Dumb Athletic Directors.
 

Yesterday (May 12/Thu., 2011), I umpired a boys' H.S. jr. varsity baseball DH.

I was the BU in the second game (MichiganHSAA allows DH to be played even if the schools have class the next day). R1 on 1B when the batter ripped a single to right field. F9 threw the ball to F6 who threw to F5 in an unsuccessful attempt to throw out F1 at 3B. F6's failure to throw out R1 caused him to drop an F-bomb. And we all know what happened next. I informed the young man that he was done for the day and escorted him to his team's dugout where I explained to V-HC what I had. No problem.

My problem was this morning with school administrators. I called the school's principal and was connected to her assistant (not assistant principal, the principal's assistant; and this is a public school). I was told by the assistant that the principal was unavailable for me to speak with her today. I told her why I was calling and she transferred me to the school's AD.

Convesation with AD:

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?

MTD, Sr.: Mr. Xxxxx that question is not germain to the subject we are discussing. Xxxxx Xxxxx's actions is why I am calling.

AD: But I am asking the question so I can understand why you ejected Xxxxx Xxxxx.

MTD, Sr.: Mr. Xxxxx, your original question is not germain to Xxxxx Xxxxx ejection.

AD: Yes, it is. I want to know if you always eject a player for swearing?

MTD, Sr.: Mr. Xxxxx, the MichiganHSAA requires me to make contact with a school adminstrator when there is a player ejection and inform the adminstrator that a game report will be filed.

AD: But, I want to know if you always eject a player for swearing to be able to understand your actions.

MTD, Sr.: Mr. Xxxxx, this conversation is over. Goodbye. "click"

What a way to start a weekend.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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.

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

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.

I see your point and completely agree with that. Kids are gonna be kids, and as you stated, if not done in an unsportsmanlike way, its not that big a deal. Easy to tell them knock if off etc.,

Thanks
David

If it's stupid to try to learn the parameters then you have a pretty stupid definition of stupid.

Why didn't you just answer the AD's simple question? You come off looking bad here, IMHO.

I will ask again. Why does the AD need to know anything about "why" for this portion of this policy? Is the ejection going to be rescinded if he/she does not like the reason for the ejection or the personal policy of the umpire?

Peace

Who cares? He asked a simple question, he should get a simple answer. By being evasive, the umpire opens himself up to criticism.

Perhaps the AD saw this as a teachable moment?

That is what I thought!
 

OK then if "who cares" is the answer, then who cares what the reason for the motivation for the question or why Mark did or did not answer the question. If it was me, I could give a darn why an AD wants to know, that is not part of the policy. And as I said before, I would not care what an AD thought about my decision on the field. I do not have to answer to them as I am sure most here do not have to either. You cannot have it both ways. ;)

Peace

And what part of f-bomb don't you and the AD understand? It's a JV game which is an extension of the classroom, so the f-bomb is not allowed nor tolerated. You want to keep splitting hairs about this, Rich?

First of all, Rut, my check to you is in the mail and you should receive it Monday. Second, I want to apologize in advance for this long post.

Third. There are a number of officials who think that:

1) The OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA policies requiring the official/umpire to make contact with a school adminstrator the next school day is not a good idea. I have been an OhioHSAA registered official since 1971 and a MichiganHSAA registered official since 1984. I was registered by the FloridaHSAA from 1973 to 1977, and a member of the Southern Calif. Bkb. Off. Assn. from 1982 to 1984.

While in Florida and California I had the undesireable duty of filing game reports for player ejections. During those years neither the FloridaHSAA nor the California Interscholatic Federation had no formal game report form to complete. I can not remember if (and I do not feel like climbing up into the attic to rummage through forty year old files; those who read the Basketball Forum will understand that comment) contacting a school adminstrator was a requirement in those days (I do not think it was.). But I do know that game reports at that time were a he said/she said affair. Nothing good ever game of them because StateHSAA did not have penalties in place for ejections.

