|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 08:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
We have talked about ejections before, but I would like to expand on what is REALLY meant by 9.01(d). It says that an umpire can eject a manager for objecting to decisions. I know this might sound stupid but what does that actually mean? Does that mean if a coach objects to my out call by thinking his runner is safe by 9.01(d) - I can eject him / her? The one thing that IMO is the most inconsistent approach to umpiring is WHEN TO EJECT. I guess we all have our breaking points as to what Line an individual can cross before we toss, but in actuality should that be the case. On this and other Forums we go into many hot debates over the rules and we use the strict wording plus authoritative opinions, but when it comes to ejecting someone, there isn't any clear cut guidance - it's sort of left up to the individual. If we go by the strict wording of 9.01(d) - a manager has no right to come out and question an umpires decision unless the decision is in conflict with the rules. Therefore, why is it acceptable for us to allow a manager to come out and question our judgement on an out / safe call; strke / ball - you know the rest? It would seem to me that the STRICT wording of 9.01(d) would instruct us to eject an individual for doing so. I was just wondering why this was allowed in the first place? Again, we cannot compare to what we see on TV - that's big business but I guess most people think the game should be called that way to begin with and therefore, it's acceptable to argue with the men in blue. Do you guys think that all umpires should be as consistent with ejections as we are supposed to be in say calling balls / strikes? Thanks Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth 
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 11:02am
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the rule needs to be over analyzed. It doesn't say, SHALL EJECT, it is simply the foundation that permits umpires TO EJECT.
I MAY eject for objecting to my calls and/or unsportmanlike conduct So if I do toss a player or coach...I point at one of these (which I have done about 10 times in 700 games... yes VERY low percentage). I can't eject for wearing an ugly hat or for bad coaching. Yes, the rules say the CANNOT object to safe/out, etc. But the do. The test for coaches and the test for umpires (or a major factor in umpire advancement), is how much room you give a coach to object. And are you consistent with what you give.. But think about this. At the higher levels, or skilled experienced coaches, on that OUT call you made at 2nd BANGER.. the coach is out talking to you, and he's not so much "objecting" as to asking about what you saw, and wants a clearer interpretation. IN my experience.. 99.4% of these conversations (and there ain't that many), end peaceably. Each umpire decides when that coach has crossed the line, then ejects. The best umpires have it just right. Not so good umpires are too fast.... or too slow.... re: the three bears
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 01:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who should eject?
When they cross the line, who should eject when one umpire hears comments directed at another umpire?
I don't feel comfortable ejecting someone if the other umpire elects not to respond to it or it wasn't loud enough for anyone except me as a close base ump to hear. I have used a quiet "don't go there" or "no more, coach," thinking that if the next inappropriate comment is addressed to me, I would toss for the inappropriate comment directed to me. I have been pleased that the usual reaction is for the manager to stop. My favorite game, however, was one in which the league president arrived at the plate for the meeting with two known problem managers and announced that I had been asked to do the game solely for the purpose of ejecting anyone whom I heard say anything that was not a postive comment. Easiest game I ever did.
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 05:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The funny (peculiar) thing is that far too many umpires believe they are required to WARN BEFORE EJECTING in these circumstances. That particular misapprehension comes from the wording of OBR 9.02(a)CMT. I look at that in this way: 1. If the coach leaves his position obviously intending to argue BALLS and STRIKES only, but hasn't yet said anything, then the rules expect us to warn him about his impending illegal act. The rules would rather we PREVENT the offense from occurring, if possible. 2. If, however, the player, manager, coach or substitute argues from wherever he is at the time then any opportunity to warn has passed, the offense has already been committed and so should be immediately punished. NO WARNING IS REQUIRED! NO WARNING is EVER required when the argument is over SAFE/OUT, FAIR/FOUL or any other judgement decision except BALL/STRIKE. If I can prevent the offense by warning, I will. If the offense has already been committed, it's too late and the offender is done! Remember my social source of reference though. I do Adult leagues with players up to A-AA standard. I don't do LL equivalent very often, and I might be tempted to temper my approach at that level, but NOT for HS JV or Varsity and certainly NOT for College. Those guys ought to know better already! Cheers. [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 06:03 PM]
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 06:15pm
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers. [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 05:18 PM]
|
|
Wed Dec 20, 2000, 06:33pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who should eject?
