Recent Game - 1st Ejection of the year

[gobama84]

Originally Posted by Durham

Ok Pete,

"In the top of the 2nd, the third out was made on a non-routine play at first base where the first baseman possibly had his foot off the base. My partner called the runner out and the entire dugout erupted."

Why don't you explain to me how you handle it from there and why you handle it that way.

Let me jump in here.
I would ignore it, it wasn't my call.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by gobama84

Let me jump in here.
I would ignore it, it wasn't my call.

Ok, you would ignore it, because it was not your call. How about the rest of you? What would you do?

[SanDiegoSteve]

I would let the BU handle it because it was his call. I would walk calmly in that direction, and if the BU had more than he could handle, then I would get involved, but not before.

[Tim C]

I would only get involved if requested by the calling umpire.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I would only get involved if requested by the calling umpire.

I think it is appropriate to steer the unnecessary participants away from what should be the BU and the Head Coach only. I won't wait for my partner to request this. We are instructed to help out in this regard. I won't involve myself in the arguement unless requested.

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by Durham

Ok Pete,

"In the top of the 2nd, the third out was made on a non-routine play at first base where the first baseman possibly had his foot off the base. My partner called the runner out and the entire dugout erupted."

Why don't you explain to me how you handle it from there and why you handle it that way.

I am very surprised with all your experience that you would ask this type of question. The call belonged to the BU, therefore, I would give my partner the respect he/she deserves and let them handle it. There is no need for me to get involved.

If the BU wants any help or assistance from me he/she will ask.

I think you are "pulling our legs" now because most of us learned to not intervene with our partners call unless asked to do so in Umpiring 101.

Pete Booth

[Durham]

Tee,

Two questions:

First why don't the Ducks have a team? It seems like they would be able to support a decent one if you look at the rest of their programs, and the Beavers have a rather strong team, although their bats were silent today.

Second, can you share some insight on why the ejections that you mentioned that were over-turned were over-turned?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

I am very surprised with all your experience that you would ask this type of question. The call belonged to the BU, therefore, I would give my partner the respect he/she deserves and let them handle it. There is no need for me to get involved.

If the BU wants any help or assistance from me he/she will ask.

I think you are "pulling our legs" now because most of us learned to not intervene with our partners call unless asked to do so in Umpiring 101.

Pete Booth

First off Pete, my experience has taught me that I don't know everything and to open my mind to learning about other ideas, even ones I do not agree with. Maybe I don't agree with them simply don't understand them.

Second, I was there that day in umpiring 101 and I did learn that, but the funny thing is, if you keep going to class thru the 200's and 300's they have you unlearn some of the things they first taught you and teach you different things: like you are partners and here is the rule book and these are the guidelines and at the end of the day you have to make sure they are done as a team, and not you take this half and I take my half and let's go work.

Examples:
Number of on deck hitters, I know there should only be 2 on deck hitters in NCAA and I see 4 guys out there swing the bat. The crew is responsible for enforcing that, but many guys think, I can't say anything about that it is the PU's job.
Last year, a player drew a line on a called third on my partner and he didn't see it, I turned to the HC who was at the end of the 3rd base dugout next to me and I asked him to take care of it and he pulled the player from the game. Did I step on toes there or help the crew?
A friend of mine, AAA umpire is working a game a few weeks ago, and his partner makes a call that one team doesn't like and the HC of that team throws his hat onto the field and the BU doesn't see it, so my friend runs him. Did he step on toes or help the crew?
A guy in the dugout snipers your partner on balls and strikes and you see exactly who did it. Why not help your partner?
The right fielder yells at your partner on balls and strikes. Why not turn and let him know you heard him and that you don't want to hear it again?
You’re at the 45-foot line on a play at first and the 1st base dugout pops off at your partner after he has had several close calls. Why not help out by deflecting for him?