The same situation that was in Florida and California was in place in Ohio and Michigan until the early 90's (that's 1990's for the basketball guys reading this post). It was about that time that the OhioHSAA and MichiganHSAA adopted penalties for ejections and both orginzations adopted almost identical game report forms and ejection protocols. The forms were in triplicate with one copy going to the State, one copy to the school, and one copy to the official. The school also received a form to complete. It allowed for a very limited response. And that response was practically dictated to them by the State. The response had to state that the school had taken the appropriate punitave steps as required the StateHSAA Rules and Regulations. The StateHSAA would not accept and he said/she said response from the school. I can only speculate, that Ohio and Michigan requirment of the official notifying the school is so that the school principal, who may not have been at the athletic event and therefore may not know yet of the ejection will be notified in a timely manner and that he will be receiving a game report.

In recent years both Ohio and Michigan has gone to an online reporting system, but still require the phone call to the school administor. Michigan's is 100% online, and Ohio's is psuedo online (no need to explain because it is not germain to the discussion).

2) I did not handle the AD appropriately. Rut and others, as well as myself, have stated that game reports are to be short, succinct (something I am not very often, :D), and sweet. Meaning the report needs to be on point and nothing else. That also applies to the notification of the administrator.

Everybody here knows that I can go on flights of fancy and hyperbole and very capable of making a short story long (case in point: this post, :D). Every official has his own tolerance for profanity, the F-bomb, the N-word, taunting, and other unsportsmanlike conduct. That tolerance is also determined by the sport being officiated because one sport's penalities for such conduct can not easily be applied to another sport's penalities for such conduct.

Those who post on the Basketball Forum know my position on profanity, the F-bomb, the N-word, taunting, and other unsportsmanlike conduct. I guess one could describe me as old school (Note to Basketball Forum readers: Not that Old School.). I was raised to compete in a way that one could play hard, have emmotion, repsect your opponent, and still conduct onself as a lady or gentleman on the field of competition. Sadly, there are certain elements within the world of sport who find that philosophy quaint to say the least.

I believe that I handled my conversation correctly and I am not alone in this position. That is, a sports official's official comments should be succinct and to the point. They should be germain to the subject being discussed and nothing more. There is a good reason for this position: Silence can not be misquoted and is very difficult to be quoted out of context.

I think I have said enough for a while.

MTD, Sr.

I am not getting this splitting of hairs either. We throw people out in baseball (or it is advocated) all the time in other areas of baseball, but we want warnings for players using the most unacceptable words? Really? :rolleyes:

I will send you the wire transfer number as that might come quicker than a check (do not get me started!!! :D).

And in baseball unlike even basketball or football, there are no penalties that can be used before an ejection. With that being said, I know many officials in basketball and football that would eject anyone use for the use of these words listed above without much exception. I am not sure I agree with that personally, but I know those that have no exceptions and that is their right to have those standards. I do not hold onto that position only because if I ejected a player for that I would have to eject everyone soon for similar language. And just like anything in life context matters to me. It is different if you are saying something to yourself for making a bad play and no one can hear you, then saying something to me as an official or to an opponent.

And this is another reason that many states do not require such conversation with anyone at the school. When we have an ejection in Illinois, all we do is file what is called a Special Report. This is done online and the information is sent directly to the AD and Principal of that school. We are not to contact the school or the IHSA about the result or punishment. The same would go if someone filed a Special Report on us. We do not contact the school or official to get clarification. Nothing good can come out of that. If the IHSA wants to talk to us, they can contact us for clarification. But those reports should be specific and to the point. No editorializing what we think or why we think the events took place. We give the exact words and the rules that apply and some facts about when it took place in the game.

Peace

Jeff,
No, the ejection isn't going to be rescinded. However, the school may choose to add their own punishment, as I pointed out in post #7 of this thread.

As an example, some schools think that a one game suspension is more than enough for a momentary outburst. They may wish to add on if it was the F-bomb followed by "you", or perhaps preceded by "you mother..".

At the time that the AD took the call, he presumably has no way to know if the ejection report will include the detail and color necessary to decide if additional punishment is necessary.

Wouldn't that be in the written report? Maybe I missed something back in the early part of this conversation; there is a written report right? Now I am going to assume that the reason there is even a policy to contact the schools is there is not an online or email component to such information like there is in my state where the Special Report is sent to schools and appropriate school administration when we file the report.

Again without knowing the overall process of this policy I cannot answer to that or if the AD knew anything. But I would have likely stuck to the written report and not editorialized what is usual or common. If that is not supposed to go in the report, not sure I would have did that with the AD either. 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.