Quote:
It doesn't matter who hears or sees the offense. If it's an ejection offense then that player has to go, and if you are the ump who heard it or saw it then YOU have to be the one who sends him! I'm not talking about simple bad language muttered under the breath, here. I'm talking about specific objections to decisions, personal comments about umpires, etc. The biggest mistake I have ever made as an official was in NOT ejecting a player because I thought my partner had seen it differently. I was DEAD WRONG. The guy should have gone and I'm the one who should have sent him! Quote:
Cheers. [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 20th, 2000 at 06:14 PM]
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 12:39am
|
|||
|
|||
I agree, Warren. That's one ballsy LL Pres, IMHO.
2 examples: I'm bases on Sr LL game MANY years ago. Runner scored on errant relay throw from F6. Runner threw elbow at catcher. I waited for my partner to do sumpin (I was rookie) and he didn't so I let it go. Post game talk revealed that he didn't see the malicious contact. I should have run that player. Legion game 6-7 years ago. Big city and big (300) assn. Didn't know partner until arr at game site. He spent a lot of time early in the game in B or C while I had the plate. He wasn't the best ump I've ever seen. Couple kids in thecorner of the 1st base dugout started ragging on him, and became insulting and VERY disrespectful. He didn't hear any of this. I walked over to dugout to stop the nonsense. Asked which player had made the most obnoxious remarks, both denied saying anything. As I knew they were lying, I dumped both. If they had owned up to it, no ejection, just warning. Asst coach had to have his share also, and came unglued after I explained what I had done and why. He went. In both these cases I feel ejection was justified. I have a much quicker finger on the trigger when it's adults behaving badly in LL. In Fed I let more stuff go. My line depends on the level of play and circumstance of moment. Chronic loud bad language, especially with small kids present does get my goat. Sorry, I digress...I believe that if we all had the same abilities in game management, we'd probably have proportionally the same number of ejections. And there is the factor of familiarity, i.e., if they know you don't take nuch crap, they learn not to give it.
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 12:24pm
|
|||
|
|||
C'mon Warren, 3 posts in row !!!!
Moose got it right. He didn't say anything about not handling situations that need to be handled. He IS saying don't go looking for situations. Moose is talking "game management". Hearing what is needed to be heard, and not hearing what is not needed to be heard (even though it might be said). --- and TAKING ACTION WHEN NECESSARY. Commandant, you said you call mens level (as do I). Your attitude of black/white print in the book (regarding behavior) will get you more trouble than not. If indeed you practice what you preach, you must end up as the only one on the field in quite of few games. Either that or the Aussie players have fled to the U.S. Sorry, but dealing with men requires much greater judgement on what to accept and what not to accept vs. black/white print in the book. Aussie or Auzzie-I never know when to use 's' or 'z'. Why can't the Brits and Aussies learn to use good American English the way it was meant to be ??? (grin)
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 12:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
What the hell was that??
WW... what the hell is going on?
I did not make a single false statement. You post and analysis that says I am 0-3? You are 0-3. Everything I posted was true. You want to get on here and actually say that EVERY SINGLE time a coach objects (in any way) to your safe-out call he is ejected?? Did your credibility just drop to zero? You actually want to claim that you can EJECT a coach for the reason of "Bad coaching". AFter a botched hit and run, I can call TIME and say, "You! Your DONE! and write in my report I ejected him because he called a hit and run at a bad time?? Did your credibility just drop to less than zero? YOu know I don't usually do this... My post was sensible, logical, true, and reflective of real world situations. YOu chose to rip into three areas... but what is most amusing is that you were wrong on all three. Medication?
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 12:50pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm all for the "see an offense, make an ejection" philosophy, whereas an offensive action doesn't necessarily need to be directed at you to make the ejection. There's been too many times where my partner had heard quite a few comments from the dugouts (not just mumbling and grumbling, but along the lines of "My batter had to pull his pantlegs up so you could see his knees, blue!") that I just didn't hear, but my partner didn't eject because he thought it should have been "my call."
But I can see where this "malicious contact" rule in most youth leagues could cross the line between making someone else's "judgement call" and seeing a possible ejection. Scenario: You're BU, and there's a collision at home. PU calls safe, judges that the runner's contact was not malicious, that he even attempted to avoid contact. From the field, you saw that the runner did move, but only to get a "cleaner shot" of F2, and did throw an elbow into him, so you toss him. Now by ejecting the runner you've essentially also reversed your partner's judgement call. Now judging intent/no intent is along the same lines as out/safe. How should this situation be approached, where an "ejectable judgement" call is seen differently between two umpires?
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 05:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Calm down, Moose. I'm not packin' heat!
