Video posted on the NFHS Discussion Forum.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by David B

...

Baseball does not have the leaving the bench rule like basketball;

...

David,

If we're talking FED, it sure does. 3-3-1q

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

3-3-1q and 3.3.1JJ (especially the part about "once F6 and the on-deck batter LEFT THEIR POSITIONS" (emphasis added) ) would seem to say that baseball does have such a rule.

I'll have to look at those in the book. Thnaks
David

[jicecone]

I will check my books when I get home but I suspect that I will not find a rule that specifically says the umpire has authority to end a game because a fight took place or because he feels like it.

Also, ejecting players in order to not have enough and actually having the authority to end the game are two different things. And a good umpire would certainly not resort to this to begin with.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I will check my books when I get home but I suspect that I will not find a rule that specifically says the umpire has authority to end a game because a fight took place or because he feels like it.

Also, ejecting players in order to not have enough and actually having the authority to end the game are two different things. And a good umpire would certainly not resort to this to begin with.

How would you propose handling the high school bench brawl?

In my opinion, I start writing down numbers of the guaranteed ejections and see who's left after that's done. I would continue the game if possible, enforce all rules within my power to maintain control of the game.

That way, in my report, I will have the numbers of every player who was "fighting" because the rule supports an ejection there. This isn't the NBA where we can dump them for leaving the bench. We warn both teams for having unauthorized players on the field during a live ball, after that, the rule supports an ejection.

Let's play ball.

[jicecone]

Sounds professional to me, I would have to agree there johnny.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I will check my books when I get home but I suspect that I will not find a rule that specifically says the umpire has authority to end a game because a fight took place or because he feels like it.

Jicecone,

That is correct. You will NOT find a rule that says the umpire has authority to end a game because a fight took place or because he feels like it.

However, you WILL find a rule that says a player who leaves his position or bench "...for the purpose of fighting or physical confrontation..." is to be ejected.

You will also find a rule that says if a team is unable to field 8 players, the game is forfeit.

Also, ejecting players in order to not have enough and actually having the authority to end the game are two different things. And a good umpire would certainly not resort to this to begin with.

I agree with your assertion (I think), but ejecting players because they violated a rule that calls for an ejection penalty, as is the case here, is an entirely different matter.

JM

[David B]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I will check my books when I get home but I suspect that I will not find a rule that specifically says the umpire has authority to end a game because a fight took place or because he feels like it.

Also, ejecting players in order to not have enough and actually having the authority to end the game are two different things. And a good umpire would certainly not resort to this to begin with.

I see the rule Bob referenced, but unlike basketball I would not penalize unless someone actually made contact with someone.

The reason is that you might not have enough players to play.

The coaches bear the brunt of the players actions, thus why the state should suspend them or put them on probation along with their teams.

If this was a playoff game, there would probably be state representation at the game thus they would be able to handle it at the site.

Don't know where this was, but I don't see that happening in our area. We have some incredible rivalries, and some great games, but I've never had a problem with kids leaving the bench, even when there was a dirty play or two players jawing etc,.

Our coaches just handle the players very well. Now summer league, anything goes ... (g).

Thanks
David

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

... This isn't the NBA where we can dump them for leaving the bench. We warn both teams for having unauthorized players on the field during a live ball, after that, the rule supports an ejection.

Let's play ball.

johnny,

While this isn't the NBA, we certainly CAN dump them for leaving the bench to participate in a fight/physical confrontation. The pertinent rule is not 3-3-1a or j, it's 3-3-1q.

In this case, after the rule-prescribed ejections, there would not have been enough participants left to "Play Ball".

JM

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by David B

I see the rule Bob referenced, but unlike basketball I would not penalize unless someone actually made contact with someone.

David- why would someone have to make contact? If they don't have enough players to play, then that's the coach's/school's/administration's problem for not having control of their team!

-Josh

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Jicecone,


I agree with your assertion (I think), but ejecting players because they violated a rule that calls for an ejection penalty, as is the case here, is an entirely different matter.

JM

I agree and certainly would not limit myself , JUST to make sure a game continues either.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

johnny,

While this isn't the NBA, we certainly CAN dump them for leaving the bench to participate in a fight/physical confrontation. The pertinent rule is not 3-3-1a or j, it's 3-3-1q.

In this case, after the rule-prescribed ejections, there would not have been enough participants left to "Play Ball".

JM

Simply leaving the bench may or may not be participating in a fight though.

As I said, I will be writing down numbers on my lineup card of offenders who are participating in the fight/physical confrontation. Simply leaving the bench (unless they were previously warned for leaving the bench during a live ball) we can eject. The MC call doesn't appear to be made yet so the ball is not yet dead so we have that rule in there to support us as well. Please understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but if we end up having to forfeit this game, every ejection needs to be supported by a rule...do you feel that simply leaving the bench here is ground to eject?

[jdmara]

"3.3.1 SITUATION JJ: R1 slides hard into F4. R1 and F4 begin pushing each other. F6 and the on-deck batter run to second base to break up the fight. RULING: All are ejected. Once F6 and the on-deck batter left their positions and advanced toward the fight, they were in violation of the rule."

The case play makes this situation very clear. Once the players leave the bench(es) or their positions on the field, they are ejected!

[UmpJM]

johnny,

Any player who left his position or bench to participate in this melee is unequivocally in violation of a rule (3-1-1q) that mandates ejection - no "warning" necessary.

You also might want to read the Case Play Bob J. cited (3.31JJ) which makes it perfectly clear that David B.'s "unless they make contact" criteria is utter nonsense and clearly at odds with FED's intentions in adjudication of situations such as this.

JM

[johnnyg08]

in that sitch, the case play seems to support a bunch of EJ's. thx for posting.

[johnnyg08]

as you can see, jdmara kindly posted the case play you're referencing. based upon that case play, I agree with those who would eject all who left their position to gain distance toward the confrontation/fight. that pretty much sums it up for me.