Dumb Athletic Directors.

[Rich Ives]

Meanwhile, over on the AD board, the AD is griping about the umpire that refused to help him understand what constituted swearing so he could counsel his players.

[DG]

Generally, I think of an F-bomb, as one that EVERYONE can hear. With that I have no choice but to EJ. If it is something said that I don't think anyone but those near can hear, I would generally ask the player to watch his language.

I really have not choice as the state lists 6 things to EJ on, fill out forms, etc. Everything else is a restriction to the dugout for that game only, no forms. Since profanity is one of the 6, it would not sit well with the state if I did not eject for something loud and heard by all.

[johnnyg08]

Seems to me like you could've answered the question w/o coming off as unapproachable.

It's a pretty simple question really. I think you made a mountain out of a mole hill.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

Seems to me like you could've answered the question w/o coming off as unapproachable.

It's a pretty simple question really. I think you made a mountain out of a mole hill.

I do not think Mark is making a big deal out of anything really, rather I think the people here are. And I am also going to take a wild guess that this is not common for an AD to ask much of any questions during this process, at least not in the situations that Mark is familiar. If he answered the questions then what? Was he going to change his opinion either way?

AD should not be having conversations with officials (IMO) about any call. The AD should have taken the information and moved on too. I am assuming they have some things to do with the information. I doubt they have any it matters "why" the ejection took place.

And if he thinks he is unapproachable, so what? He does not have to approachable to any coach about what he does on the field. The ADs job is to make sure that the officials are there and pay them or file all the proper paper work. At least that is their job where I live.

Peace

[jicecone]

"I doubt I am alone in that standard because all Mark could have done is made the situation worse by telling everyone what was typical for him personally.'

And I repeat:

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.

And again, if the AD had a problem with that, then he is an Ahole.

Stick to the rules and facts and leave your opinions and emotons at home. Thats the part of officiating that is hardest to learn.

[FTVMartin]

MHSAA does not require a phone call any longer. Simply log on to MHSAA.com and fill out the officials report. The state and both schools are notifed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by FTVMartin

MHSAA does not require a phone call any longer. Simply log on to MHSAA.com and fill out the officials report. The state and both schools are notifed.

You are incorrect. I received a telephone call on Tuesday afternoon from MichiganHSAA Assistant Director Mark Uyl. He wanted to make sure I had contacted the Athletic Director the first school day after the ejectioni, because the school's AD had contacted him to request information about how to complete the his school's game report response.

MTD, Sr.

[MikeStrybel]

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

[asdf]

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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Mark's responses have always struck me as reasoned. I'm not sure what trouble he could have been in had he simply answered the AD's question with a "yes" and moved to terminate the call. I recognize that had he answered in the negative the AD had baited him, but it's not like the AD can prove he doesn't eject when he hears a player curse at him. It seems like the AD could have been shut down right there.

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.

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Probably because "Yes" was not the right answer.

Definitely the wrong answer. So is "No."

[DG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You are incorrect. I received a telephone call on Tuesday afternoon from MichiganHSAA Assistant Director Mark Uyl. He wanted to make sure I had contacted the Athletic Director the first school day after the ejection, because the school's AD had contacted him to request information about how to complete his school's game report response.

MTD, Sr.

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?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by DG

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?

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Meanwhile, over on the AD board, the AD is griping about the umpire that refused to help him understand what constituted swearing so he could counsel his players.

Then the AD is pretty stupid because the first thing Mark stated was the use of the f-bomb if what caused the ejection.

Here in CT, we just file the report, we do not contact the AD's.