Quote:
1. Your post suggested, by contrasting the words SHALL and MAY where they don't even exist, that an umpire could see an offense and elect NOT to punish that offense. That's 0-1, Moose. It isn't our job to be judges of the seriousness of a specific offense. If we see a CLEAR OFFENSE (not some maybe he did, maybe he didn't) and the rule says it is illegal and offers a specific penalty, then we HAVE to apply the rule. There is no "MAY" about it! That is what is required of the umpire by OBR 9.01, Moose. An example I had was where an ex-umpire turned coach, and a very good friend, was coaching a team of tangle-footed under 14's in a Regional B Division final. It was a very proud moment for this guy, getting these kids all this way on sheer hard work and dedication. During the game he tried to make a 2nd visit to his pitcher with the same batter at bat. He was emotional at the time because the game was on a knife edge, but he still went out despite 3 or 4 vehement warnings from me. When he reached the mound I ejected him. That is what the rule required, pure and simple. He had to leave the area and couldn't even hang around to see his kids get across the finish line. My feelings for him, the emotion of the situation and what would be the consequences of my actions didn't enter into the equation. He didn't speak to me for a week after, but eventually he came around and conceded I had no choice. THAT'S the point, Moose. No choice! 2. Your post said an umpire can't eject for offenses such as "wearing an ugly hat or bad coaching". That's 0-2, Moose. The umpire CAN eject for such things, but they wouldn't necessarily be the final reason given in any ejection report. I even gave you a specific rule reference for the "ugly hat" case [OBR 1.11(3)], which you simply ignored. Now let me tell you that if the "bad coaching" involves instructing a pitcher to throw at a batter, then I'm ejecting that guy in a NY minute! I would probably call it something else like unsportsmanlike conduct, but it would still be "bad coaching" at the root of that ejection! Moose, I was simply pointing out that your blanket statements should NOT be taken at their face value. 3. Finally, your post implied that umpires could and should accept a certain amount of objection to their judgement calls before ejecting. Oops! There's that 0-3 call, Moose. There is NO requirement for the umpire to accept ANY objection on judgement calls. In fact, Rule 9.02 is pretty specific that such objections shall NOT be tolerated! Yet, here you are claiming that umpires have to sit there and take it when the player, coach or manager starts arguing the judgement call? No, Moose. Baaad Moose. (grin) Moose, the whole tenor of Pete's post was him wondering whether it would be MORE CONSISTENT for players, coaches and managers if we umpires just applied the rules as required, instead of each choosing to put our own little spin on such matters. You've come out as the chief advocate for going the Moose's way. I've come back and pointed out how that conflicts with the rules you're supposed to uphold. You claim you are advocating a REAL LIFE approach. I say that if you do that then you are part of the problem, not the solution. What you are advocating is BAD for consistent application of the rules, AND for maintaining discipline and order on the playing field, which is one of the umpire's chief responsibilities [see OBR 9.01(a)] Moose, I do NOT have a huge ejection record. I average 1 or at most 2 per year in total, across 2 different leagues and 2 different 6 month seasons. People seem to know that I apply the rules strictly but fairly, and they still manage to have lots of fun. I have even been told by a representative of my UDP that comments have come in to them from players and coaches as to how I'm a good umpire because I'm prepared to listen to their point of view, give a decision and then move on. Does that sound like I'm a hard a$$, Moose? That said, I apply the rules as I have suggested in these posts, and my games are shorter on average and have far less controversy than many of my colleagues. I say my approach keeps MORE players, managers and coaches in the game because they all KNOW where the line is for EVERY GAME. In your games, Moose, my guess is they'd have to wonder whether your antlers are itchy today and whether they can go "this far" or get away with more depending on your mood. Now, Moose, if you STILL think you haven't made "a single false statement" then I'm at a loss to understand your perspective and we'll just have to A2D. I think my credibility remains intact, if that was ever really on the line here. Unfortunately you have chosen to focus on extreme examples ("EVERY SINGLE time a coach objects (in any way) to your safe-out call" and "botched hit and run, I can call TIME and say, "You! Your DONE!"), rather than dealing with the meat of my objections to your approach. Looks like you need a high-flyin' Rocket in your life to bring you back down to earth, Moosie babe! (grin) Cheers. [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:56 PM]
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 06:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers. [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:49 PM]
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 06:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Cheers.
|
|
Thu Dec 21, 2000, 06:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 And for the benefit of Bfair, this one makes FOUR (4) posts in a row! Wow!! I must be on a roll!  [Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 21st, 2000 at 06:08 PM]
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
