Throwing the Bat - LL

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Why are people complicating this simple procedure?

Because it's Little League. Almost as bad as Fed.

[kylejt]

Ejection is harsh for a nonvoluntary act, as it carries the one game suspension.

"Coach, number seven is done for the day. You pull him, or I eject him. Your choice".

And if a coach pulls him, and tries to reenter him later in the game, eject the coach.

It's pretty simple. No need to go Ozzy on the little kids.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by kylejt

And if a coach pulls him, and tries to reenter him later in the game, eject the coach.

You're ejecting the coach for what exactly, a legal substitution? If you don't want the player to continue to participate in that game, eject him. Otherwise don't. But you have no authority to demand a substitution of a player who has not been ejected.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

You're ejecting the coach for what exactly, a legal substitution? If you don't want the player to continue to participate in that game, eject him. Otherwise don't. But you have no authority to demand a substitution of a player who has not been ejected.

Honestly? I don't have the authority to eject a coach for unsportsmanlike conduct? I give him a chance to save a player from an ejection, and he ignores it (not that it's ever happened to me).

Yeah, he'd go for UC. And we'll see what his replacement wants to do.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Honestly? I don't have the authority to eject a coach for unsportsmanlike conduct? I give him a chance to save a player from an ejection, and he ignores it (not that it's ever happened to me).

Yeah, he'd go for UC. And we'll see what his replacement wants to do.

The point is it's not unsporting conduct. You, as umpire, have tried to circumvent the rules and then when it doesn't work you compound your error by ejecting the coach for no reason.

If I was his replacement, what I would do is file a protest and lodge a formal complaint over your conduct. Oh yeah, and inform you of the substitution I'm about to make.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Honestly? I don't have the authority to eject a coach for unsportsmanlike conduct? I give him a chance to save a player from an ejection, and he ignores it (not that it's ever happened to me).

Yeah, he'd go for UC. And we'll see what his replacement wants to do.

Seems to me you're inventing your own rules. You tell him to choose between ejecting the kid (which is what the rule says, apparently) and putting him on the bench. But then you have an unspoken caveat that the kid has to stay out or you'll judge it USC on the coach? Why can't he do that? Kid's not ejected and has a reentry left.

Seems LL has put on paper what they want the penalty to be - if they wanted a less harsh penalty than sitting out the rest of the game and the next one, they'd have written it that way.

This sounds like a football referee not calling certain penalties simply because he personally feels the penalty is too harsh - nevermind that this is what the rulesmakers put there.

[kylejt]

Easy now, fellas. WP is in agreement with the procedure of benching the kid, instead of the EJ. There's just no current mechanism for it.

So what's the beef with dumping the manager who tries to roll you? Would it be better to just eject the player instead, which in most people's opinion, is way too harsh? So the umpire is trying to be nice, and keep the kid from having to stay home for the next game, and the manager tries to take advantage of it? Well gents, that's pretty unsportsmanlike.

If the next guy wants to play that game, I guess that kid wasn't actually sick/injured/benched after all. He was ejected.

Next.

And not that it's ever come to that. I've only had it come up a couple of times over the years. The managers were appriciative of having that option, and thanked me. Nobody in their right mind wants to eject a little kid over this, 'cause that's who does this sort of stuff. It's not HS kids, or other teenagers. It's 9 year olds. Ejecting an 9 year old for stuff like this will sour his baseball experience, and that of his folks. No need for it.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Would it be better to just eject the player instead, which in most people's opinion, is way too harsh?

I didn't realize we officiated the game on people's opinions.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Easy now, fellas. WP is in agreement with the procedure of benching the kid, instead of the EJ. There's just no current mechanism for it.

So what's the beef with dumping the manager who tries to roll you? Would it be better to just eject the player instead, which in most people's opinion, is way too harsh? So the umpire is trying to be nice, and keep the kid from having to stay home for the next game, and the manager tries to take advantage of it? Well gents, that's pretty unsportsmanlike.

If the next guy wants to play that game, I guess that kid wasn't actually sick/injured/benched after all. He was ejected.

