Do you toss this coach?

[SanDiegoSteve]

You may have wanted to nip the earlier chirping in the bud as soon as the ex-jock coach started in. That would have prevented the not shutting up the whole game thing.

After you dumped the coach, he should not be allowed in the stands, unless he has changed into street clothes, as the rule specifies. Even in street clothes, he cannot be in the vicinity, close enough for his players and the assistant coach (new manager) to relay signals and instructions. There is no "tunnel" for him to hide out in like in the pros, so when he obviously violates the "take no further part in that game" part of the rule, you warn the new manager not to allow any further communication with the ejected coach. Then, if anyone violates this order, they get ejected. Get rid of the adult coaches, or down to 8 players, and voila, game over.

Don't lose any sleep over running these clowns!

BTW, I have a tournament game next weekend featuring "Blackjack" Jack McDowell and Kurt McKaskill as opposing coaches of 12U all-stars!

[Bainer]

WHOA!
Okay, this was a youth travel game, so I'm not going to go nuts and run them down to 8 or dump the grownups- that's the 'A Bomb', baby- you may win the war, but NOTHING survives- not your integrity, not your respect, not the enjoyment being on a ballfield- NOTHING.

I wasn't trying to end the game, or show him up, who would want that? I'm just trying to let the game progress as it should- without the people that are interferring por breaking the rules

-Also, stopped losing sleep over ejections in, like, '84. My question was whether anyone had any opinions or ideas about running a coach who talked to an ejected manager.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Bainer

WHOA!
Okay, this was a youth travel game, so I'm not going to go nuts and run them down to 8 or dump the grownups- that's the 'A Bomb', baby- you may win the war, but NOTHING survives- not your integrity, not your respect, not the enjoyment being on a ballfield- NOTHING.

I wasn't trying to end the game, or show him up, who would want that? I'm just trying to let the game progress as it should- without the people that are interferring por breaking the rules

-Also, stopped losing sleep over ejections in, like, '84. My question was whether anyone had any opinions or ideas about running a coach who talked to an ejected manager.

Look, you are the one who said he wouldn't shut up the whole game. That needs to be shut down right away, in no uncertain terms. The fact that you let him get away with so much early is the reason you had problems later.

Ejecting people for violating the rules is not "going nuts," as you call it. I very rarely need to eject anyone, but if they persist in breaking the rules, I am not shy to do so. In your post, you said:

Chaos ensues on team's bench, ten or twelve guys yell for time, players are pouring into the crowd, and the ejected coach has now moved to the edge of the fencing and is shouting orders to everyone- who to sub in, what to do, etc."

To me, this sounded like things were totally out of control. Players pouring into the crowd? How did this happen? Of course you had to run the second manager. They must have had a third coach on the bench to take over for that guy you just dumped, right? Well, what if they had persisted and you had to dump him, and he was the last coach? That is what I was getting at. You say players left the bench and went into the stands? Warn them to get back on the field, and if they do it again you toss them. That is what I was saying. I did not mean for you to "go nuts" and just start ejecting people left and right without first getting the situation under control. If that is what you thought I meant, then you must think I'm some kind of rook, or a big hot-head on the field. I am neither. I certainly never led my association in ejections, but I take care of "bidness" when I need to!

If all you were looking for was a confirmation that you did the right thing, without hearing any constructive criticism, then you came to the wrong place. If you stopped losing sleep over ejections back in '84, why did you need any opinions about running a coach who blatantly broke the rules? It sounds to me that this ain't your first go-round at the ol' rodeo.

[bossman72]

JM-

4.15- a game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team:

(f) fails to obey within a reasonable amount of time the umpire's order for the removal of a player from the game.


So, the umpires most certainly do have the right to forfeit the game.

[SanDiegoSteve]

JM,

In addition to all the provisions of Rule 4.15, also see:

Rule 9.04(a) - The umpire-in-chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:

(6) Decide when a game shall be forfeited.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

JM,

In addition to all the provisions of Rule 4.15, also see:

Rule 9.04(a) - The umpire-in-chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:

(6) Decide when a game shall be forfeited.

Steve,

I would suggest that 9.04(a)(6) is constrained by the conditions defined in 4.15. I don't think they were met in this case.

JM

[UmpJM]

bossman,

The manager had been removed from the game, and was no longer on the field of play.

While 4.15(f) says "a player", I would certainly agree that it would equally apply to a manager.

However, the umpires' juridstiction applies to "the field of play" - not beyond it.

Reference:

9.01
(a) The league president shall appoint one or more umpires to officiate at each league championship game. The umpires shall be responsible for the conduct of the game in accordance with these official rules and for maintaining discipline and order on the playing field during the game.

