Yawn. Lock 'er down, please.

Oh, my God, yes, please lock it down. Looking inside of Rutledge's concept of logic is a frightening.

Rut: Situation X says this.
Bob: No it doesn't.
Rut: Let's just agree to disagree.
MU: No room for disagreement. It either says what you say or it doesn't and like Bob said, it doesn't.
Rut: I'm used to disagree with Bob.
MU: But you are denying the truth of what the situation says, not disagreeing with Bob.
Rut: Well if it's not about Bob, what is it about?
MU: Someone shoot me in the face, please.


My dear Mr. Rutledge...get some help. Thankfully, I've retired but I know of some colleagues in the Chicago area that could help you.

I used to bother about that. But the ignore list is just so much less stressful, you know? ;)

Meanwhile, back at the original post ...
Just to summarize so everybody is clear ... an ejection/restriction of a HC has no bearing on any ACs.

If an AC leaves their position or dugout to argue a call, eject the AC and restrict the HC. That would not preclude a different AC from occupying a coaches' box, correct?

There's no requirement that either of the coaches' boxes be occupied by a coach. They may be occupied by players, non-restricted/ejected coaches or left empty.

Correct.

Not correct. You MAY choose to restrict the AC, which also REQUIRES restriction of the head-coach. Correct: a different AC may then occupy the coaches box vacated by the restricted/ejected AC or HC.

Correct.

Right. Good catch. (I wish you'd knew what I meant instead of what I said.) :D

Quote: "I believe that the intent of the rule was to restrict actions above what the plays suggest"

May I suggest that you contact your State Rules Committee and get clarification on this issue. As umpires, we must be careful when enforcing rules based on what we believe the "intent" to be is. And when we come to certain rules, as the one which you have mentioned, we ask those in charge to clarify since this forum has not served that purpose for you.

Good luck...

You know, I did a cut & paste from the 2010 FED book so you could all read the rule and the penalty. You are supposed to be umpires and most of you HS umpires. I cannot believe how plain English can be debated so.

People, if you do not understand this rule, this rule that for once the FED put in plain English, don't debate it. Stop umpiring HS ball, turn in your uniforms and find another hobby that you can screw up! :mad:

Finis

I think Illinois would survive the loss.