Ejections

[chris s]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Let's stay off subject for a moment. Your "nickname" is military, harkening to that most elite of all US Army units. But in your very first posts, you echoed Marine Corps attitudes and terms. The Rangers I know would, shall we say, eschew references to the "wimps" at Semper Fi.

Also, your credibility would be greatly improved if we knew something about you: Your history of officiating, of posting in other forums (even if under different names); where you currently ply your trade, whether you still call NCAA-level games. Etc.

People like Warren and me run great risks when we post to the 'Net: We are who we are. For example, anyone interested can find my phone or FAX numbers. Anyone interested in "ranger" can....

Lah me, the anonymity of the non-registered "registered" Forum member. Ain't it grand?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
As I am what was known as an "ARMY brat", you are right on the "wimp" thing. 3 family members of mine have worn the beret. But maybe "Ranger" just likes Ford pick-ups????? Merry Christmas, Carl.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ranger
I will not play the point by point rebuttal game. It has gotten so far off the subject of game management. I am interested in game management. If anybody wants to educate me any further about how different things are in foreign countries they can email me.
---[snip]---
Now, how about ejections and game management?

Well, Ranger, I saw something different in Pete Booth's original post. You say it was about "ejections and game management", and certainly that may come into the equation. I saw it as a question as to why some umpires don't enforce the penalties for rule breaches consistently. That may be entirely unrelated to game management per se. It may be more about umpire ethics, or even the desire by umpires to be "liked" by players, coaches and managers.

I understood from Mike's post that he was advocating ignoring breaches of rules and the associated penalties depending on one's personal perception of the severity or the circumstances of the offense. That may be de rigour in LL, certainly, but I don't believe it is advice that ought to be followed at the high school or college level.

My position was that, where there was a clear and undeniable breach of the rule and a specific penalty required, it is certainly not the umpire's job to decide whether or not to enforce a penalty based on his or her personal perception of the seriousness (or even the circumstances) of the offense. In several posts I pointed out, however, that I did not consider minor "chirps", normal mumbles and grumbles about the zone or even minor beefs over close calls on the bases to be a "clear and undeniable breach" of the rule. I even gave a specific example for the latter case, in illustration.

From the perspective of so-called "game management", I have written a series of articles on "Umpire Ethics" for eUmpire.com which go into the issues surrounding the making of an ethical choice between enforcing a rule and maintaining discipline and order on the playing field. That was NOT the focus of my posts in this thread.

My posts in this thread were purely and simply focused on ensuring that umpires do NOT believe they have the right, and sometimes even a requirement, to carelessly usurp the authority of the rule makers in defining the penalty for a given offence. If there is a rule with a specific penalty attached, and that rule has clearly and obviously been breached, it is NOT the umpire's job to decide that the penalty should NOT apply, or should be mitigated, simply because of some personally-perceived scale of seriousness for the offense UNLESS the enforcement of the penalty clearly conflicts with the obligation to maintain discipline and order on the playing field. OBR 9.01(a) says that umpires are required to enforce the rules, and I maintain that includes the associated penalties. We are NOT gods, or even judges most of the time. There ARE certain limitations on the extent of the umpire's power on the diamond, and this is one of those limitations.

Now, Ranger, although I am in a foreign country and things may certainly be different here, we STILL play baseball as defined by the Official Baseball Rules, the NAPBL Umpire Manual and the UDP Manual for the Two Umpire System. I believe I have made my position clear, but if you feel you haven't understood anything I've said you may feel free to email me to seek a clarification. I note that so far you have singularly failed to follow this course of action. OTOH, I do NOT see it as my role to "educate (you) any further about how different things are in foreign countries". True education requires interested participation from both sides, and I perceive that the interest may certainly be lacking on at least one side of this discussion.

Cheers, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.

