Please elaborate, what does "catcher rolls over the runner" mean exactly? I would be hard pressed to toss an F2 who just got malicous run over, unless he threw punches.

You're wrong as far as I'm concerned. If we had a bench clearing brawl, I'd look at the benches and those players still in the bench area would still be in the game. If we were under the minimum required to keep the game going, we'd be done.

The NFHS does not want people leaving the bench or their positions to confront one another. Period. In any sport. The penalties are sever so we don't have that happen except in the rarest of occasions.

Locally we had a boys varsity basketball game where all the bench personnel were ejected for this reason. The only players eligible were the ones on the court that didn't get in a scrap. Those officials later in the season worked the state tournament.

I didn't realize we got to ignore rules we disagree with.

Mandatory suspensions, whether upheld or not, should have NO bearing in how you handle a situation. If, after ejecting and writing reports, the state wants to allow some kids to keep playing, that's up to the state. Don't do their work while standing on the field.

It would by me. You're right in that I've never had one. However, my association has said multiple times that you eject every player that leaves their position or the bench. In fact, Rich's statement of keeping track of the players that DON'T get involved is EXACTLY how it's been told multiple times during training classes.

If I ever have one (and hopefully I never will), I will have no problem in dumping everyone involved, ending the game if there's not enough players, and leaving the field. I'll file reports to the state and my association as mandated, and I'll cooperate with both as needed. I couldn't care less who gets suspended from games and who doesn't.

"I'm taking my ball and going home!"

You left out half the rule. An EJ is mandated for players who leave their positions or the bench for the purpose of fighting or physical confrontation. There is plenty of leeway.

Not exactly. Read the case play I gave above (bolding mine): "Once F6 and the on-deck batter left their positions and advanced toward the fight, they were in violation of the rule. Both F6 and on-deck batter were going to break up the fight, but they're still ejected. I think we'd all agree they weren't there for the purpose of fighting or physical confrontation.

In addition: 3.3.1QQ: R1 and F6 begin shoving each other. Their respective coaches rush to the field to control their players. RULING: R1 and F6 are ejected, but the coaches are not, because they are allowed on the field to break up the fight or to help restore order.

Coaches are explicitly allowed to break up a fight, but players are explicitly ejected when advancing toward one.

A fight breaks out at 2nd base after a hard slide. Players pop out of the dugout to get a better view of the action, but go no farther. They obviously have no intention of joining the fray. Are you dumping all of them?

Define "pop out." Just outside the bench and doing nothing else? Of course not. They're not "advancing toward the fight."

I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that OP's benches cleared and a lot of players came out on the field -- an assumption that was made clear by those of us on the ejection side, and one that hasn't been denied by OP.

Then I think we're on the same page.

From one of your posts: "The rules prescribe all players that leave their fielding position or the bench area are to be ejected. There is no leeway."

I inferred (incorrectly, I guess) that you would eject anyone who left the bench regardless of their intent or subsequent actions (if any). That would be contrary to the rule.

Aftermath
 

First, to yawetag: Sorry for my abrupt response(s) - I was (and to some degree) still hyped up about this sitch.

Overall, we certainly erred in our leniency, and certainly will handle it much more punitively next time as several of you rightly suggested. After the benefit of video review (not by me, by the state association), multiple players from each team have been suspended. My partner and I have been sufficiently admonished, but not suspended as of this writing. Our local association might still weigh in on this, and I'm OK with whatever they decide.

In retrospect, as these situations often do, it happened very quickly - probably less than 30 seconds from the initial collision to the emptying of the benches to the coaches regaining control of their teams and heading them back to the dugouts. During that time, I had pulled out my lineup card and began writing down numbers, but literally only got three numbers written down before the coaches got into the fray and began separating the players.

The best course of action I could have taken was to suspend the game immediately - as Bob Jenkins mentioned in his early post. We did not do this. Even in the absence of multiple ejections, this would have made for a better handling of the overall situation. Let the administrative types sort it out, because there's always somebody with video these days.

It's these types of situations that ultimately make us better equipped to handle other situations. A lifetime of learning. I'll continue to kick myself for kicking this one, at least in terms of game management.

On a twist of irony, I get these teams again this week - one Friday, one Saturday. Not that the sitch was my fault to begin with. I am interested to see what one of the coaches has to say after his comments in the paper.

That's a great post, SCB. You've clearly had a lot to deal with and reflected on the lessons of your case. Thank you for posting it!

Again it was a HTBT situation but I think you are jumping to an unfair conclusion when you automatically eject anyone who comes out in that situation. The rule IS clear and again states they must be coming out "for the purpose of fighting or physical confrontation." Are you suggesting that the player who "steps" out of the dugout and takes 2 steps in the direction of whats going on is ejected as well? Because according to some who have posted that "is" the rule. IMO I think it was handled very well. Step back, take numbers and apply penalties.

As far as losing games to having the entire team suspended, what I usually see state associations do is stagger the suspensions so the team has enough non-suspended players to play the scheduled game.

So half the team serves suspension during the first and second succeeding games and the other half on the third and fourth.

I don't. I have a suspended game and a full report on the bench clearing. No way I am going to put a bunch of hot headed, teen-aged rivals, whose coaches can't keep initial control of their teams, back out on the field, have somebody get hurt over and have my butt in a wringer.That's a fact, jackyawetag. :p

Always tough to swallow crow; well done. I know full well how it tastes.

For those that want to see a picture of the play that caused the benches clearing brawl and a story on the aftermath, here it is.

Now, while SC suspends players for one or two games TN takes real action on benches clearing brawl. 2 year postseason ban and a nice fat fine for the schools.