A Two-fer

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

Yes pitcher is gone right away.

the BU in vid 1 did a good job at first of making sure argument was 1 on 1 I thought.

What I was hinting at was how he (BU) actually shoved the PU away from the coach and towards home.

He wouldn't be a partner of mine again.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

What I was hinting at was how he (BU) actually shoved the PU away from the coach and towards home.

He wouldn't be a partner of mine again.

Good God, where does one start with this one?

Pitcher? Gone. Before reaching the plate.

Manager? Gone. He's got to go for coming out and taking over the pitcher's argument.

I can't tell if the BU came in because he figured that the PU was never going to get rid of the manager or what. But I can picture some of the umpires near where I live doing just this.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Agreed, pitcher gone at the beginning of his tantrum.

Agreed, again, Skipper gone.

F1, gone then or later? On tantrum start? With no "T"? you just screwed the pooch, you've been had. Then you toss the coach after you chased his pitcher down? You forced his hand, he had to come out on you, you're chasing his teenaged pitcher down like some crazed ape.

Who knows what you'll do next, you've already blown the ejection.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fitump56

F1, gone then or later? On tantrum start? With no "T"? you just screwed the pooch, you've been had. Then you toss the coach after you chased his pitcher down? You forced his hand, he had to come out on you, you're chasing his teenaged pitcher down like some crazed ape.

Who knows what you'll do next, you've already blown the ejection.

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.

[Interested Ump]

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.

Bob, what's the hurry? What is gained by interfering with play by ejecting while the ball is live if the player is allowed to continue in the play?

It is an association wide rule of ours. The only reason we can see to eject prior to the end of the play is that it satisfies the official's need to express his anger, or to make a bravado display of sort. IOW, it doesn't serve the game, the officials or the teams any value.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

It is an association wide rule of ours.

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

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

The only reason we can see to eject prior to the end of the play is that it satisfies the official's need to express his anger, or to make a bravado display of sort. IOW, it doesn't serve the game, the officials or the teams any value.

That is a load of bovine manure.

[DG]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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



That is a load of bovine manure.

Another one for "the list".

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Interested Ump

Bob, what's the hurry? What is gained by interfering with play by ejecting while the ball is live if the player is allowed to continue in the play?

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.

It is an association wide rule of ours. The only reason we can see to eject prior to the end of the play is that it satisfies the official's need to express his anger, or to make a bravado display of sort. IOW, it doesn't serve the game, the officials or the teams any value.

Well, good for your association. But, that's not the norm, and I haven't seen the need for such a rule.

[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.

[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.

[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

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

Yes.

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

It's spelt "Mr.Donovan", in case you didn't learn that in grade 3.