A Two-fer

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

there's no "hurry", but ejecting when the act occurs can help prevent further ejections (from others getting involved) and help stop the claim that you were "talked into it" by the team not committing the act.

Like this?

"Blues, Coach X and his team, they talked you into that ejection.!"
"Coach Z, I ejected your player for ."
"Why did you wait so long then?'
"I didn't wait any longer than was required to finish the play."
"What?, Why wait?"
Coach, if I eject while the ball is live, I could influence play. Simple as that."

Point being, the ejected player is no less guilty, no less ejected whether you potentialy disrupt play withj a live ball ejection or you wait until there is no chance you are going to disrutp play.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Didn't you make the rules? You are the boss there, right?

All association rules are subject to vote unless thay are contractual.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Who needs time? He came down to the plate ranting and raving. He'd be gone before reaching me. Teenager, adult, whatever. Ejection is effective at the end of playing action. Besides, in high enough level baseball, I'm happy to call time after a walk before watching everyone advance a base.

You're not serious, you kill the ball on walks?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by fitump56
The play is live. If you interrupt potential defensive actions, or offensive reactions, with an ejection, and I'm either coach, you got a real problem coming.

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

There's nothing to interrupt while issuing the ejection and watching continuing action at the same time.

If there is nothing to interrrupt, then please define
'continuing action"???

The only problem I see with one of the coaches coming out to ***** about the timing of the ejection is the additional pen to paper time I'll have to endure while writing my ejection report. That shouldn't take more than a minute of my time and less than a tenth of a cent for ink, so I won't be too torn up about it.................

ok

I have no clue what all that above meant, Timothy. But I do want to comment on your asking if I thought you were an inexperienced umpire. Sure do; the 90' game is not one you can stand the test of experience.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by fitump56

If there is nothing to interrrupt, then please define
'continuing action"???


ok

I have no clue what all that above meant, Timothy. But I do want to comment on your asking if I thought you were an inexperienced umpire. Sure do; the 90' game is not one you can stand the test of experience.

I don't know, Donovan, but it sure seems to me that allowing a pitcher to continue to throw a tantrum on the field is much more detrimental to the game than issuing an ejection during playing action. The players whose games I work aren't the stooges you'd have them to be. They continue playing until "time" is called. Must be a mens league thing.........


Well, gee, Donovan, I don't recall asking what you thought of my experience. Truth is I'm all torn up that you'd insinuate I'm not experienced. I may not work drunken men's league games like you're so fond of working, but I manage to stumble through real games anyway. Maybe someday I'll reach that pinnacle of umpiring you've set for the forum.


Tim.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you couldn't eject during playing action, hen they wouldn't have the statement in the rules about the ejection not becoming effective until the end of playing action.

Eject when the action occurs.

Yes.

um, yea, mr "Donovan"....time forthe board to chalk up another swingnamiss from you on umpiring

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by fitump56

Coach, if I eject while the ball is live, I could influence play. Simple as that."

Huh? You can't influence a play when you eject someone while the ball's live or a play's going on. I've done it, and never has a problem resulted. There have been a few times where a fielder or runner was too stupid to keep arguing while I ignored them to continue my job during the play, but that's not my fault; they're the stupid ones.

Ejecting someone in the middle of a play is not as uncommon as one may think, and it is something permissible under the rules.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I personally never had any problem whatsoever ejecting participants during live action. I also never missed any of the action nor did I interrupt any potential defensive or offensive plays in the process.

I found it quite easy to holler "You're gone!" without removing my focus from the play at hand. I would suggest if anyone has a problem doing this during a live ball that that person is not much of an umpire.

Any umpire worth his hot dog and a Coke should be able to handle ejecting while the play is still proceeding.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by fitump56

You're not serious, you kill the ball on walks?

I apply my own reasonableness standard. You'll notice that in professional baseball they won't make anyone wait until all the runners have advanced.

What I do works just fine for me.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by fitump56

You're not serious, you kill the ball on walks?

That not calling Time until the batter-runner reaches first base is highly overrated. It is done all the time in pro ball and is traditionaly done when a manager wants Time to talk to his pitcher. Ball Four...Time Blue?...Time!...BR is 5 feet down the line...Forced runners jogging to their next base.

Now before you go off here, I'm not talking about a passed ball or wild pitch or any other scenario in which a runner might gain an extra base on the play. I'm just talking about routine Ball Four. The catcher either has the ball or has returned it safely to the pitcher. Time can then be granted. I always got a kick out of umpires who say to coaches, "No coach, I can't call Time until he gets to first base." Where is that written in the rules?

[Tim C]

I am with Rich . . . many times I have allowed a coach to enter the field as the BR was walking towards first. Time is out at that time.

And I have ejected during a play and just allowed the play to continue and completed the ejection at plays end.

These are two very simple and common occurances.

Regards,

[UmpLarryJohnson]

youll also note umpires swapping baseballs thathit the dirt w catchers while a batter--runner is going to first on a walk and time is clearly "Called" for that too.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am with Rich . . . many times I have allowed a coach to enter the field as the BR was walking towards first. Time is out at that time.

And I have ejected during a play and just allowed the play to continue and completed the ejection at plays end.

These are two very simple and common occurances.

Regards,

Indeed, which is why I'm surprised by the opposition to it.

[insatty]

The pitch that preceeded F1's outburst was a strike. The bad call allowed a run to score. I would have been "pissed" too. But F1 should have been ejected. Both umpires in these videos need a few clinics and aren't ready for the level of youth ball they're working.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Indeed, which is why I'm surprised by the opposition to it.

Consider the source.