I have learned that it is better for the crew to umpire the situation and not stick to it's his call and he has to take every ounce of crap for it. If the teams know that I am watching your back and you are watching mine and they have to deal with the 2 or 3 of us, it makes our job easier. Why would I disrespect my partner by letting him go it alone if I could help him, and the crew?

[mcrowder]

"... I am willing to learn..."

"... I am willing to open my mind and listen to other suggestions..."

Uh, no you're not. Much the opposite in fact. It's clear to 90% of the real umpires here that you "warned" too much, WAY to much in my opinion. Feel free to be in the minority here, but don't denigrate EVERYONE for disagreeing with you, especially since you specifically requested input and profess to be open to learning.

PS - I've worked in many states, and ALL of them require write-ups in short order for ANY ejections. This is not the first time you've stated erroneous assumptions about high school officiating. Did you EVER work high-school ball? Or were you born an NCAA umpire one day, right from the umpiring womb?

PPS - it's the kiss of death to get PWL on your side. That should tell you right there that you've strayed way off base and are subject to an appeal.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PWL

If you don't know when you see it, all the defining in the world won't help you.

Sometimes, you just have to umpire.

Nifty little catch phrase there, PWL. Think that up all by yourself?


If it was that easy then Tee would not have been asked to work on coming up with a way to define MC for FED play in the state of Oregon. One of the things we've discussed away from this board was the concept of "contact with the intent to injure the play." That's right, not just injure another player, but injure the play with unnecessary contact. There are other nuances to take into account other than the obvious intentional collision or trip. Umpire the game long enough and you'll see this for yourself.


Tim.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

"... I am willing to learn..."

"... I am willing to open my mind and listen to other suggestions..."

Uh, no you're not. Much the opposite in fact. It's clear to 90% of the real umpires here that you "warned" too much, WAY to much in my opinion. Feel free to be in the minority here, but don't denigrate EVERYONE for disagreeing with you, especially since you specifically requested input and profess to be open to learning.

PS - I've worked in many states, and ALL of them require write-ups in short order for ANY ejections. This is not the first time you've stated erroneous assumptions about high school officiating. Did you EVER work high-school ball? Or were you born an NCAA umpire one day, right from the umpiring womb?

PPS - it's the kiss of death to get PWL on your side. That should tell you right there that you've strayed way off base and are subject to an appeal.

I asked a question, not for input on how I handled it. As for being open to learning new things I am very open. If you can show me how and why a different way is better, and it makes since to me, then why would I not use it? I am not talking about you did it wrong. If your reasoning for me doing it wrong is that I stepped on toes, I offered that my partners and I don't see it that way, and if you say that I warned too much, then you are confusing the difference between interacting with participants and actually saying that this is your warning. When I said that, the guy got ejected.

To answer your question about what order I worked ball in, I did work NCAA before I worked HS.

To answer your concern regarding PWL, I don't know this individual, nor do I know enough about them to pass judgment.

[Tim C]

Sorry Tim, I did not see your question until a few moments ago.

The NFHS Executive Committee is reviewing the Oregon Malicious Contact guidelines as we speak.

FED has decided that coaches and administrators constant request for some type of guidelines has finally struck a nerve.

The majority of ejections in Oregon were for MC, the majority of additional game suspensions that were overturned on appeal were MC.

Oregon Malicious Contact Guideline:

The NFHS Baseball rulebook does not have a written definition for malicious contact. Refer to rule 3-3-1. Umpires must rule on all contact. The Umpires must determine if it is a violation of the rules and determine if the contact was incidental, interference or interference and malicious.

Keep in mind that; not all contact is malicious. Some interference calls involve contact.

Some contact is malicious.

We will attempt to give you some tools to understand contact and malicious contact.

Remember, if all players are doing what they are supposed to be doing, then there is probably not going to be an interference ruling. If a player is initiating contact, then there will be an interference ruling. More must occur to result in a ruling of Malicious Contact.

Please read on.

Oregon Ruling: Malicious Contact

Malicious contact: any willful or reckless actions or behavior(s) by any player either on offense or on defense, with intent to commit an unsportsmanlike act and/or cause harm or injure a player.