[senior]

Hey, Guys:
Although I'm sure we would all get along great if we were to physically meet in person and discuss any and all of our posted questions, it appears that this does not necessarily happen when written communications are used.
We have all types of interested parties involved in these threads, and not all are able to communicate the exact same thoughts in the same exact words. We have former College Professors, High School Teachers, English Majors, and Foreign Language Specialists all telling their stories in certain terms, and on the other hand, everyday volunteer Umpires, new greenhorns trying to learn, relatively new lower level trainees, and sometimes, just interested people seeing if they can pick a brain or two.
Let's try not to take offense until we can be certain offense is really intended. If it is, just ignore the offender, and move on to help the really interested parties.
As another poster says, JMO.

[Warren Willson]

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.

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.

[Bfair]

One excellent point Warren pointed out in his discussions (I'm not sure if it was in Vol.1 or Vol.2) is that when you do ultimately decide action is needed, the penalty needs to be in accordance with the rules.

In our leagure this past summer a protest was upheld when the official had an infraction requiring action but elected to declare the offender out in lieu of ejection. He felt that was a less harsh penalty. His intent may have been good, but unfortunately, it was not within the rules which specifically indicated ejection was the penalty for the offense. The "out" squelched a nice rally. The offending team had an available sub to take the place of the offender had the correct penalty been invoked.
As stated, the protest was upheld, and certainly as officials that is something we need to strive to avoid.

[Rich]

Well, I'll delurk for a moment to make one very simple comment.

I think the people on both sides are talking about two different things.

The notion that an unsportsmanlike "offense" is an "offense" is ridiculous, for the most part. I do not know think Warren is proposing that idea, because that is not how umpires anywhere I've lived (or umpires I've watched) ACTUALLY call things. Why else would umpires get reputations as "quick-triggers" and "lambs?"

9.01(d) gives authority for an umpire to eject for unsportsmanlike conduct. It doesn't REQUIRE anything.

The only requirements for ejection of a manager or coach spelled out I can find are in 9.02(a), 8.02(d), and 8.06 COMMENT. And in each case listed here, where ejection is MANDATED, the umpire is REQUIRED to warn prior to the ejection (unless accompanied by unsportsmanlike conduct, which is covered under 9.01(d)). [Note: 4.06 also covers the ejection of a participant for inciting a balk, but that is also an unsportsmanlike act]. If the manager persists in going to the mound a second time, or leaving his position to argue balls and strikes, or a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, then we are DUTY-BOUND to eject.

This is what I think Warren is talking about, although I can admit I didn't read all of the posts on the subject.

But let's step back even further. Except for the case where the manager insists upon visiting his pitcher a second time after being warned, there is still a boatload of umpire discretion that is applied. Who says the coach has left his postion to argue balls and strikes? Who says the pitcher threw intentionally at the batter. In FED ball, who decides whether contact is malicious?

The individual umpire makes those decisions, based upon his own sensibilities, judgement, training, the customs of the game, etc. Now, if the umpire decides the beanball WAS intentional, if the contact WAS malicious, if the manager HAS left his position to argue balls and strikes.....THEN the umpire is rule-bound and ethically bound to eject.

In other words, the umpire shall not do the following:

--Well, that was malicious, but the team is losing bad and the game is almost over, and I don't want to fill out paperwork, and I don't want the coach to scratch me so I won't toss him....

--Well, that pitch was intentional, but the previous batter DID trot awfully slow after hitting the home run so I won't toss him....

--Well, the manager did visit the mound twice with the same batter up, but this is a friendly game and the team is losing 19-1....

--Well, I might have missed that pitch or check-swing, so I'll let the manager come down to the plate and bitch....

Am I geting close to your meaning Warren?

Rich
----------------
Rich Fronheiser
Natick, MA
eContact, RightSports.com

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Dec 26th, 2000 at 04:36 PM]

[oregonblue]

Semper Fi requires that I make a point. Marines are not "wimps", anymore than are Rangers or SF. USMC, 1967-71.

IMHO, like me, WW takes a very intellectual approach to the rules. THis does not mean that we don't see the practical application issues. I think the initial post here was addressing differences in game management and how to deal with the great disparity among umpires in applying individual judgment about "sportsmanship" issues. One of my greatest complaints as an umpire is hearing,"No one else calls it!", or "enforces that rule", ad infinatum, ad nauseum. If we all were truer to the rules as written, there would be fewer problems created for our colleagues that have the same teams later.

