Ejections

[chris s]

And for the benefit of Bfair, this one makes FOUR (4) posts in a row! Wow!! I must be on a roll! Â*

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:08 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Warren, is it not summer down there? YOU need to get away to a ball game;)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by chris s
Warren, is it not summer down there? YOU need to get away to a ball game; )

Yep, it's summer alright. 38 degrees C (thats around 98 degrees F for the Filistines) What I "need" and what I'm gonna "get" are two different things right now, Chris.

[duckump]

Warren, this is supposed to be educational and sometimes you make it personal. If you know so damn much why don't you come to the home of baseball the good ole U S of A and run work shops become a big league umpire. I'm not going to say I speak for all but I beleive we all come to the site to learn and not to be insulted by our peers. To all of my fellow sports officals here in the states have a merry christmas and to the aussie go back to throwing boomerangs.

[DJWickham]

Warren, no question on intentional or malicious violations, you don't wait for someone else to act: its our job to eject. The game will get out of control if we don't maintain control.

My issue is about comments about the PU when I don't have the dish. Each of us has a different way to control the game and different fuse lengths on comments from managers. Sometimes you might ignore the comment once, and eject if its said twice. I think thrice before tossing someone for a comment that the PU has chosen to ignore.

[chris s]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Yep, it's summer alright. 38 degrees C (thats around 98 degrees F for the Filistines) What I "need" and what I'm gonna "get" are two different things right now, Chris.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
Ok, Warren. Someone must have pissed in your cheerios this morning, eh mate? My response was in fun, I, on the Ca. coast , am freezing my butt off. You , down under, should be enjoying summer, calling ball.Maybe a mistake on me?????? Have fun/o0-

[blanco7]

Your High Holiness,

Up here in North Texas too. We had, what was it 85 to 90 days with out rain and temps between 95 to 105 F this past summer. Boy do you SWEAT on those days.

Anyway I have some time and I'll try a joke If I can remember it.

Texan dies and he hadn't been all that good in life so he ends up in hell. When he arrives the devil says. Welcome this is hell where it is always hot and you will live here for enternity.

The Texan says well it will be just like home.

So the next day the devil turns up the heat and makes the tempature 110 F in the old boys room. When he goes by to see him the Texan says man hell is great. It just reminds me of home during June.

The devil is upset the Texan is having such a great time. So he turns the heat up to 120 F and adds 100% humidity.

When the devil comes to check on the Texan he is all smiling saying to himself, "that Texan going to be begging for mercy". But when he arrived at the Texan's room he see's the Texan running around without his shirt and he says to the devil.

"You know this is great, I was just thinking of time I spent down in Houston man you are one great host making me feel so at home"

The devil is now pissed beyond all reason, (ump humor here and he can't chunk him), that he brings the tempature down to below freezing with snow, (well really ice and freezing rain around here). He is on his way to the Texan's room saying to himself, "well lets see what the old Texan says now". Uposn his arrival the devil sees the Texan running around in his shorts and now shirt, signing and dancing.

The devil can't understand and says ok what does this remind of now?

The Texan says nothing I'm just celebrating the Rangers just won the World Series!

Happy Holidays Y'all.

[Bfair]

Warren, something is not right here. I've called mens leagues too long to know you're not going to have judgement calls go unquestioned (and uncommented upon).

Regardless of how well YOU know your rules and the do's and dont's of umpiring, the men players and coaches do not. I think Moose realises (note the 's' for your benefit) that behavior infractions ARE going to occur in mens recreational ball. The top umps are those who can make the best judgement calls on the level of significance of the behavior infraction and take the appropriate action when necessary. Game management! Going black/white on print here will result in continued ejections and/or so much tension you/ve taken the fun out of the game for all, including yourself. You don't compromise safety or personal ethics, but you've got to realise you are dealing with men (who frequently act like boys).

