Quote:
Originally Posted by umpduck11
Have ya'll been encouraged to use the "time out" restriction more because of the fine scale ? Because here in the 'Ham, we have. Not that I think it will make any difference.
|
In SC...ABSOLUTELY. In fact, the league will overturn the ejection (strike it from the books) if the Head Coach was not restricted first. The only time a head coach can be ejected without being restricted is if he engages in truly severe conduct (i.e. charging, personal attack on umpire's integrity (usually with curse words), etc.)
For example, if a coach continues to argue (not personally attacking you...but just not letting the game get going again, and not letting "it" go) you must (1) warn (2) restrict (3) then eject.
Let me say this: if you eject without doing steps 1 & 2, you better be absolutely sure the conduct is severe. The league tends, IMO, to overturn ejections before upholding them if no restriction was given.
For example, I had a game where the head coach argued balls and strikes. I gave a verbal warning. On the next pitch, he jumped up and yelled "that's awful" and at the same time threw is hat on the ground. I ejected him. (Classic pro ejection: "if the hat comes off...the coach must go!") The league overturned it for failing to issue a restriction.
Assistant coaches are not subject to this analysis. We have permission to immediately eject them without warning/restriction. Same with players.