Peace

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a state administrator who called me and asked me questions about a game that I'd already submitted a report for. He got annoyed, I think, when I read the report to him on the phone -- he said, "I got your report, you don't need to read it to me."

Well, when he asked, "What happened," my first thought was that I had sent a pretty thorough report. It was all in there.

"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.

My opinion is...

1. I think the requirement to call the school is nonsensical.

2. The AD's question about MTD's "practice" in other unrelated situations was wholly inappropriate, and MTD's decision to decline to answer it was proper and sound.

Had the AD instead asked for more "contextual" information about the situation involving his player, I believe I would have cautiously and circumspectly answered his question.

JM

If this was FB I would hit the "LIKE" button.

Peace

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

It was not a simple question. It was the beginning of an S-storm, one Mark properly avoided. You can't tell me you think AD was asking this for any reason other than to get into an argument, can you?

If that is his purpose then he is a RAT too, and less said the better. Follow the stupid state rules and no more. These rules apparently require you to speak with, but not to argue with.

I agree, Mike. As I said before, if the AD was wanting more information for a possible higher-degree punishment for the kid, then he went about the questioning the wrong way.

My seasons go a lot smoother because I ignore the stupid state "rules". The state association is not my employer, and I don't see any compelling reason to care about what they think I ought to do relative to a contract I have with a school to officiate baseball games at that school.

Schools are association members; officials are not. You don't have to dance to every tune it calls.

Don't they have a say over if you are eligible to work games? The requirement was to have them inform the school, not give reasons why they made a call or what is even typical. Mark followed that with flying colors and probably could tell by the tone in the voice of the AD and the nature of the questions how it was going to end up. If he had had a confrontation with him it would have been blown out of proportion. Best to just get off the phone and move an anyway. Not sure how anyone can think that is not acceptable. But then again people have a right to their opinions.

Peace

Do you really think that was the AD's intent when asking Mark the question? I don't.

Me too.

"Sir, I pulled you over because you were driving 61 in a 55 mph zone."

"Do you stop everyone who drives 6 mph over the limit?"

Yeah, that is going to go over well. :D

Peace

A great example...

"No, only the ones that act like a$$es. Can I see your license?"

Snaqs:

The money I am sending to you and Rut are being listed on my Schedule C as professional services. :D

MTD, Sr.

+1

No way am I letting the AD dictate the purpose of the call. His question is irrelevant to the purpose of the call.

In this situation, I would send a copy of the report directly to the Principal, noting that his/her AD did not agree with the ejection for the F-Bomb.

I don't know if I'd go down that road. The AD never said he didn't agree ... that would be an inference on MTD's part. I think you just prolong the sh1tstorm if you make that notation in your report.

The ejection was for the F-Bomb. Not about any other possible swearing.

If the AD agreed with the ejection he would have (and should have) advised that he appreciated the call and would address it on his end in an appropriate manner, possibly over and above the sanctions handed down by the state association.

His actions are right on par with a coach loudly telling his player "that's OK Jimmy, the ptich was low" and then responding to your warning by claiming that he was "just talking to his player".

The Principal (the AD's boss in most cases) needs to know about this.

I am actually amazed and I shouldn't be that there are people do not get this very basic point.

Peace

Yes we do Rut but, some of us also believe that acting professional both on and off the field, far outweigh this.

So are you saying that MTD was unprofessional by refusing to answer bait disguised as a question? I've had a few coaches ask me the same question, when I gave their player a T for profanity. It's never a legitimate question; it's always an attempt to trap you in a corner.

Answer it if you feel you must, but don't throw the "unprofessional" tag at an official who refuses to engage an obstinant rat (ADs can be rats, too.)

It's only "better" to get off the phone and move on; "best" is not getting on the phone at all.

They have a say over some games directly, and some indirectly. This differs from state to state. They can (and have) removed me from consideration for the state tournament beyond the first round. Given the quality of about 50% of those who work the state finals every year, I wouldn't even consider it an honor to be offered a slot, because merit clearly is not at the top of the selection criteria.

They can refuse to register me, and schools could then still hire me if they wished, but at the risk of being excluded from participation in the state tournament if they are found out. Few would do that, I'm sure.

State associations will not involve themselves in directly saying that schools may absolutely not hire unregistered officials, because they know that puts them perilously close to being labeled an employer. The irrefutable fact is, I have no contract with the state association; therefore, I have no reason to care what they "require" or recommend.