While I would agree that the umpires' authority on the playing field is pretty much absolute, the umpires' authority beyond those bounds is considerably less. This is not a semantic issue.

If the umpire allows other members of the team to continue to communicate with the manager who has been removed from the game, the umpire is derelict in his duty. However, he does not have the authority to declare a forfeit because he allowed it.

JM

[SanDiegoSteve]

JM, he actually does, since the members of the team are willfully and persistently violating any rules of the game, after being warned not to do so by the umpire. Rule 4.15(e).

[UmpJM]

Steve,

Now that is a valid point, and is along the lines of what I was trying to suggest.

Had the umpire, in fact, instructed the remaining coaches/players to refrain from communicating with the ejected coach, and they (willfully?) failed to do so, that would be grounds for a forfeit and the umpire would be within his authority to declare it so.

By my read of Bainer's situation, that didn't happen.

Also, I think it would be better umpiring, given the context, to do as I suggested.

JM

[DG]

The one and only game I have ever forfeited was because the ejected manager would not leave. He left the field but was still visible and audible. If I see an ejected manager anywhere near the playing field the first warning will be a forfeit warning. No one would be allowed to leave the bench to have a conversation with him.

My opinion of ejecting a coach who talked to an ejected manager? It wouldn't happen.

[UmpJM]

Bainer,

Originally Posted by Bainer

Partner and I both notice the pitcher from the first game leaving the bench and going into the crowd...then returning to talk to the assistant...then leaving again, etc. (we all know what's going on at this point)

IMO, as soon as you knew what was going on with the jerk manager you properly ejected you should have:

1. halted the game.

2. announced that it would not continue until the ejected manager had left the premises.

3. if he had not left the premises within whatever you considered a reasonable amount of time, announced that the game was suspended and leave it to the league to decide how they want to deal with it.

I actually believe that your second ejection was improper. The second ejection was a result of your failure to enforce the first ejection.

I also believe that you do not have the authority to declare a forfeit in the situation you described, as some have suggested. I applaud your response in saying you would not abuse your legitimate authority in issuing additional ejections to the point that you would have the authority to declare a forfeit.

Now, if the ejected manager refuses to leave and you do suspend the game, if I'm on the league BOD, I might be inclined to declare the game a forfeit. I would certainly be inclined to suspend the offending manager for (at least) the remainder of the season.

But hey, I'm just a coach (and a BOD member), so I could be wrong.

JM

[DG]

Suspend a game because an ejected manager will not leave the premises? No way coach!

[UmpJM]

DG,

I believe you suggested the proper remedy in this situation is for the umpire to declare a forfeit.

I do not believe the rules grant the umpire this authority. I believe my suggestions to Bainer are proper and within the authority granted the umpire by the rules.

I am open to being convinced otherwise.

What's your basis? (Cites, please.)

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

DG,

I believe you suggested the proper remedy in this situation is for the umpire to declare a forfeit.

I do not believe the rules grant the umpire this authority. I believe my suggestions to Bainer are proper and within the authority granted the umpire by the rules.

I am open to being convinced otherwise.

What's your basis? (Cites, please.)

JM

As I said earlier, "My opinion of ejecting a coach who talked to an ejected manager? It wouldn't happen." It wouldn't happen because I am not going to allow an ejected manager any contact with the team. A warning will be issued on first offense. The warning will include the consequence if this continues, and then when it does, game over. The game will not continue after a manager ejection, until I can no longer see or hear him. And as I mentioned earlier, the only game I have ever forfeited was because a manager would not leave the premises. He made a nuisance of himself, from 100 feet away from the field and would not leave. The league adminstration did not take too kindly of his actions, he never coached another game there.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Bainer,



IMO, as soon as you knew what was going on with the jerk manager you properly ejected you should have:

1. halted the game.

2. announced that it would not continue until the ejected manager had left the premises.

3. if he had not left the premises within whatever you considered a reasonable amount of time, announced that the game was suspended and leave it to the league to decide how they want to deal with it.

I actually believe that your second ejection was improper. The second ejection was a result of your failure to enforce the first ejection.

I also believe that you do not have the authority to declare a forfeit in the situation you described, as some have suggested. I applaud your response in saying you would not abuse your legitimate authority in issuing additional ejections to the point that you would have the authority to declare a forfeit.

Now, if the ejected manager refuses to leave and you do suspend the game, if I'm on the league BOD, I might be inclined to declare the game a forfeit. I would certainly be inclined to suspend the offending manager for (at least) the remainder of the season.

But hey, I'm just a coach (and a BOD member), so I could be wrong.

JM

You're right and wrong. While the umpire should've gotten rid of the first guy, it doesn't excuse the second guy and he needed to go, too.