A First Time for Everything

[greymule]

Hold on . . .

. . . shall not leave their positions or bench area for the purpose of fighting or physical confrontation

. . . F6 and the on-deck batter run to second base to break up the fight

How does trying to stop the fight qualify as fighting or physical confrontation? Or else the first wording above should be recast to say "and advance toward the fight."

[jicecone]

Guaranteed, absoultely, as sure as my fingers pass over these keys to type I could attend each and every game you guys officiate and find some rule violation that you have overlooked, choose to ignor or just plan missed.

The op said "Neither me from behind the dirt circle nor my partner who had moved between the mound and home saw any other punches thrown or wrestling matches ensue, so we only had the two protagonists to dump"

So lets not get so technical for a job well done.

Your probably going to try and convince me next that every time you go over the speed limit you turn yourself in at the nearest local police station too.

The rules are there to cover most if not all scenarios of the game and establish a guideline and a level of fair play. The fact that discretion and judgement of the official is a big part of the rules, is and will alway be the leeway necessary to bring about fair play and game control. For this case I believe the officials did a good job.

[greymule]

"The fact that discretion and judgement of the official is a big part of the rules, is and will always be the leeway necessary to bring about fair play and game control. For this case I believe the officials did a good job."

I agree. Attempting to enforce an absolute, letter-of-the-law rule for everything that happens invariably produces injustices.

Baseball used to rely more on the ump as "God." Yes, there were rules, but there were also times when the ump simply made a decision, and that was that.

It reminds me of a recent article I read about British versus French law, where historically the British leaned more toward laying down general principles and trusting their judges to apply them properly and fairly. The French, on the other hand, tried to cover every possible contingency with a law.

[greymule]

You're probably going to try to convince me next that every time you go over the speed limit, you should turn yourself in at the nearest local police station, too.

Anybody seen that TV commercial in which, during a time out, the basketball player confesses to his coach and team that despite the ref's call, it should be the other team's ball? The coach praises the kid, who promptly approaches the official to make things right and fair.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by jicecone

The op said "Neither me from behind the dirt circle nor my partner who had moved between the mound and home saw any other punches thrown or wrestling matches ensue, so we only had the two protagonists to dump"

I will admit that the OP didn't state, but implied, that the benches cleared.

Originally Posted by jicecone

The rules are there to cover most if not all scenarios of the game and establish a guideline and a level of fair play. The fact that discretion and judgement of the official is a big part of the rules, is and will alway be the leeway necessary to bring about fair play and game control. For this case I believe the officials did a good job.

I agree that the rules allow leeway in a lot of areas. It's even up to you to determine MC for ejection. However, leaving the bench during a fight is not one of them. The rules prescribe all players that leave their fielding position or the bench area are to be ejected. There is no leeway.

Do I think the umpires handled the situation well? Sure. They calmed the game down after the fact. However, their application of the rules was incorrect.

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by yawetag

I will admit that the OP didn't state, but implied, that the benches cleared.


I agree that the rules allow leeway in a lot of areas. It's even up to you to determine MC for ejection. However, leaving the bench during a fight is not one of them. The rules prescribe all players that leave their fielding position or the bench area are to be ejected. There is no leeway.

Do I think the umpires handled the situation well? Sure. They calmed the game down after the fact. However, their application of the rules was incorrect.

I believe you stated you'd never had a bench-clearing situation. Since I've now had one, I'll speak from my vast experience - I think dumping both entire teams, while correct by rule, would have been a misapplication in this instance. HTBT, for sure. Let me know what you do when it happens to you. I'd seriously like to know if this has ever been applied in this manner. I've never heard of it. I've heard of games suspended due to conflicts, but never entire teams ejected. Never.

I'll agree with what the rule says. I'll agree that, by rule, we misapplied the rule. I also agree that bench-clearing incidents have no place at all in HS baseball. I disagree, however, that dumping two teams in entirety would be correct, so therefore, I disagree with the rule as written.

First, our state has an automatic two-game suspension for any player that is ejected. I can see them upholding these suspensions for the two players involved in this incident (or any others engaged in fighting - believe me, I would have dumped anybody observed throwing a punch, shove, or elbow) - under zero circumstances can I see them upholding the forfeiture of the next two games for these two teams. It just would not happen.

I'd really like to hear from those who've had these situations, and how they handled them. Otherwise, I'm about fed up with those of you who'd say "by rule, the whole team has to go. An example needs to be set." By the book, you're right. In reality, I don't think it would happen - not by any of you. Maybe I'm wrong - prove it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I believe you stated you'd never had a bench-clearing situation. Since I've now had one, I'll speak from my vast experience - I think dumping both entire teams, while correct by rule, would have been a misapplication in this instance. HTBT, for sure. Let me know what you do when it happens to you. I'd seriously like to know if this has ever been applied in this manner. I've never heard of it. I've heard of games suspended due to conflicts, but never entire teams ejected. Never.

I'll agree with what the rule says. I'll agree that, by rule, we misapplied the rule. I also agree that bench-clearing incidents have no place at all in HS baseball. I disagree, however, that dumping two teams in entirety would be correct, so therefore, I disagree with the rule as written.

First, our state has an automatic two-game suspension for any player that is ejected. I can see them upholding these suspensions for the two players involved in this incident (or any others engaged in fighting - believe me, I would have dumped anybody observed throwing a punch, shove, or elbow) - under zero circumstances can I see them upholding the forfeiture of the next two games for these two teams. It just would not happen.

I'd really like to hear from those who've had these situations, and how they handled them. Otherwise, I'm about fed up with those of you who'd say "by rule, the whole team has to go. An example needs to be set." By the book, you're right. In reality, I don't think it would happen - not by any of you. Maybe I'm wrong - prove it.

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I disagree, however, that dumping two teams in entirety would be correct, so therefore, I disagree with the rule as written.

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

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

First, our state has an automatic two-game suspension for any player that is ejected. I can see them upholding these suspensions for the two players involved in this incident (or any others engaged in fighting - believe me, I would have dumped anybody observed throwing a punch, shove, or elbow) - under zero circumstances can I see them upholding the forfeiture of the next two games for these two teams. It just would not happen.

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.

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

In reality, I don't think it would happen - not by any of you. Maybe I'm wrong - prove it.

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.

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

I'd really like to hear from those who've had these situations, and how they handled them. Otherwise, I'm about fed up with those of you who'd say "by rule, the whole team has to go. An example needs to be set."

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

[pastordoug]

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.

[Eastshire]

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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by yawetag

The rules prescribe all players that leave their fielding position or the bench area are to be ejected. There is no leeway.

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.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[dash_riprock]

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?

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Do I think the umpires handled the situation well? Sure.

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.

However, their application of the rules was incorrect.

That's a fact, jackyawetag.