If I think it's reasonable (e.g., a written report within 48 hours), I do it; if not, (e.g., calling the ADs, PU covers third on a naked triple, signing scorebooks) I don't.

On this issue, I sit in the catbird's seat: the schools want quality officials, and I am one, but if the state association puts me on a blacklist, I couldn't care less. HS baseball is a break-even filler between the profitable college and summer-ball seasons. It's the lowest quality and least profitable season I work.

Officials do themselves no favors by allowing state associations to dictate the terms of how independent contractors conduct their business, when those associations are not contractual parties.

So why don't you give the coach the T also, hell, you already know what he is implying and being the Rat he is just get it over with and toss him too. Now you've shown everybody who is running that game.

MTD made a post and certainly expected opinions about it. I gave my opinion about it and about Ruts comments too.

You sir are the one making implications and I am kind of suprised you even have to ask a question like that because, as you have already shown above, your a master at determining intent.

And you're certainly entitled to share your opinion, but implying that his response to the coach was unprofessional was off base. It doesn't take a "master at determining intent" to figure out what a coach or AD means by "do you always...." in this context. He's not trying to get the context of the situation; he's trying to coach MTD. Personally, I find that to be unprofessional.

I made an inference that seems pretty fair given the context. You implied MTD was unprofessional with his response.

If he wanted to know exactly how it played out, then when MTD said his question wasn't germaine, he should have simply re-worded it. The man has a freaking college degree, he can figure out how to ask an appropriate question to get the answer he wants.

This is where you lost me. What in our job description requires me to answer any questions of an AD that does not hire me to do my job in the first place?

Peace

I'm only going to disagree with this slightly. Even if you use an assigner, like we do here for basketball, the ADs are the "end-user" (to butcher a business term).

I agree with the rest, however. No way I'm answering rhetorical questions designed to make a point.

If I am going to do the games at any level, I am going to follow all their procedures to the best of my ability. If you cannot do that, do not take the game. When you accept a contract, you accept the responsibility of what is being asked of you. Of course you do not have to follow those rules, but why give someone a chance to say you did not follow the procedures? You do not do this, they will claim you do not do other things just as fast.

Peace

Are you sure you don't have a contract with the state association? Isn't it called a license?

When I register with the state association, I'm agreeing to work the associated games in accordance with the association's rules. If you don't like the rules, you are free not to register with them, but you are also giving up working associated games.

The state association here is the regulator and while I don't know about Michigan, I do know Ohio will levy a significant fine if you ignore their regulations.

Not in all states... but I just checked mine, and nothing on that license says I have to cowtow to rat AD's asking "non-germaine" questions trying to talk me into a corner or bait me into an argument.

He (radio blue) said he wouldn't even call.

If that's part of the procedure in a state, I'd call. but I also "cowtow to rat AD's asking "non-germaine" questions trying to talk me into a corner or bait me into an argument".

The two ideas can co-exist.

It's on Missouri's. Word-for-word.

I hope you mean you play a cowtow game with him, because I think it would be impossible for him to bait me, or you, into an argument. If I had to call him he would get yes/no answers to yes/no questions and not much else.

If it is not a yes/no question then ... "Uh, you want to rephrase that question so I can answer yes or no?"

Yes! Parameters my a$$. If I get an AD or principal who doesn't know what an F-Bomb is, he shouldn't have the job. If he asks me a loaded question like that, I will cheerfully let him know that it is none of his concern just what the criteria is that I use to eject. In the case of his little snot that I ejected, hey, he said something to get ejected. Period. Read my report for further detail. Our assignors here back us up with ADs and other school personnel on matters like these, and take zero crap from them.

It's a two-way street. If they want to insist I'm an IC, they don't get to tell me how to accomplish a task.

My game contract is not with the state association. They insist officials are independent contractors, then thrust an adhesion contract (registration) in your face that violates many of the tenets of an IC relationship.

I administer games in accordance with the PLAYING rules. Uniforms, mechanics, and post-game administration are the province of the IC. If they want to dictate otherwise, they can adhere to ALL the tenets of the employer/employee relationship.

Another two-way street is, "If you don't like how I administer games, don't offer me games." I make myself available to work; I don't ask for games. Schools don't have to offer them via their designated assignor, but they do.