I can't believe your dumping someone simply because they are questioning a judgement call. Instead, I'll bet you accept it and just explain what you saw and why you called what you did---drawing the line at that point that there is nothing further to discuss. You've got to EXPECT comments on close plays--right or wrong with the call. Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone (or is it strikesone) will cause a warning to the coach that he needs to control himself or his team to avoid a LIKELY ejection for future infractions (note that using likely in the warning doesn't overcommit you).
UJNLESS IT IS FLAGRANT, I suspect few ejections occur without warning.

Sorry, Warren, your other posts throughout are too good for me to believe that you are practicing what you are preaching here. I think you are talking idealism rather than realism.

By the way, I probably lead the league in ejections because I will not tolerate the F___ word yelled where the women in children in stands can hear it (and I will guess 90%+ of my ejections in mens ball is a result of that). Eliminate that one element, and I would be at the low ratio of ejections compared to other umpires. I consider that action as flagrant with warnings provided players since age 9. The league, promoting family involvement, supports that stance.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by chris s
Ok, Warren. Someone must have pissed in your cheerios this morning, eh mate? My response was in fun, I, on the Ca. coast , am freezing my butt off. You , down under, should be enjoying summer, calling ball.Maybe a mistake on me?????? Have fun/o0-

Hmmmm.... whaddidisay, whaddidisay?!? I thought I WAS sharing a joke with you, Chris. What did I write that made it otherwise? When I wrote "what I 'need' and what I'm gonna 'get'..." I was simply lamenting that I'm currently sidelined from umpiring, for personal reasons, and as much as I "need" to be out there having fun, I'm not going to "get" there. How was that insulting to anyone?

Please, guys, DON'T read things into the message. If in doubt, use the email facility and ASK. I'm only too happy to answer any such questions via email, if that's what it takes to get over the apparent miscommunications. If either of you were offended by what I have written in this thread, mea culpa. I apologise unreservedly. (Now I'm gonna go get myself a new bowl of cheerios...grin).

Cheers.

Warren

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 09:38 PM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by duckump
Warren, this is supposed to be educational and sometimes you make it personal. If you know so damn much why don't you come to the home of baseball the good ole U S of A and run work shops become a big league umpire. I'm not going to say I speak for all but I beleive we all come to the site to learn and not to be insulted by our peers. To all of my fellow sports officals here in the states have a merry christmas and to the aussie go back to throwing boomerangs.

I used THIS emoticon because I thought it was the closest thing to the "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon on another board. Maybe a couple of guys have interpreted that as a rude "raspberry". That is NOT what I thought I was doing.

Now, apart from that, HOW on earth have I made any of my responses "personal"? Sure I was playing around a bit with Moose, but he and I go way back so I figured he'd understand. When he obviously didn't by using his "angry" emoticon, I replied that I wasn't trying to shoot him down, but that I did disagree with his position. THAT'S ALLOWED ISN'T IT?

So, Duckump, how precisely have I "insulted" you? And why did you find it so necessary to effectively tell me to go back where I came from? I'm not angry, just curious.

Cheers

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
Warren, no question on intentional or malicious violations, you don't wait for someone else to act: its our job to eject. The game will get out of control if we don't maintain control.

My issue is about comments about the PU when I don't have the dish. Each of us has a different way to control the game and different fuse lengths on comments from managers. Sometimes you might ignore the comment once, and eject if its said twice. I think thrice before tossing someone for a comment that the PU has chosen to ignore.

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?

Cheers.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Warren, something is not right here. I've called mens leagues too long to know you're not going to have judgement calls go unquestioned (and uncommented upon).

---[snip]---

I can't believe your dumping someone simply because they are questioning a judgement call. Instead, I'll bet you accept it and just explain what you saw and why you called what you did---drawing the line at that point that there is nothing further to discuss. You've got to EXPECT comments on close plays--right or wrong with the call. Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone (or is it strikesone) will cause a warning to the coach that he needs to control himself or his team to avoid a LIKELY ejection for future infractions (note that using likely in the warning doesn't overcommit you).
UJNLESS IT IS FLAGRANT, I suspect few ejections occur without warning.