Next.

And not that it's ever come to that. I've only had it come up a couple of times over the years. The managers were appriciative of having that option, and thanked me. Nobody in their right mind wants to eject a little kid over this, 'cause that's who does this sort of stuff. It's not HS kids, or other teenagers. It's 9 year olds. Ejecting an 9 year old for stuff like this will sour his baseball experience, and that of his folks. No need for it.

I agree, WP says to eject him. After all, that's how you, as an umpire, bench a kid.

The coach isn't rolling you, because there is no "mechanism" for permanently benching a player other than ejection which you did not do. You, the umpire, are the one breaking (well, ignoring) rules. Maybe you should eject yourself?

Philosophically, I agree that ejection for this at this age is harsh. I also have a problem with baseball not having an intermediate step before ejection like the yellow card in soccer. However, this is a change that has to be made at a much higher level than the umpire on the field. Your way is just a renegade umpire ignoring the rules.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Easy now, fellas. WP is in agreement with the procedure of benching the kid, instead of the EJ. There's just no current mechanism for it.

Originally Posted by kylejt

I'm just using common sense, and what WP blessed me to do.

Got proof of this "agreement"? Seems like you're grasping at straws.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Easy now, fellas. WP is in agreement with the procedure of benching the kid, instead of the EJ. There's just no current mechanism for it.

OK, fair enough if true. How do we know they are in agreement with it, considering they did not put it in the rulebook, and have likely had numerous opportunities to do so.

So what's the beef with dumping the manager who tries to roll you? Would it be better to just eject the player instead, which in most people's opinion, is way too harsh? So the umpire is trying to be nice, and keep the kid from having to stay home for the next game, and the manager tries to take advantage of it? Well gents, that's pretty unsportsmanlike.

I great you that I don't work LL (well, until last night!). I can't think if an instance in my other rulesets that I do consistently work where I would need to or want to tap-dance around the rules like this. But it seems to me that once the umpire has decided to "be nice" and not enforce a particular rule, he can't really call it unsportsmanlike if the manager takes advantage of that niceness.

If the next guy wants to play that game, I guess that kid wasn't actually sick/injured/benched after all. He was ejected.

I can't even imagine the S-Storm if this sort of thing happened and I wanted to retroactively eject someone for something that happened 2 innings ago. (At least ... in any other rule-set). I know for fact that my assignor would be so far down my throat I'd be choking on feet.

It's 9 year olds. Ejecting an 9 year old for stuff like this will sour his baseball experience, and that of his folks. No need for it.

Honestly, I agree with this in principle. So why wouldn't WP, if they agreed, simply fix the rules so that umpires are not in this bizarre semi-rule-enforcing potentially-retroactive-ejecting netherland in this particular situation?

[Matt]

Having not done LL in a dozen years, I'm surprised the words "administrative removal" have not arisen.

[collint1993]

For rec league, I normally issue a warning to the team of the offender(especially if the catcher gets hurt) and 99% of the time the coaches will agree with you that the kids can't be throwing the bats. If it happens again, I'll call the kid out. But for travel I normally just ask the coach after the inning to talk to his team, and they normally do.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Honestly? I don't have the authority to eject a coach for unsportsmanlike conduct? I give him a chance to save a player from an ejection, and he ignores it (not that it's ever happened to me).

Yeah, he'd go for UC. And we'll see what his replacement wants to do.

How about, if the coach puts the kid back in, you let him, then follow through on the ejection.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How about, if the coach puts the kid back in, you let him, then follow through on the ejection.

Ejection Report:

In the bottom of the first, I issued a warning to HomeTeam batter #15 for carelessly throwing a bat. In the bottom of the third, HomeTeam batter #15 again thew a bat carelessly, hitting the catcher in the shin guards. I approached HomeTeam Coach HomeCoach and asked him to remove #15 from his lineup and place him on the bench.

In the top of the 6th, HomeCoach approached me and advised #15 would be entering the game as the first baseman. I allowed the substitution, then ejected #15 from the game for his actions in the first and third innings.

I don't think that would go over well in any well-run league.