All I'm saying, Rut, is that we aren't their employees, so if they want us to be ICs, I'm going to behave like one, regardless of their "contracts," the terms of which I have no say.

They can't have their cake, and eat it, too. If you allow that, you do yourself and your fellow officials no favors.

Many officials will polish any apple, shine any shoe, and kiss any a$$ for a shot at the state finals. That's short-sighted. We aren't the whipping boys of the state association or the schools. Too many are willing to be treated as such, and that's why we are.

They like to tell us how valued we are, but when push comes to shove, they'll throw us under the bus.

It sounds like you are more worried about kissing someone's *** than you are doing your job. Yes I am an independent contractor, but that means that I do not work for the school or the state. But if I am a contractor in any other profession, it is possible that you will be governed by rules or laws that have nothing to do with who I work with or under. If you are an insurance agent, , you might not be an employee for a company that you sell products for, but if you want to keep your license you better follow the procedures that are asked of you or in those cases you might be fined or go to jail. Now it is not that series as an official, but if you do not want to play by their rules, then do not take the games. This has nothing to do with going to the state tournament or not. I know if a league which you claim you work more than HS wanted you to do something, and if you did not do what they asked you might not be able to work games. I do not see the big deal.

Peace

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.

I'm sorry to say, but you are just wrong here.

To get the contract in the first place you have to be a registered official. To be a registered official, you have to agree to abide by the bylaws of the association.

If you register as an official and yet refuse to conduct yourself according to the association's rules and regulations, you have failed to conduct yourself with integrity.

There is nothing inconsistent here with an independent contractor relationship.

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.

I don't recall ever saying I wouldn't even call.

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.

Maybe I have your post's confused with someone else's. If so, I apologize.

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.

It could be that Mark's threshold is lower than others and the AD is genuinely curious why Mark would eject for that.

Personally, I don't get excited about language. I had a kid thrown out at the plate yesterday on a wild pitch, and after I punched him out, he got up and I heard a word starting with "f" come from his lips. I simply turned to him and said, "Hey, watch your language, OK?" with a smile on my face. He said, "Sorry, blue," and that was the end of it.

I save my ejections for important things. Using a word in a situation where he's not directing it at an opponent or an official isn't one of them.

I agree. If I had a nickel for every time a player used an expletive when mad at himself, I'd have a ****load of nickels.

I believe Mr Senger commented the way he did because what you're asking is, in fact, no more germaine to the issue than when the AD asked. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could offer the opinion that it's as if you're the AD or a minion, trying to draw him out. But I'm not, so I won't.

I'd argue it's the bookkeeper that's responsible, with the principal approving, since the school pays the money, not the AD. And as to your "Maybe" - you think? That's the only reason I come up with for why the AD bothered to ask that detail. There may be some pockets of exceeding civility where there's another scenario, but in the real world, the AD's not looking to do anything but save his guy.

Me either, but where you seem to differ in opinion with many here is what constitutes an honest answer. "Mr X, that's not relevant to the issue at hand. Your player was ejected, and you have been notified. Please see my report for further details. Thank you." It's an honest answer, and since it sounds better than "It's none of your d--- business," it's fairly professional as well.

My guess: he's looking to score a rhetorical point with Mark. A condescending way of saying, "You shouldn't have ejected for such a petty reason." Socratic coaching; I've seen it on the basketball court.

Mark, but if you are from Illinois and this situation took place here, you would never be asked or required to answer any question of anyone at a school when you file a Special Report with the IHSA. Those Special Reports are not only a legal document; they are a personal interaction so that the IHSA can take appropriate action on the incident that is filed on them. Every single time one of those Special Reports are filed, the school or individual has to respond to the IHSA their side of the story and explain how those things are not going to happen again. That is why the IHSA does not go back to an official that ejected someone and tell them what the result was of the Special Report or the suspension. I have filed many of these reports over the years and the only way I have ever found out what the suspension was is when the media might have mentioned it in the paper or I saw it on a show. And I have never had to answer any further questions from the IHSA about any incident or ejection in my 15 years of officiating.

Peace

I was being sarcastic. It's the same answer he gave the AD when he called.