Ok. To quote Jackie Gleeson from Cannonball Run, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!"

You talk about "questioning a judgement call" and "comments on close plays". You suggest that "Continued and repetitive comments on your strikezone" should bring a warning, etc. It may shock you but I AGREE! I have NOT been talking about minor "chirping". I have NOT been talking about questioning comments such as "Is that the top of your zone, Blue?" or "Does it get any wider than that, Blue?" etc. I'm NOT even talking about minor beefing over a close call. Instead, I AM keying on the words ARGUING and OBJECTING to judgement calls. THAT is what I meant when I said that the only judgement to be exercised by the umpire is to decide whether or not he had a breach. In other words, to decide whether he had a harmless "chirp", or a flagrant OBJECTION! It is the latter that I suggest should be acted upon with despatch; no warning required.

I can certainly testify that a whole mess of minor "chirping" about calls, or mumbles and grumbles as I have called them, goes on all the time and is quite properly ignored. I might only act to warn the coach/manager if that got out of of hand for being too loud or lasting too long. OTOH, if I have an out-and-out OBJECTION to a judgement call, that guy is gone FIRST TIME. Period.

Originally posted by Bfair
Sorry, Warren, your other posts throughout are too good for me to believe that you are practicing what you are preaching here. I think you are talking idealism rather than realism.

Bfair, if we can get the NOTION right between us such that what I think I am saying and what you (and perhaps others) are actually hearing (reading?) agrees, then what I am talking about isn't Idealism but is Pragmatism. I don't talk about "game management" so much as I refer to the words of OBR 9.01(a) and call it "maintaining discipline and order" on the playing field. You can't do that if you allow people to ARGUE with or OBJECT to your judgement calls. That is NOT to say you can't deal with a certain amount of mumbles and grumbles. OTOH, if the infringement threatens to disrupt the discipline and order on the playing field, it MUST be dealt with summarily. That's our job, according to OBR 9.01(a), NOT deciding if we are sufficiently offended to react.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 22nd, 2000 at 11:04 PM]

[DJWickham]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I'd be tempted to wonder if the PU had actually "chosen to ignore" a remark, or simply didn't hear it in the first place. If someone makes a personal comment right in the guy's face, and he ignores it, fine. BUT, if the comment is from the dugout, the diamond or the coach's box then there's a distinct possibility that your partner didn't actually hear it. If that possibility exists AND you believe the comment crossed the line THEN you should be the one doing the ejecting regardless of who was the object of the insult. Agreed?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Absolutely. It's one of the reasons that I was asked by the LL president to do that game. That, and the fact that I explain to managers at the beginning of the game that I get paid $300 an hour to argue, but I'll waive the fee if they convince me I'm wrong.

[Warren Willson]

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.

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.

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]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Ok. To quote Jackie Gleeson from Cannonball Run, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!"

Well, now you've gone and done it. I don't remember seeing Cannonball Run (I'm sure I saw it, I just probably wasn't sober at the time - since it's one of those kind of movies), so I can't definitively say Jackie Gleason is the wrong attribution of that famous quote. But, I can unequivocally state that the line, and it is one of the more famous lines in cinematic history, was originally delivered by Strother Martin as the Captain in that great 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke.

"What we got here is....FAILURE to comMUNICATE!"

Dave

Well you can see as how I would easily get Strother Martin and Jackie Gleeson confused, can't you? I certainly do remember the original, but since I'm a Jackie Gleeson fan from way back in the Honeymooners days, I chose his later rendition. Next time I'll try to remember to acknowledge BOTH sources... (BIG grin)

Cheers.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by DJWickham
...I explain to managers at the beginning of the game that I get paid $300 an hour to argue, but I'll waive the fee if they convince me I'm wrong.

I've been used as a sort of "troubleshooter" in my District League, too. At 6'5" and 320lbs I don't get too many takers for arguments. When I do I'm a little more direct than you. I tell 'em that if they're gonna come out and tell me I'm wrong they'd better be damn sure I'm gonna agree with 'em!"

Cheers.