Got in trouble for this ejection

[MD Longhorn]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

Why did the manger do this?

Was it to win the game - Doubt it

I have to ask why you think this. I'm proceeding from the assumption that the reason he did this was that for SOME reason (not knowing who is batting next, whether the other team's current pitcher would have to be removed for some reason, etc) he DID think that this move helped his team win. I may disagree ... but I have to assume that his move came with that reason in mind. I don't understand why you think otherwise.

With R2/R3 and 3-0 on B1 there is a VERY GOOD Chance that B1 would have walked and the 3 minutes most likely would have ended with the next batter's at bat that's why the manager did what he did.

Now you've abandoned all sense. With 1 out, why would the inning end with his at bat? If it's a drop-dead time limit, and the game DOES end during this kid's at bat ... then beginning another inning is pointless anyway, so that can't be it. The logic here sounds like you DO think he was employing this tactic to give himself a better chance to win... Which is it?

IMO, this is a classic case of a manager employing tactics to DELAY the game.

As much as you want it to be, delay and hasten are not synonyms. Delaying the game is a completely opposite thing ... slowing things down to cause time to run off PREVENTING an extra inning from being played. If the rulesmakers wanted hastening an inning to be included in this rule, they could have and would have. They didn't. this move is not illegal, even if it's bush league.

As mentioned it is the Coach who was "cheating" by not playing the inning the way it should have been played and therefore, time would have run out anyway.

It's not cheating if his tactic is legal.

Let me put it another way. Let's say a particular league has a 10 run rule after 5 innings.

95 degree heat, Bottom 5 HT is winning by 9 runs 2 outs and R3. B1 hits a rope into the gap, the manager tells R3 to stay put. What is your next move?

Answer: That's a balk have a nice day gentlemen

Pete Booth

Holy crap. Bad enough you admit you'd cheat by misreading your watch. Now you're inventing things in play just to get home earlier. Please keep you're sorry cheating backside off the field. The game's not about getting your lazy butt home early - it's about making accurate rulings about what you see in the game. Not inventing things. I'm completely flabbergasted that you purport to be an umpire. Tell TimD I said hi.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Holy crap. Bad enough you admit you'd cheat by misreading your watch....

At least he's honest about his dishonesty. Wait, how do we know he's telling the truth about this?

[UmpLarryJohnson]

WOW is mr PeteBooth a rat in his spare time? sure reads like it!!

his attitude is the same as outlawing the skunk play cause "I dont like it, thats all". Bush does NOT always mean ILLEGAL. Your making up rules to GO HOME EARLY, lying as you go. pitiful. you should RETURN your gamefee.

Leave the LYING to RATS. oh waitaminute......

[edhern]

Thanks for the spirited discussion. Since I started the thread and based on the discussion, here are my final thoughts.

Regarding the ejection:
After the play, the manager anounces out loud something to the effect of "now we have time for another inning." To me that is showing up the umpire and throwing in my face what he did. This is an ejection in my mind and I bet the majority of those out there would have tossed the manager.

Time limit:
It is no inning can start after, the inning goes to completion, not a drop dead time. He has the opportunity to score and win the game. If the batter hit the next pitch into a double play, the next inning starts. Don't say I was looking to get out of there early. In fact, the game afterwards received one start time and really started three minutes later. We gave them three minutes and at 12:27 am (yes, a.m.) we started a new inning without sticking to the original time limit and finished the game at 12:55 a.m. (don't ask about the scheduling). So there was a perfect time to end the game by rule at 12:27 and we didn't.

Now interpreting the rule:
The only thing that is clear is that there is no rule. I will stand by my interpretation and feel I can make a reasonable argument for what I did. A reasonable argument. Only my association can make a determination on how to deal with what happened. Both the President and Umpire-in-Chief did not say what I did was necessarily wrong, but took the politically safe way out regarding their relationship with the account and I took one for the team without asking for an appeal.

My view of the rules as it pertains:
1.02 The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent.
The team was not trying to win by scoring more runs and thus not fulfilling the objective of the game.

4.15 A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team:
(b) Employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game;
Again, in my opinion, he had the opportunity to win the game if he played on. The manager chose to deliberately delay the end of the game for whatever purpose went through his mind.

9.01

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
This is clearly not covered in specifically in the rules and this was my interpretation.


9.04 (a) The umpire in chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:
(1) Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game;

In my opinion, this was not proper conduct of the game.

