Is this a true statement?

[thumpferee]

I'm talking FED. The only time we can restrict a PLAYER in HS rules is if he is an illegal substitute. Players can be warned or ejected... That's it. One exception only, and that is an illegal substitute. 3-3-1 gives us no option to restrict players. It only addresses restricting coaches.

[bob jenkins]

As a practical matter, there's not a whole lot of difference between "restricting" a player and "ejecting" a player. The player still goes to the bench and cannot participate in the game.

When a coach is restricted, the coach goes to the bench, but can still meet with players (at the bench), etc. When a coach is ejected, the coach must leave "sight and sound."

You do not send a player "to the bus" unless he's causing further disruptions AND is accompanied by a coach.

[scrounge]

It is indeed a true statement. Other than an illegal substitute, a player can only be ejected. In fact, there's a case in rule 3 that outright says that (don't have my books on me, but just saw it a couple days ago).

While there may not be a functional difference in that game, there could be a very meaningful difference after. In OH, a player ejected has to sit out 2 games at the same level (if ejected in a varsity game, has to sit out 2 varsity games, to prevent being 'sent down' to JV and sitting out 2 games there in a sham suspension). So from that POV, being restricted - if an option - would be different. But alas, it's not.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

In many states there is a difference between a restriction and an ejection for a player. It deals with the suspension that usually follows an ejection while there is no post-game penalties for being restricted.

[thumpferee]

Being restricted doesn't come with a two game suspension.

Ex: kid throws his bat and hits me or the catcher. After a warning he does it again and again. Or, questions balls and strikes. Or removes his helmet during play on 2-3 occasions.

Is ejection our only option? Doesn't happen often, was just curious to the options we had.

I'm just one who would prefer to keep kids in the game.

TX

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Being restricted doesn't come with a two game suspension.

Ex: kid throws his bat and hits me or the catcher. After a warning he does it again and again. Or, questions balls and strikes. Or removes his helmet during play on 2-3 occasions.

Is ejection our only option? Doesn't happen often, was just curious to the options we had.

I'm just one who would prefer to keep kids in the game.

TX

If he continues to misbehave, I would prefer to have him out of the game. We won't learn anything without consequences.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Being restricted doesn't come with a two game suspension.

Ex: kid throws his bat and hits me or the catcher. After a warning he does it again and again. Or, questions balls and strikes. Or removes his helmet during play on 2-3 occasions.

Is ejection our only option? Doesn't happen often, was just curious to the options we had.

I'm just one who would prefer to keep kids in the game.

TX

if the rule says eject, you need to eject. And, some areas make a distinction between a rules-based ejection and an unsporting ejection (although I recognize that's in the rules) -- and suspend only for the latter.