Dumb Athletic Directors.

[DG]

Interesting, we just write up a report and send to assigner and the state.

First question answer should have been, "no, I don't eject for swearing, but in accorandance with HS rules I eject for profanity".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by DG

Interesting, we just write up a report and send to assigner and the state.

First question answer should have been, "no, I don't eject for swearing, but in accorandance with HS rules I eject for profanity".

1) Both the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA require the official to speak with a school administrator the very next school day after the ejection as well as file a game report.

2) "Swearing" or "profanity", it really does not matter because my silence cannot be misquoted. The question was not germain to the player's ejection.

MTD, Sr.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

1) Both the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA require the official to speak with a school administrator the very next school day after the ejection as well as file a game report.

I found this difficult to believe, so I researched it:

Ohio: Whenever an ejection occurs, the ejecting official shall speak with the offender's principal/athletic director no later than the first school day following the ejection. ( Game Ejections of Coaches or Players )

Michigan: Following the contest, an official shall contact the Ath letic Director of the violator’s school prior to noon of the day following the ejection to ad vise the administration of the ejection. Contact may be made after the game if an administrator is present or by phone in the morning on the first school day after the contest. ( http://www.mhsaa.com/LinkClick.aspx?...lU%3d&tabid=58 [page 15])

In Missouri, we're only required to file a written report of the ejection, sent to the state. At that point, it's sent to the school. We make no contact with the school, and have been advised by our organization to only make verbal statements to MSHSAA, and only after we've verified the person calling.

Personally, I'll make my statements in person or in writing.

[MrUmpire]

Too much conversation:

MTD, Sr.: Good morning Mr. Xxxxx, I am Mark DeNucci, Sr., and I umpired your school's jr. varsity baseball DH with Xxxxx H.S. yesterday. I am calling to inform you that Player Xxxxx Xxxxx was ejected in the bottom of the second inning for unacceptable use of profanity.
AD: Do you always eject a player for swearing?
MTD, SR.: I am required to notify you of this ejection, feel free to contact my assigner or me by mail with any questions. Thank you for your time.

[ODJ]

Illinois: A report is to be made on-line to the state within 24 hours. An e-mail is sent to principal and AD automatically. Most assignors want to know right away if you tossed a coach, because that coach is going to call the assignor.

[Dave Reed]

If you really don't want to answer any questions about the ejection, notice that you aren't required to state a reason for the ejection. So you can make it even shorter.

But why on earth are you unwilling to answer some questions about the ejection? Of course by rule the player will have to sit out a game, but depending on the severity of the action, the AD may want to take additional action. In fact, quoting from the link yawetag provided, "The MHSAA will request that the administrations of the schools involved conduct internal investigations and voluntarily take punitive or remedial action."

I would expect that the AD would like to know whether the ejection was automatic or if additional bad behavior aggravated the offense. He'd probably like to get a sense if the F-bomb was a single event or an escalation of profanity. He undoubtably knows that umpires vary widely in their tolerance for profanity, and in which words an umpire considers to be profanity. I suppose that the AD would like to have a short discussion to get more color than is likely to be included in the ejection report. He can then compare that information with the account that the player and coach provide, and decide what additional punitive or remedial action is needed.

And in this case I suppose that, justified or not, he suspects the ejecting official is an a**hole who won't even answer a simple polite question. He'll probably decide that no additional action is required.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I would expect that the AD would like to know whether the ejection was automatic or if additional bad behavior aggravated the offense. He'd probably like to get a sense if the F-bomb was a single event or an escalation of profanity. He undoubtably knows that umpires vary widely in their tolerance for profanity, and in which words an umpire considers to be profanity. I suppose that the AD would like to have a short discussion to get more color than is likely to be included in the ejection report. He can then compare that information with the account that the player and coach provide, and decide what additional punitive or remedial action is needed.

If MTD was a good report-writer, he would have any extenuating circumstances listed. If the AD was that worried about the situations surrounding the profanity, he could have asked it better:

AD: Thanks for calling, Mark. I was informed from the coach by email about the ejection, but he didn't have any details. Was there anything beyond the profanity that caused the ejection?

MTD: No sir. It was just the profanity that caused the ejection. He used the "f word" after missing a play on the bases. After the ejection, he left the field without incident and the delay was minimal. There will be more details in my ejection report to the state, which I believe is sent to you by them.

AD: Great. Thanks a lot, Mark. Have a good day.

I'm not trying to defend MTD blindly, but if you're correct on the AD's intentions, he should have been more clear. As it is, it appeared the AD was trying to get MTD to claim he either ejects on all profanity or doesn't. Either way he answered, the AD could have used it against him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

If you really don't want to answer any questions about the ejection, notice that you aren't required to state a reason for the ejection. So you can make it even shorter.

But why on earth are you unwilling to answer some questions about the ejection? Of course by rule the player will have to sit out a game, but depending on the severity of the action, the AD may want to take additional action. In fact, quoting from the link yawetag provided, "The MHSAA will request that the administrations of the schools involved conduct internal investigations and voluntarily take punitive or remedial action."

First of all this is a silly policy. You should never have to speak to someone that is not in an official capacity to understand the role of an official. Even if he answers the question I am not sure what that has to do with the policy, which is why I said this is a silly policy in the beginning. The only people Mark should be discussing the ejection with is the state association (MHSAA in this case) or the assignor.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I would expect that the AD would like to know whether the ejection was automatic or if additional bad behavior aggravated the offense. He'd probably like to get a sense if the F-bomb was a single event or an escalation of profanity. He undoubtably knows that umpires vary widely in their tolerance for profanity, and in which words an umpire considers to be profanity. I suppose that the AD would like to have a short discussion to get more color than is likely to be included in the ejection report. He can then compare that information with the account that the player and coach provide, and decide what additional punitive or remedial action is needed.