If this was a court of law it would require case law to decide and there is none because this type of situation with time limits is not covered by MLB rules. There is no resolution only opinions, once again, thanks for yours.

Ed H

[CraigD]

[QUOTE=edhern]
Again, in my opinion, he had the opportunity to win the game if he played on. The manager chose to deliberately delay the end of the game for whatever purpose went through his mind.
[/QUOTE=edhern]

Ed,

What do you think he was thinking? Why did he want to play another inning? Do you think he was trying to lose the game?

[MD Longhorn]

I'm not jumping down your throat like I did Pete - you are asking for input, and not sure whether what you did was right ... and at least are not advocating blatantly making up rules to curtail something you just don't like.

But...

Originally Posted by edhern

After the play, the manager anounces out loud something to the effect of "now we have time for another inning." To me that is showing up the umpire and throwing in my face what he did. This is an ejection in my mind and I bet the majority of those out there would have tossed the manager.

Profane, prolonged, or personal. If this is an ejection by itself, I suggest getting thicker skin. If this comment was after some sort of related argument, and it was obvious he was trying to show you up, fine, toss him. By itself, this comment doesn't sound ejectionable.

Time limit:
It is no inning can start after, the inning goes to completion, not a drop dead time. He has the opportunity to score and win the game. If the batter hit the next pitch into a double play, the next inning starts. Don't say I was looking to get out of there early.

I didn't. I said Pete was. I don't think this was your motivation at all. I think your motivation was that you thought he was breaking a rule, and you were enforcing that rule. My only response to this is that it was not, in fact, breaking a rule, and you overstepped your authority inadvertently.

In fact, the game afterwards received one start time and really started three minutes later. We gave them three minutes and at 12:27 am (yes, a.m.) we started a new inning without sticking to the original time limit and finished the game at 12:55 a.m. (don't ask about the scheduling). So there was a perfect time to end the game by rule at 12:27 and we didn't.

At the risk of sounding like I'm just trying to be contrary to everything ... this is just as bad. The game ends when the game ends. Don't cut it short, and don't "give them another inning". Had the lead changed hands in that "extra inning", your decision to go outside the time limit could have cheated one team.

Now interpreting the rule:
The only thing that is clear is that there is no rule. I will stand by my interpretation and feel I can make a reasonable argument for what I did. A reasonable argument. Only my association can make a determination on how to deal with what happened. Both the President and Umpire-in-Chief did not say what I did was necessarily wrong, but took the politically safe way out regarding their relationship with the account and I took one for the team without asking for an appeal.

Fair enough. Just know for the future that there is no rule against getting out on purpose to try to get a new inning in in a time limit game. There IS a rule against delaying, but this is the opposite.

The below sections seem to be weak justifications for what you did, in retrospect. But I'll hit each one.

1.02 The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent.
The team was not trying to win by scoring more runs and thus not fulfilling the objective of the game.

The objective is not a rule per se as much as a definition. There's no penalty for violating a definition.

4.15 A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team:
(b) Employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game;
Again, in my opinion, he had the opportunity to win the game if he played on. The manager chose to deliberately delay the end of the game for whatever purpose went through his mind.

I don't know how it's an opinion to reverse the definition of "delay" or "shorten". This rule applies to situations exactly opposite from the one you were confronted with. Employing a tactic that a manager thinks will help him win by getting to another inning, for whatever reason, is not illegal.

9.01

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
This is clearly not covered in specifically in the rules and this was my interpretation.

This has been covered here before... but if you have to resort to 9.01c, you are probably misinterpreting something. If a hangglider lands on your field ... an earthquake disrupts play ... a fence falls into the field... etc - go get your 9.01c. MOST things that can be anticipated are in the rulebook ... and a coach letting his kids get out so he can play another inning has SURELY been anticipated.

9.04 (a) The umpire in chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:
(1) Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game;

In my opinion, this was not proper conduct of the game.

So eject. Conduct is one thing. Tactics is completely different, and covered elsewhere.

If this was a court of law it would require case law to decide and there is none because this type of situation with time limits is not covered by MLB rules. There is no resolution only opinions, once again, thanks for yours.

This is not the first time this has ever happened. Trust us (not just me), a wealth of experience here has told you that what this manager did is not illegal. Folks that have faced this. Folks that have been in rooms when rule changes are discussed. Trust me - it's not illegal.

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by edhern

Thanks for the spirited discussion. Since I started the thread and based on the discussion, here are my final thoughts.

