Ejection fines?

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by LMan

Interesting. Here (IIRC) its $300 first offense, $750+month off for the second, and something-north-of-750 + season suspension for the third.

That would shorely discourage me!

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.

I kind of think of my formal warning to them as the restriction. If they keep mouthing off after that, it seems that they want to be ejected.

I save the restriction for that rare jerk who never says anything that you can really eject them for, but they are getting on your nerves. I have only used it twice. I suppose it served it's purpose!

[LMan]

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.

Yes, we have been 'advised' to restrict lots, eject less, because of the new fine structure. Its my feeling that, unless its one of the mortal sins (fighting, physical contact, etc), that we will be hung at the yardarm if we eject without restricting first.

[C'monBlue]

I can't imagine anything good coming from restricting a coach to the bench. If he is sufficiently obnoxious to get himself that far, he has probably earned a visit to the parking lot. Leaving him in the dugout to simmer isn't going to be to anyone's advantage. Maybe a stiff fine or two will help him turn over a new, more respectful leaf. In our area, fines are often paid by booster clubs anyway, so the punitive effect is minimal.

[lawump]

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.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by lawump

In fact, the league will overturn the ejection (strike it from the books) if the Head Coach was not restricted first.

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.

I'm glad I don't have to work games there. This stinks of the inmates running the asylum! I feel for my SC brothers.