Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
There is one clarification I would make concerning the 9.02(a)CMT that Warren may be missing, since he doesn't address it in his citation. And that is, the crime in 9.02(a) is not "arguing balls and strikes;" rather, it is leaving your position to argue balls and strikes. And, the rule directs the umpire to first warn, and then, only if the offender continues to advance, to eject.
|
Dave, it must seem like I am ALWAYS disagreeing in this thread. I hate that. Nevertheless, I feel bound to do it again. You and I will have to A2D on whether OBR 9.01(d) is deliberately broad for the purpose of giving the umpire the latitude NOT to eject. I've already said that I think that the apparent broadness is only because this rule is a cover-all, not a specific penalty provision. I'll say no more on that subject.
However, concerning the alleged offense covered in OBR 9.02(a)CMT I say you are just dead wrong, Dave! The offense for which an ejection is specified is arguing judgement calls, namely balls and strikes, and NOT
leaving ones position to argue. The mention of a player, coach or manager "leaving their position" to argue is put in to specify exactly when a warning is appropriate i.e. BEFORE the offense has been committed - to wit when the umpire sees the person leaving their position for the purpose of committing the offense. If, after warning, the person continues AND ARGUES BALLS AND STRIKES (i.e. commits the offense anyway) then it is appropriate to eject. OTOH, if the person continues and ends up talking about the weather, an ejection is probably NOT appropriate. The ejectable offense is the arguing. Leaving ones position to do so is not an offense in and of itself but it IS an occasion for a warning that the possible commission of an offense is imminent.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I think everyone involved in this discussion is perfectly ready, willing and able to give the boot to any malfeasor who has clearly earned his early dismissal. Based on his arguments in this thread, it seems that Warren would probably send someone packing quicker than most of the others who have spoken up, and his decision would be based on his sense of duty to enforce the rules as written. The difference, at least for me, is that I don't read the rules to be as black and white as Warren does, and I will use what I perceive to be some statutory latitude the rules give me to at least attempt to resolve arguments or sportsmanship issues with something less severe than ejection.
This is a philosophy or style of umpiring that I have seen espoused by many highly regarded umpires, both on the Internet and in real life. And looking back over the last few years that I've been umpiring heavily, I can only count a handfull of instances in which I regretted a decision to NOT eject. Two of them were at this year's MSBL world series in Phoenix, but those are stories for another time.
|
Ok, I'm getting pretty tired of this imputing to me of a certain black/white, by-the-book "style" of umpiring based solely on the contents of this thread. That is grossly unfair, and it is not just you reading this in here either Dave. I average 1 or 2 ejections each year across 2 different leagues and 2 distinct seasons. How does that show me to be any quicker with an ejection than anyone else? Simply because I believe that the rule book penalties ought to be enforced doesn't make me a hair trigger gunslinger on the diamond! Using that logic, I might equally conclude that most of the posters here who disagree with me are WIMPS who wouldn't even eject if the player or coach bit 'em in the a$$ ... and I am freely prepared to admit that isn't so either!
This is a COMMUNICATION PROBLEM! Pete Booth asked whether we would be more consistent as umpires if we all applied the penalties in the rules as required. I agreed we would and hoped we all did that already. I also said later in the thread that we could exercise judgment in the area of deciding whether an offense had been committed, BUT after that the application of the specified penalty was REQUIRED. That may well be the same as Moose saying we should regard the severity of the offense! I've been trying to come to terms with that in this thread, by specifying in detail what I consider an ejectable offense is, and all I've gotten back in return is repeated crap about my "style" being that of a black and white rule book umpire with a quick eject finger! For crying out loud, guys, please THINK about the specific words of my posts instead of going off half-cocked on what your own preconcievd ideas tell you has been said! I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to being characterised as a harda$$,
especially on the basis of only 1 thread on 1 baseball discussion board!
It seems very clear to me that, despite my best efforts to communicate both clearly and succinctly, you (collectively) and I are indeed still speaking two entirely different languages. That's a great pity because I believe that if some of the posters in this thread had given at least as much attention to trying to understand what I'm saying as to getting their own position across, we would be well and truly on common ground by now. Your previous post, Dave, led me to believe that you at least were making that effort. This post leaves me with entirely the opposite sense. I give up. I will NOT bore the readers any further with my views on this subject.
Cheers.