Regarding the ejection:
After the play, the manager anounces out loud something to the effect of "now we have time for another inning." To me that is showing up the umpire and throwing in my face what he did. This is an ejection in my mind and I bet the majority of those out there would have tossed the manager.

Time limit:
It is no inning can start after, the inning goes to completion, not a drop dead time. He has the opportunity to score and win the game. If the batter hit the next pitch into a double play, the next inning starts. Don't say I was looking to get out of there early. In fact, the game afterwards received one start time and really started three minutes later. We gave them three minutes and at 12:27 am (yes, a.m.) we started a new inning without sticking to the original time limit and finished the game at 12:55 a.m. (don't ask about the scheduling). So there was a perfect time to end the game by rule at 12:27 and we didn't.

Now interpreting the rule:
The only thing that is clear is that there is no rule. I will stand by my interpretation and feel I can make a reasonable argument for what I did. A reasonable argument. Only my association can make a determination on how to deal with what happened. Both the President and Umpire-in-Chief did not say what I did was necessarily wrong, but took the politically safe way out regarding their relationship with the account and I took one for the team without asking for an appeal.

My view of the rules as it pertains:
1.02 The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent.
The team was not trying to win by scoring more runs and thus not fulfilling the objective of the game.

4.15 A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team:
(b) Employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game;
Again, in my opinion, he had the opportunity to win the game if he played on. The manager chose to deliberately delay the end of the game for whatever purpose went through his mind.

9.01

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
This is clearly not covered in specifically in the rules and this was my interpretation.


9.04 (a) The umpire in chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:
(1) Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game;

In my opinion, this was not proper conduct of the game.

If this was a court of law it would require case law to decide and there is none because this type of situation with time limits is not covered by MLB rules. There is no resolution only opinions, once again, thanks for yours.

Ed H

I feel compeled to chime in on this discussion. Firstly, you take it upon yourself to make up your own rules, and apply them as you saw fit. Secondly, you fall back on 9.01c as a backup. Quite lame of you, if you ask me. And thirdly, I disagree with what the manager did, but it is fully within the rules, (as has been shown earlier in this thread), and then you decide he's "showing
up the umpire and throwing in my face what he did". How rabbit-eared of you.
Possibly, this situation is not covered in the OBR for the simple reason that it is NOT illegal. Nice of you to solicit input, and then try to argue everyone down when they disagree with what you have done.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by edhern

Time limit:


Now interpreting the rule:
The only thing that is clear is that there is no rule.

Incorrect.

I will stand by my interpretation and feel I can make a reasonable argument for what I did. A reasonable argument. Only my association can make a determination on how to deal with what happened. Both the President and Umpire-in-Chief did not say what I did was necessarily wrong, but took the politically safe way out regarding their relationship with the account and I took one for the team without asking for an appeal.

Stand by or sit by, doesn't matter. It's incorrect. BTW: Nice spin to claim taking one for the team, when in fact neither your president or UIC could take your back on this.

9.01

(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
This is clearly not covered in specifically in the rules and this was my interpretation.

Wrong again. The reasons for a forfeit are specifically addressed. It is improper to employ 9.01(c) here.

9.04 (a) The umpire in chief shall stand behind the catcher. (He usually is called the plate umpire.) His duties shall be to:
(1) Take full charge of, and be responsible for, the proper conduct of the game;

In my opinion, this was not proper conduct of the game.

Once again, you have no backing by rule.[/QUOTE]

If this was a court of law it would require case law to decide and there is none because this type of situation with time limits is not covered by MLB rules. There is no resolution only opinions, once again, thanks for yours.
Ed H

Hopefully you are not an attorney.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by edhern

We gave them three minutes and at 12:27 am (yes, a.m.) we started a new inning without sticking to the original time limit and finished the game at 12:55 a.m. (don't ask about the scheduling). So there was a perfect time to end the game by rule at 12:27 and we didn't.

I'm a little confused. You stopped one game before the time limit, and then you extended the next game beyond the time limit?

On the original play -- yes, what the coach did was (likely) "wrong." That said, it's a league issue, not an umpire issue. You can write a report if you think he's making a "mockery of the game", but you should have, imo, completed the game.

[SanDiegoSteve]

This is the reason that most time limits here in SD have a "no new inning can start after ____," and a "drop dead time," where no matter where you are in an inning, the game is over, and reverts back to the last inning's score no matter what. It is always 15 minutes from the "no new inning" time to the "drop dead time."