As a side note, I wonder why it seems that the umps with lower ejection rates and fewer rhubarbs get better assignments. Are they better at game management, lucky, or being "nice" to avoid conflict? Or what???

[oregonblue]

Jim, by that phrase, do you mean:good with rules, solid mechanix and hustle, and (the usually learned rather than natural) ability to hear what they need to hear? I agree. About 80-85% of assets needed to move up are these things, but the ability to network and political issues make up the difference, it seems. Just MHO!

[PeteBooth]

I would like to thank all for posting. As I believe most of you might agree by now there is NO CLEAR CUT guidence on when to Eject - but it is a matter of Style and Preference.

The reason I posted this is the first place is that if one GOES BY THE BOOK, a manager / coach / player has NO RIGHT to question a judgement call, yet it is allowed.

IMO, the toughest part of umpiring is GAME CONTROL. We can go to Clincis and learn the Rules and proper Positioning by repitition, but when it comes to GAME CONTROL - We in a way our on our own.

Each of us has our own LINE and IMO like I said in the first place should that really be the case? If F3 impedes the progress of B1 going from first to second we have obstruction - no question about it but when it comes to Ejections - Hey wait a minute not as clear cut.

In reading all of these posts, to me it's like a catch 22. If you eject - it's hey Blue you have a short fuse and if you do not eject - it's hey that umpire lets us get away with murder.

Let's face it none of us are Krescan (at least I didn't see his name posted here yet) and one never knows when the Game will blow-up in one's face, especially in todays environment.

When the third base coach sends home r2 on a base hit by B1 and F9 (who the coach knows has a gun) throws out r2 by a mile - do we question the coaches decision? (in our minds we might) - the answer - NO.

Many people watch TV and IMO the reason amateur coaches get on the men in Blue is because it has become the accepted norm over the years because of TV exposure.

I am not a GURU of the rules as some who post here but to date I have not found anything that says an umpire must take grief from a coach and be ridiculed.

With all our varied opinions on when to eject - one can see the confusion this brings rather than going by the book or at least coming up with specific guidelines as to when to eject.

To me if the coach acts in a professional manner, they earn their due up to a point, but if someone comes out of the dugout and starts screaming (even if they have a point) - to me "THEY GOTTA GO". If you let the coach scream - then pretty soon the players / fans will join in.

Also, I guess the area where one comes from also dictates how to approach the game. I'm from NY and I've seen the littliest of things turn into a brawl. Therefore, I do not let things get out of control and I might eject quicker than most, but that's because of my personal experiences.

Someone mentioned the key to moving up is less ejections - if thats the case than the H@@@@ll with moving-up. If you have to kiss a@@@@@s to move-up - who wants it. I think thats the main reason there aren't more ejections.

Individuals want that prestigious playoff game and the less coaches they p@@@@s off the better, however one day we read that there was a real brawl in so and so's game and wonder why.

I'm not preaching Eject just to Eject, but there needs to be more uniformity, especially in the same association when it comes to this.

Good discussion for the winter months. And BTW Warren I am jealous that you are in beautiful summer weather when Temps here the east are below 0 counting the wind-chill.

OK gang lets keep it going - Someone else "pick up the ball" and start a new 4 - 5 page thread.

Pete Booth

[David B]

Peter,

It's that time of the year again, we have meeting in two weeks and I think in your last post you made a great point.

It's essential that the local association talks about coach decorum and what is allowed and what is not.

That's the key. If a coach does this in my game and I tell him "knock it off" and then he does it in your game and you "eject him" then the coach doesn't know what's going on.

In our area personal preferences are allowed by each umpire (like I don't let a coach cuss me but that's my own personal belief and it's in the FED book); however, other umpires can make that decision on their own.

There are several no no's (you can tell I have small children):

1) A coach insinuates any way that you are a "homer"

2) A coach charges the umpire

3) A coach won't leave the field (in other words I'm through with the discourse and I turn to go to my position and he follows)

That's the guidelines we give our local group.

As far as players: we don't allow them anything.

They are there to play - not commentate.

Thanks
David