The AD's "question" had as much relevance to the phone call as him asking Mark who he voted for the the last presidential election.

There was no reason to answer the question.

Mark may have answered that question.

Maybe it was, I don't pretend to know Mark's experience with cursing players. Rather than arguing whether the AD has the right to inquire, shut him down with a simple, 'yes'. It just seems like the AD would have no recourse had he simply affirmed. It's like asking a coach if he is done questioning your call. Either way he responds, he is.

School has to respond? Wonder what they say? "We obviously agree with the umpire's decision." I wonder what the point of responding is, unless the want to disagree?

No sweat.

Perhaps the AD can prove that Mark has let a curse word go by in a previous game, and is trying to trick him. I can't think of any other reason why that pr*ck would keep on asking the same loaded question, with the barrel pointing straight at Mark.

Definitely the wrong answer. So is "No."

Both the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA has suspension policies when a player, coach, or other bench personnel are disqualified/ejected for unsportsmanlike behavior. The school's administration must let the StateHSAA know that an unsportsmanlike act has been committed by one of its participants and that it has imposed the StateHSAA mandated sanctions. That is the only proper resonse. The school is not allowed to turn its response into a he said/she said response.

MTD, Sr.

SDS,
You're right. If Mark had allowed it before and the AD was aware of it, the affirmation would be a way for the official to be trapped. Given Mark's posts here, he doesn't impress me as an official who allows players to curse at him. Mark, did you tolerate cursing prior in a way that AD would be aware?

Keep dropping the pounds, Steve. Way to go!

Mr. Strybel, that question is not germain (sic) to the subject we are discussing.

Mr. Senger, why be so antagonistic? The AD is entitled to ask the question and for him, it is relevant. Unless that state association mandates that free speech is waived and the AD must remain silent except to express gratitude for the call, he is fully in his rights. Most ADs support their coaches unequivocally but some want to have all the facts before they apply penalties beyond what code allows. Yes, I have seen coaches penalized beyond the process by their administrators. I actually had a coach call me with an apology once while in the presence of his AD. Imagine Mark saying, "No, Mr. X, in fact, I gave your player and coach a warning in the third inning. That is why I ejected him." Maybe that happened. Clairvoyance is not a skill set I possess. Yes, the AD was probably pissed and looking to vent. Maybe he wanted to light a fire under Mark for past issues and this was his chance. Either way, I don't see a reason to be antagonistic toward the people responsible for paying us. Mark may have felt the need to be brief due to prior interactions with the guy. He may have felt the question would lead to something he couldn't address without scrutiny. I have asked this of Mark and await his replies. He seems very level headed and approachable.

I see no harm in answering it honestly. "Mr. X, 3-3-1g allows me some discretion but with #4 of your team, his actions warranted an ejection. I have to inform you of this and that is what I am doing. I wish you and your team good luck for the remainder of the season. Have a good day, sir/ma'am." Professional umpiring doesn't end when we leave the field. I hope Mark can shed some light on his past history with this team. If he had issues then I will support his decision 100%. Mark's posts have always led me to believe he can handle himself well.

At the same time, Mark is under no obligation to answer what he feels are irrelevant questions (for that matter, he's under no obligation to answer relevant questions). The only antagonistic action was the AD insisting after Mark had declined to answer the question.

I'm with Mark that the question was inappropriate. We don't discuss history with coaches on the field and we shouldn't discuss history with other team representatives. The only thing relevant is what a particular player did. What other players in other games did or did not do is irrelevant.

Maybe we are lucky around here, most of the coaches and ADs I encounter are supportive of good baseball and don't tolerate nonsense that leads to ejections. Some enforce penalties beyond what is required by the IHSA and a couple have been fired for behavior unbecoming. Sometimes the history is relevant. I am confident enough in my abilities to defend it.

The same is true here, but those coaches and ADs who are supportive would never have asked the question that was posed to Mark.

In no case would Mark's history be of any relevance. Chances are the real answer is "no," but it's more complicated. How we respond to swearing is always a judgment call, and it's not available for AD criticism or debate; which is clearly what the AD wanted here.

Thanks. It will be interesting to see what Mark says in reply to my questions. Clearly, the state association wants some dialogue or they would not have a policy inviting it. I hope someone from that area can quote the policy verbatim and offer some insight.

History, of the player, perhaps, may be relevant... but the question asked of Mark was not. It is immaterial whether a given official ALWAYS ejects for profanity or not. That he did in this case is the only thing that's relevant.