Do you toss this coach?

[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.

[UmpJM]

Steve,

...As we make the swap, I warn him that his players better stay out of the stands...

I see what you mean.

I still think it would have been better umpiring to do as I suggested in my reply to Bainer. What do you think?

If the team/coach absolutely refuses to comply with the umpires' instructions, I certainly agree that the umpire has the authority to declare a forfeit.

In my opinion, it is better umpiring not to let it get to that point. It seems to me that there was one a$$hole at this game. Bainer properly, (maybe a little later than he could/should have) ejected him. I would be more favorably impressed with an umpire that simply made him leave (if he could) than one who let it get to a forfeit situation.

JM