FED Helmet Removal
 

R3 with 2 outs. B1 hits a home run and before reaching home R3 removes his helmet. PU calls R3 out and disallows both runs as the out was the third of the innings. Of course this led to an ejection of the offesive coach. In our state, an ejection comes with an automatic one game suspension at the same level. During the JV game the same night, PU tells the ejected coach that he is just going to write it up as a restritction to the bench so that the coach does not have to serve his suspension.

Thoughts anyone?

1) The PU was incorrect. The Helmet Rule is in effect when the Ball is Live not Dead.

2) The PU incorrect Ruling was sure to elicit some sort of response of the Offensive HC and unfortunately if the Offensive HC's conduct rises to the such conduct that he has to be Ejected then the PU has to take care of business.

3) Now the PU is just wimping out because he does not want to face the music when he submits his Game Report regarding his Ejection of the Offensive HC.

MTD, Sr.

While the helmet rule is during a live ball, the penalty is not an out. It’s a warning and then an ejection. Unless that state has modified FED rules.

Old, old, old rule. In the 70's helmet removal was an out.

I agree with MTD, Sr. If the coach's behavior got him ejected, so be it. He could have discussed (argued) the call without crossing the line.

Here's the problem. Qualitatively, we don't know that he crossed the line, absent the report. It wouldn't be unreasonable to claim that an umpire that does not understand the helmet rule and chooses not to submit a report about an ejection arising from his misapplication of the rules may have improperly ejected a coach.

Let us assume that this is a regular season game during the Spring. As far as the OhioHSAA (or MichiganHSAA) is concerned once the HC is ejected he is ejected for the day. There is nothing that the Official/Umpire can do to change that. Furthermore, the Official/Umpire must file a Game Report and the ejection will stand but the Official/Umpire will no doubt have to face the music for screwing up the Ruling.

MTD, Sr.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

It most certainly is. You took the position that the umpire after the fact realizes that he "screwed the pooch" and now does not want to face the music with the powers that be or is trying to curry favor with the HC by letting him off the hook for his inappropriate behavior.

MTD, Sr.

I agree. In Michigan, once you have ejected the coach, he is ejected. You can't later go back (and I'm going to try to quote Mark Uyl, now the MHSAA Director) tell the coach "you are just going to not write it up." Once you eject, and agree to eject the coach (key part here), he is ejected and if the state association, like the MHSAA, has a suspension, he is suspended.

The MHSAA also puts on the directive on the school as well. They know the coach got ejected, so the coach is suspended even if the official never writes it up.

I say agree to eject a coach for one reason. During a track meet, I decided to eject the coach of the host school. After talking with my partner at the meet, the decision was to not eject the coach, but warn him for unacceptable conduct (permissible under the rules). If you are going to eject a coach, there needs to be some agreement about what is being done between the officials on the contest, if nothing else so everyone has everything on the same page when the report is filed, and the school or state asks for everyone's version.

An OhioHSAA registered official can be fined and/or suspended for failure to submit a Game Report.

MTD, Sr.

No, I didn't. My position is that not only did he not know the rule, he did not know the procedure of what to do with an ejection.