Andrew,
There is a fine line between what you perceive as sarcasm and the reality of antagonism. Some of you seem to think that the AD has no right to ask anything of the official. Apparently, their association code allows him/her to do so. Some of you think that the AD is trying to intimidate or bait the official. Having been in enough heated discussions on baseball fields in my life, the ADs question is hardly controversial. "Mr. AD, your player was ejected because he used profanity in a manner that wasn't considered minor in nature. You can find that violation of the rules and penalty in 3-3-1 of our rule book." End of story.

I have read your posts and know you to be a knowledgeable umpire. How many times have you had a coach confront you on a FPSR? Could you defend it? How many times have you had a coach claim that the runner should be out because the ball beat him by four steps? I'm sure you handled that well. Being baited is something many umpires learn to confront without causing more drama. Mark handled it as he saw fit. Not knowing Mark or the AD, I still believe that he could have answered the question as above and soothed the wound. The AD would have no retort.

Enjoy your weekend. Looks like rain is on the way here.

How about this: I wasn't directly answering your question. I was being funny, in that I was "answering" for Mark by giving the same answer he gave the coach. The "answer" wasn't meant to be taken as what I would say, what Mark would say, or what any umpire would say.

It was a failed attempt at humor.

It's good to know I'm fooling one person. My experience is nothing close to most who frequent here, but I pride myself in knowing the craft and doing it to the best of my ability. Due to other obligations, I don't get nearly the number of games I'd like, but I don't dwell on that fact -- I just do the games I can get.


Zero. I could definitely defend it if needed.

Twice I can think of quickly. Both times R1 was stealing 2B; the throw from F2 was off the bag and toward 1B side, causing F4 or F6 to come down the line and attempt a tag; both times the runner got around it.

In the first (last year), the coach didn't say anything. In the second (this year, between two Varsity divisional rivals), the coach came out and asked what I had. He specifically said, "The ball beat the runner, Andrew." I explained what he had, he calmly said, "I think you missed it, Andrew." I replied that the tag missed the runner. He walked away without any other discussion.

I didn't go looking for this old thread, but since I found it:
 

I was doing a search over the weekend end I discovered this old thread; I had forgotten about it even though I am the one that started it, but since Mark, Jr., had player ejection in a JV baseball game about two weeks ago, I decided to post an update so to speak to this thread.


Setting the stage:

The Saturday (April 07th, to be exact) before Easter, Mark was the PU for a JV game between Team A (Home) and Team B (Visitor). During the game Mark ejected a player from Team B for Malicious Contact. That evening he completed the OhioHSAA Game Report and emailed it to the OhioHSAA and the Principal of Team B. In his email to the Principal, he said that since Team B would not be back in school until Monday, April 16th, he would call him then per OhioHSAA Rules and Regulations. Easter night Mark received an email from Team B's Principal telling him that he need not call because he had read the Game Report and it told him all he needed to know concerning the event. Don't we wish all school administrators were like that.


Flash forward to Tuesday, May 10th:

Our assigner in his infinate wisdom assigned us to different JV baseball games as sites only three miles apart. Mark's game was between Team A (Home), yes, that Team A in the April 07th game, and Team C (Visitor). Team A losing by one run with one out and a runner on 1B in the bottom of the 7th inning when a Pinch Hitter comes to the Plate. First pitch is a called strike. PH starts to complain so much that before another pitch is thrown, Team A's HC has to find a PH for his PH, :p.

Mark files his Game Report that night. The next morning Mark will have to call the Team A Principal to report the ejection. Mark has never had to make such a phone call because in five years of officiating H.S. basketball and umpiring H.S. baseball, these are his first two ejections. Like the great father that I am, I sit him down and advise him as to how to conduct his conversation with the Principal. I told him to keep it simple, short, to the point, and do not let the Principal try to change the subject.

I was not present for the telephone conversation, but Mark told me that he did his best to follow my advice but the Principal threw him a change-up and he took the bait. He asked Mark how many players he had ejected this year, and Mark told him two. Mark and I talked about it later and he realized that he should have told the Principal that the question was not germaine to the situation, and if he was going to answer it he should have brought up the April 07th game.

Mark's inexperience in these situations is something that we have all experienced as young officials. The only reason for asking such a quesiton was to attempt to label Mark as an official who is out of control and ejects players for no good reason. Mark really has nothing to worry about because he as established himself as a good young umpire, but there are Rats out there and sometimes they look like cute little bunny rabbits.

MTD, Sr.