This usually centers on an attempt to dislodge a baseball, take the player out of the play, inflict pain or punishment on a player or to strike an opponent.

Since 99.9% of plays concerning Malicious Contact are instigated by the offensive player the following references are offered:

Guideline for 2006:

1) If a runner has time to get down and does not, the onus is for contact is on him.
2) If the runner then crashes into a fielder and knocks the fielder down, it is malicious contact.
3) If "malicious contact" is instigated by the offensive palyer and is called, the runner will always be called out.

As noted above this is now in the hands of the NFHS BUT the Oregon School Activities Association unanimously approved these guidelines for all high school baseball games played in this state for 2006.

Hope this helps.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Sorry Tim, I did not see your question until a few moments ago.

The NFHS Executive Committee is reviewing the Oregon Malicious Contact guidelines as we speak.

FED has decided that coaches and administrators constant request for some type of guidelines has finally struck a nerve.

The majority of ejections in Oregon were for MC, the majority of additional game suspensions that were overturned on appeal were MC.

Oregon Malicious Contact Guideline:

The NFHS Baseball rulebook does not have a written definition for malicious contact. Refer to rule 3-3-1. Umpires must rule on all contact. The Umpires must determine if it is a violation of the rules and determine if the contact was incidental, interference or interference and malicious.

Keep in mind that; not all contact is malicious. Some interference calls involve contact.

Some contact is malicious.

We will attempt to give you some tools to understand contact and malicious contact.

Remember, if all players are doing what they are supposed to be doing, then there is probably not going to be an interference ruling. If a player is initiating contact, then there will be an interference ruling. More must occur to result in a ruling of Malicious Contact.

Please read on.

Oregon Ruling: Malicious Contact

Malicious contact: any willful or reckless actions or behavior(s) by any player either on offense or on defense, with intent to commit an unsportsmanlike act and/or cause harm or injure a player.

This usually centers on an attempt to dislodge a baseball, take the player out of the play, inflict pain or punishment on a player or to strike an opponent.

Since 99.9% of plays concerning Malicious Contact are instigated by the offensive player the following references are offered:

Guideline for 2006:

1) If a runner has time to get down and does not, the onus is for contact is on him.
2) If the runner then crashes into a fielder and knocks the fielder down, it is malicious contact.
3) If "malicious contact" is instigated by the offensive palyer and is called, the runner will always be called out.

As noted above this is now in the hands of the NFHS BUT the Oregon School Activities Association unanimously approved these guidelines for all high school baseball games played in this state for 2006.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Tee.


I was wondering how you were going to incorporate the "injure the play" idea into the draft. I do agree with you that a flagrant attempt to dislodge the ball from a fielders hand or glove should be considered MC. It's my opinion that this doesn't have to be done just by crashing a fielder. Kicking at the ball would be an example of something I would consider MC, or slapping at the ball. For defensive MC I might have included flagrant hard tags.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by PWL

Durham,

Don't worry about me. I was just explaining what you were dealing with. They don't offer advice. They just want to cut someone to shreds with their hindsight. The only way most them can handle a situation without self-imploding is eject at the very first objectionable word. Most of them just work FED or a limited low level college schedule, anyway.

Take the situation, and learn from it.

More irony. Someone who has never had an ejection giving advice on ejections.

Durham:

You'll find excellent advice on this site. Where you'll run into trouble is when you begin to argue repeatedly against that advice. It's like I tell my sons. If you didn't want an answer to the question then why did you ask it. I can tell you that from my experience on the board and through private correspondence with some of the boards more prominent members there have been many, many umpires who've come here to validate themselves even though they were wrong. They ask a question and if they don't get the answer they want they beat it to death until they either get their way or everyone stops responding to them at all. I'm not saying you should be thrown into that category, but you will find the boards members leery of newcomers who begin to argue in their first few threads.


Tim.

[Durham]

In this instance I am going to have to agree with you. I don't see any sharing and learning going on.