End of game in Milwaukee

[Kevin Finnerty]

Your refutation of his rule reference, please.

[umpjong]

Nothing in the rule states it is an automatic ejection, and it even states that the act must be done in disgust of an umpires call and it must be flagrant to be an ejection.... I would hope you would not base the throwing of the ball as your sole proof of either of these stipulations. Even at the collegiate level I would not right paper on this unless he added something like "I honestly think you blew that call Mr. Umpire", and then bounced the ball up my skirt......

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Your refutation of his rule reference, please.

I'm not refuting the MBUM, I'm refuting cc6. If you read carefully you will see that his original claim was :

"Also, thrown equipment is an automatic ejection in the mlb."


Now then, if yuu read the MLBUM, you'll find:

"MLBUM 2.19: Throwing equipment in protest of call,

"Any player throwing equipment in disgust of an umpire's call shall be reported and subject to fine, and if flagrant, to ejection."

There is nothing AUTOMATIC about an ejection. The umpire must interpret the action and apply his judgement on an individual basis.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I'm not refuting the MBUM, I'm refuting cc6. If you read carefully you will see that his original claim was :

"Also, thrown equipment is an automatic ejection in the mlb."


Now then, if yuu read the MLBUM, you'll find:

"MLBUM 2.19: Throwing equipment in protest of call,

"Any player throwing equipment in disgust of an umpire's call shall be reported and subject to fine, and if flagrant, to ejection."

There is nothing AUTOMATIC about an ejection. The umpire must interpret the action and apply his judgement on an individual basis.

Not to mention that the MLBUM says nothing about an ejection being "post game," to which Canada also alluded.