Throwing the Bat - LL

[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.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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

Some here do. Ever seen any of the 'expected call' threads? Those umpires espouse calling the play based on what people expect should happen. I've never been comfortable with that type of thinking.

[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.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Your way is just a renegade umpire ignoring the rules.

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

If you fellas want to eject little kids over this, you've also got their blessing. Knock yourselfs out.

Again, not that I anticipate it ever coming to that. I'm not sitting the kids down, just recommending the managers do it. Instead of being jackballs about it, they thank me for that option.

[kylejt]

Ozzy, don't blow a gasket there, kid.

You're not working these games, so don't worry about it. We're talking little kids, as they're the ones flinging bats. Eight, nine, ten year olds in the LL minors. I work down there becuase I train a lot of Junior umpires. And I'll bet none of the rest of you are, either. So simmer down, y'all.

It's really easy to "Dump the little *******s" when you don't work at that level. But when you are an integral part of a local league, and not just an umpire, you want what's best for everyone involved. Making an eight year old sit out a game because of an accidental release is stupid. Most folks would agree with that.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Really? You have direction and you choose not to use it so that makes you a total fool. This is why LL is so F'd up because you have rules and no one follows them.

And you can kiss my back side with that comment!

Originally Posted by kylejt

Ozzy, don't blow a gasket there, kid.

You're not working these games, so don't worry about it. We're talking little kids, as they're the ones flinging bats. Eight, nine, ten year olds in the LL minors. I work down there becuase I train a lot of Junior umpires. And I'll bet none of the rest of you are, either. So simmer down, y'all.

It's really easy to "Dump the little *******s" when you don't work at that level. But when you are an integral part of a local league, and not just an umpire, you want what's best for everyone involved. Making an eight year old sit out a game because of an accidental release is stupid. Most folks would agree with that.

Ozzy, I agree with you. This is exactly why it's difficult to umpire these leagues. You have the rules so call it by the prescribed penalty and move on. I bet the next time little Johnny is up to bat, he doesn't carelessly throw the bat.

-Josh

[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.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by yawetag

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

Nothing in hand. Just some Facebook conversations via their Discussion page. If you haven't been there, and work LL game, it's a huge source of information and direction directly from the horse's mouth.

Little League Baseball & Softball Discussions | Facebook

p.s. why are you guys so grumpy?

[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?

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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?

Some of us LL geezers have been banging on WP for the administrative removal for years. Some day.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Some of us LL geezers have been banging on WP for the administrative removal for years. Some day.

I am also a LL geezer and have no problem having a kid miss a game for this. Maybe that will finally break him of the bat-throwing habit. Or make it important enough for the coach to deal with it.