this assessment. In my view, OBR 9.01(d) is a cover-all clause. It spells out the extent of the power, but not any requirements or timing for its use. In that sense it certainly
does leave some room for "discretion and judgement", principally because it is NOT setting out a specific penalty for a single, specific offense. OTOH, OBR 9.02(a)CMT is
very specific that ejection is the penalty for arguing balls and strikes. There is no room for judgement or election there. If you are certain that the subject has argued balls and strikes, then "they
will be ejected from the game." Not "may" but "will". OBR 4.06 is equally specific as regards unsporting conduct. Offenders "
shall be removed from the game.." not "may" be removed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Part of Warren's argument was that an umpire can eject *without warning*, and he lamented (as I recall) what he thinks is a fairly widespread misconception among amateur umpires that they *must* give a warning before any ejection. I don't recall anybody making that argument in this discussion, but if they did they're wrong, and Warren is right. However, in making the point that an umpire is not obliged to warn before ejecting (except for a couple of explicit rule citations in specific situations), I think Warren is overstating his case a bit and coming across as arguing that the opposite is true - that the umpire must eject whenever he sees an offense that the rules say can be punishable by ejection.
|
Dave, raising the issue of "warning" an offender was more of an answer to an unasked question. It has been my experience that most officials would be well aware of OBR 9.02(a)CMT requiring a warning in specific circumstances. Most therefore believe that requirement exists in ALL circumstances. In reading my position on ejection they might have thought I had overlooked some perceived requirement to warn first at all times. That's all I was covering with that point.
OTOH, my position was based on the premise that there had been a CLEAR and undoubted breach of the provision on arguing judgement calls. Not that there was some minor "chirping" or mumbles and grumbles. Certainly when the umpire is unsure that he has a CLEAR OBJECTION, a warning is more appropriate. It is when there is NO DOUBT that I maintain there is also NO DISCRETION. I don't believe that umpires should be trying to impute motives, or understand the feelings of players and coaches. That's NOT our job. If they break the rule, and the penalty is ejection THEN they've got to go no matter WHAT motives we impute or pressures we accept them to be under, etc. It is simply not our job, when faced with a CLEAR and undeniable breach of a rule, to "decide" whether or not it should be penalised. To do so is taking the power to penalise away from the rule makers and usurping it for ourselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
And, in the same vein, I think both sides in this discussion are "right," as I've explained above. The apparent disagreement is mostly illusory, and is due more to each side talking past the other than to any substantive difference of opinion.
Dave Hensley
|
I can accept that. That's why I say "Curse this medium.." In all the years I've been using the Internet, and its various umpire discussion forums, I have yet to find a way (verbosity notwithstanding) to make oneself PERFECTLY CLEAR on ANY point under discussion. I thank you for your perception and your attempt to "translate" from Aussie ump to American ump.
Cheers.
[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 11:36 PM]