That might be true, but I they do not need to have that conversation with the umpire/official in question. And certainly not asking questions of what is the personal policy on ejections. If there is an inconsistency in the application of usage of language, that that up with the state or the assignor to get umpires trained better to follow a set policy or standard.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

And in this case I suppose that, justified or not, he suspects the ejecting official is an a**hole who won't even answer a simple polite question. He'll probably decide that no additional action is required.

Who cares what the AD thinks? I know I do not. I work for the assignor that happens to send me to that school. If the AD has a problem with my job, take that up with the assignor and if the assignor thinks I am not doing a good job, I will not be back. Most smart ADs I know do not get involved in that kind of thing as that is what the assignor is to do, hire the best people for the job.

Also I did once eject a coach and the Principal called me the next day. It was not my requirement to call anyone at the school, but that situation I did have a conversation because it was clear that the Principal was trying to figure out if this person was fit for a job at a public school and setting an example. I was not asked or it was not implied that I was not doing my job. This Principal just wanted to know what the rules were for the ejection, not making value judgments of the decision. BTW, that coach was later released from his job and one of the reasons was repeated incidents from what I understand.

Peace

[MikeStrybel]

The player cursed. While you have every right to eject him, you may also warn him if you feel his expletive was delivered in a way that is considered minor in nature - for example, he is mad at himself. If he yelled it so that grandma in the stands dropped her camcorder then it's an easy dump. If he slides into second on a steal and is tagged out, while on his knees smacks his hands together and says it, maybe we have a warning. Of course, if there's a "...you" attached to it then as Hawk Harrelson says, "He gone".

I issued one warning this year to a player who uttered the f-bomb. He was the pitcher and had just given up a go ahead score and was backing up the catcher. He was upset at himself and dropped the f-bomb. The warning served its purpose, the HC appreciated my discretion and the kid kept his head in the game to throw strikes and win. Even the opposing HC agreed that the language, while inappropriate for a 17 year old, didn't warrant being tossed. cite 3-3-g Penalty

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

If you really don't want to answer any questions about the ejection, notice that you aren't required to state a reason for the ejection. So you can make it even shorter.

But why on earth are you unwilling to answer some questions about the ejection?

You really think it's appropriate for the AD to second guess the umpire here? Dress it up any way you want, but that's what he was doing by trying to paint him into a corner. MTD absolutely did the right thing by keeping the discussion on track and ending it when the AD made it clear he was second guessing him.

Whatever the AD thinks of MTD, he was already thinking it and MTD's answer was not going to change it. In essence, he was trying to coach MTD.

[Rich]

It's a ridiculous policy. Every time I've had to deal with an AD over a situation, the AD has gotten defensive or tried to make the official culpable. In WI, we send a report to the state and the state informs the school of the suspension. I had an athletic director call me after I threw an USC flag on his head coach during a football game and eventually I had to hang up on the guy, too, as he tried to spin the situation into it being my fault for having thin skin. Finally, I told him I would include our conversation in the report I was sending to the state and hung up.

That said, there's no way I would eject a player for Mark's situation. I'd probably just tell him to watch his language. Making a kid sit 1+ games for dropping a single f-bomb in frustration simply doesn't meet the spirit and intent of the rules, IMO. Making him sit the rest of the game doesn't meet the spirit and intent, either, IMO.

On the topic of language: The F4 and F6 in last night's ballgame were engaged in a colorful conversation while I was in the B position. Some of words used were the same types of words I used when I was 16-18 years old. Finally, I turned to the F4 (who was genuinely a nice, funny kid) and said, "My innocent ears can't handle this." He laughed and they continued the conversation by replacing those words with nonsensical ones -- just kids being kids. Of course, anyone who's followed my postings knows how I feel about profanity -- as long as it's not directed towards me or an opponent or not done in an unsportsmanlike way, I really don't care too much. I'll stop it if it's overboard, but in the way I did last night -- certainly not with an ejection.

[jicecone]

MTD, Sr.: Good morning Mr. Xxxxx, I am Mark DeNucci, Sr., and I umpired your school's jr. varsity baseball DH with Xxxxx H.S. yesterday. I am calling to inform you that Player Xxxxx Xxxxx was ejected in the bottom of the second inning for dropping an F-bomb after failing to throw out a runner at third base.

AD: Do you always eject a player for swearing?

No Sir, not in all cases. If it is "judged to be of a minor nature" (NFHS3-3-1g2 penalty), , I will properly warn the individual player one on one and let the coach know about it. However, in this case the profanity was loud enough that everyone on and off the field clearly understood what was said and could be offended by its use.

You just controlled the conversation and let the AD know that not only do you know the rules but, have a very good understanding of them and used discretion in the application of them.

By not answering the question , the AD probably went away with the opinion that you may be intolerant in your interpretation of the the rules and unapproachable. They are literally to be taken in a "Black and White" nature. Further punishment by the school was not requred.

This does not sound like your posts here however, its just my opinion. If the AD wanted to carry on from there, then he was just showing what a Ahole he was.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

But why on earth are you unwilling to answer some questions about the ejection?

Because it was clearly obvious the AD wanted to get into a pissing match. A completely inappropriate one, I might add.