Throwing the Bat - LL

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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

OK, you're kind of making my point now. If you've been "banging on" them - and they've not done it... maybe they DON'T sanction what you're proposing.

I REALLY don't think some semi-anonymous commentary on Facebook is going to hold water when my assignor asks me what I was thinking when I ejected a coach for a legal reentry after I failed to properly administer the rules of the game - especially when that ejection gets protested and starts heading up the chain.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

OK, you're kind of making my point now. If you've been "banging on" them - and they've not done it... maybe they DON'T sanction what you're proposing.

I REALLY don't think some semi-anonymous commentary on Facebook is going to hold water when my assignor asks me what I was thinking when I ejected a coach for a legal reentry after I failed to properly administer the rules of the game - especially when that ejection gets protested and starts heading up the chain.

Well - it was first suggested by their at-the-time UIC. In writing. Before Facebook. It's still being pushed by the rank and file. Time will tell.

The real problem from a rules perspective is that it should probably be treated differently for an 8 yr old who hasn't learned yet and a 15 year old who should definitely know better. That's why the AR option should be there.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Well - it was first suggested by their at-the-time UIC. In writing. Before Facebook. It's still being pushed by the rank and file. Time will tell.

The real problem from a rules perspective is that it should probably be treated differently for an 8 yr old who hasn't learned yet and a 15 year old who should definitely know better. That's why the AR option should be there.

It seems to me it's not the ejection that's the issue; it's the automatic one-game suspensions. Get rid of the automatic suspension and get a disciplinary committee instead.

[TwoBits]

I know leagues using OBR usually have some sort of supplemental rule regarding throwing bats, but do the OBR rules themselves mention it?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

I know leagues using OBR usually have some sort of supplemental rule regarding throwing bats, but do the OBR rules themselves mention it?

Not in the sense it's used in this thread

[Rich]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

I know leagues using OBR usually have some sort of supplemental rule regarding throwing bats, but do the OBR rules themselves mention it?

No.

I ended a LL tournament game last season when a team with 9 players helicoptered his bat to the fence after striking out. (Umpires suspend in LL, the powers that be decide on the forfeit.)

I know this is a different situation, but I've never let the number of players or the consequences to the player guide my decision on ejecting or not ejecting. If most people think a suspension is unfair, they'll change that rule. If not, then players and coaches must be mindful that actions have consequences.