"Line in the Sand" revisted under FED

[Patrick Szalapski]

Suppose this is a high school game. You call a close strike, and the batter draws the line in the sand to, er, express his displeasure.

Many said "eject", some said that it depends on the situation. Would this be a good time to restrict the batter to the dugout? Seems like it to me, but there wasn't any discussion of it in the original thread--the opinions were to eject, use the FYC, or handle it in some other clever way.

I hope NOT to start any further flame wars. Thanks in advance.

P-Sz

[GarthB]

Toss him.

Toss him immediately...

First pitch of first game last year...batter draws a nice deep line just off the inside of the plate and looks at me. I said "I can't believe you just drew a line on me...Goodbye!"

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Patrick Szalapski
Suppose this is a high school game. You call a close strike, and the batter draws the line in the sand to, er, express his displeasure.

Many said "eject", some said that it depends on the situation. Would this be a good time to restrict the batter to the dugout? Seems like it to me, but there wasn't any discussion of it in the original thread--the opinions were to eject, use the FYC, or handle it in some other clever way.

I hope NOT to start any further flame wars. Thanks in advance.

P-Sz

Silly rabbit, dugout restrictions are for coaches, not players.

[DG]

In my state, dugout restrictions are for players and coaches. Ejections are only for 6 sins: Fighting, taunting or baiting, obscene gestures, profanity, intentional biting, disrepectfully addressing or contacting an umpire. So, you could restrict a player to the duguout, if you choose to do so.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DG
In my state, dugout restrictions are for players and coaches. Ejections are only for 6 sins: Fighting, taunting or baiting, obscene gestures, profanity, intentional biting, disrepectfully addressing or contacting an umpire. So, you could restrict a player to the duguout, if you choose to do so.

Well I'm glad your state is taking a firm stand against intentional biting.

Personally, I'm a hardliner against biting, intentional or unintentional. I am also opposed to gouging of the eyes (unless the Curly Howard defensive maneuver is successfully implemented), and intentional hair pulling.

[JRutledge]

Do what you observers want you to do. Do what the standards are in your area. And do what you feel is best. I have given my opinion on this before and we really do not have to go thru this again. Handle this the best way you know how and stick with that.

Peace

[millhouse76]

Eject. Why not? Or, why? He has taken the ball game, for that split second, out of your hands. Hell, we don't have a great view of the zone, and he has an even worst one. If you don't eject, you have to stick it up his ***. Before you stick it up his ***, you have to know how and when. The better answer, EJ. An umpire, at any level, should not get showed up. This is what he jsut did.
Believe me. At any level, and I mean any level, you will not get in trouble for an EJ in this situation.

[Tim C]

"In my state, dugout restrictions are for players and coaches."

DG:

This may be more accurate than some of the other posts.

In my state you would eject the player. However, in my state, we are required to keep the player in the dugout.

So really, even though we ejected him, he is actually "restricted" since those rules disallow him on to the field.

Does this post make sense?

Tee

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Youth players must continue to have adult supervision - can't send them off to smoke cigarettes and buy beer, etc.

There is a definte responsibility difference for the umpire ... ejection - file a report; restrict to dugout - no so bad, no paperwork.

Eject a coach, paperwork yes. AND he has got to leave (sight and sound). Someone must still be left to supervise the kids or game over.

[jicecone]

"O Ye of LITTLE Faith"

[DG]

Originally posted by Tim C
"In my state, dugout restrictions are for players and coaches."

DG:

This may be more accurate than some of the other posts.

In my state you would eject the player. However, in my state, we are required to keep the player in the dugout.

So really, even though we ejected him, he is actually "restricted" since those rules disallow him on to the field.

Does this post make sense?

Tee

Ejection or restriction to dugout, the player would still stay in the dugout. Players must be supervised by adults. The difference here is that 3 ejections in a 12 month period from any sport means 12 months of playing no high school sports, baseball, football, basketball, anything. So "ejections" are for the more serious offenses mentioned, ie fighting, etc...

[Carl Childress]

[/QUOTE]

Silly rabbit, dugout restrictions are for coaches, not players.
[/QUOTE]Not quite right. Read 3-1-1. But players guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct may not be restricted under standard NFHS rules.

[Patrick Szalapski]

Thanks for the insights all; makes sense to me.

P-Sz