Do you toss this coach?

[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

[SanDiegoSteve]

I believe you have a point, John.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Now as I reread Bainer's original post, I see that he did warn the assistant not to permit the players to go into the stands, and neither that coach nor his players heeded that warning. He was well within his rights, in fact absolutely should have run that second coach the moment that any players went back to the stands after being warned.