FED Ejection. Proper or not?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I believe I've received an email memo from TASO in Texas that a warning at the plate meeting does not suffice.

Me too.

[Stu Clary]

This reminds me of the time - many years ago, I was in my early 20s - when I was working a junior high school basketball game with VERY veteran official. I toss the ball up for tip off to start the game and as soon as it was touched my partner blew his whistle.

Five T's on the home team for wearing jewlery...all the starters had sweatbands on their wrists. I learned some new curse words that day.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Ya simply go over to the head coach and say, "you gonna take care of this or do you want me to?" All the jewlrey will come off and everyone gets to play ball. Yeah it's not the way the book says to do it but sometimes, you just have to umpire.

Wait! Is this the same Oz who is thumping me for giving a manager a chance to pull a player for accidentally flinging a bat, instead of ejecting him?

Honestly, you high school umpires.......................

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Wait! Is this the same Oz who is thumping me for giving a manager a chance to pull a player for accidentally flinging a bat, instead of ejecting him?

Honestly, you high school umpires.......................

Yes it is!

That is FED, your situation was OBR where there is very little that can be done other than to eject (check the OBR Rules sometime and you will see what I mean). The FED makes statements of restricting or ejecting but the State Board wants us to try and use those only as the situation cannot be resolved any other way. Of course, that is here in CT - in Oregon where Tim is, the State Board may be just the opposite. As a FED umpire, you are bound to the National FED and your State's interpretation of the rules. In OBR, there is no local interpretation - if the rules says eject, you eject.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

So, I went to watch my nephew's Regional playoff game this afternoon.

The 2nd batter of the game was ejected for wearing jewelry. (One of the "livestrong" type rubber bracelets.)

I am reliably informed that the PU had mentioned the FED prohibition on wearing jewelry during the plate conference, and considered it his "warning".

Was the ejection in accordance with FED rules or not? What say you?

Thanks.

JM

Ha ha, I know where you live!!

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed that the conference does not substitute for the warning, but 3-3-1c says "shall be ejected."

You're right. Got my FED baseball & FED softball confuzzled. Thanks for the correction.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

You're right. Got my FED baseball & FED softball confuzzled. Thanks for the correction.

Just don't call traveling on the field or a home run on the court.

[Raymond]

FED Ejection. Proper or not?

Same situation here in Hampton Roads. Local superstar (headed to LSU) ejected from district final and therefore suspended from playing 1st round of regionals. Suspension was upheld on appeal (vote by 2 principals and commissioner of umpire's association. Vote to repeal suspension had to be 3-0; commissioner voted to enforce suspension.) Commissioner stated that pre-game meeting constitutes first warning.

[northshoreump1]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

In the current Case Book, there are several examples of warnings being issued pre-game. On page 29, 3-3-1g cites just such an application.

Warnings can be issued before the game and infractions involving said cautionary can involve an ejection as a result.

For example, while checking helmets and bats, the umpire sees numerous players wearing prohibited items. At the time, he states that the rules prohibit them from being worn and encourages their removal. That suffices as a warning and following infractions can be dealt with whenever they occur.

Players and coaches involved in Regional playoffs should know the rules too.

Mike,

Ejecting a player based on your logic is absolutly rediculous. Your initial point that warnings CAN in fact be issued pregame is correct, but that has absolutly no impact on the situation. Whether a warning is issued pregame or during the game is not what is being argued over. The bottom line is that an "official warning" must be issued DUE TO AN INFRACTION. In your above scenario, if you were to notice a kid's wristband on while roaming the dugout before the game, at that point, since you detected an infraction of the FED jelwery rule, it is completely legal for you to issue that team an official warning and then encourage the kid to take off the wristband. At this point, if another player were to enter the game wearing jelwery, it would result in an ejection.

Also, a warning during a plate conference CANNOT count as an official warning. If official warnings could be given in a plate conference, what would be the point of warnings being apart of the rule books at all? If plate meeting warnings counted as official warnings, then during plate conferences, whats to stop umpires from giving an "official warning" to anything he can think of? Why not "officialy warn" all pitchers not to throw at hitters in the plate meeting? Then according to your logic, the first pitcher who hits a batter can be tossed. "Official Warnings" are apart of the rule book because the IHSA or other officiating organizations purposfully want the first offences of these rules to be warned before facing a harsh penalty. General warnings issued in a plate conference are in no way "official".

Finally, I am actually somewhat farmilar with the exact situation that occured in this ballgame. Once the umpire crew threw out the kid with the wristband, during the chaos that followed, the catcher on the opposing team actually realized that he was wearing a chain necklace around his neck. The catcher sprinted over to his bench where opposing coaches rushed to help him remove the necklace before the officials could notice it. The umpiring crew was too slow to notice what was going on, and the catcher was able to get all of his jelwery off before it was seen by the officials.
This is yet another reason why plate conferences CANNOT act as official warnings. The official warning must come following an infraction so that other players on the field and in the game have a chance to check themselves to make sure that they too are not wearing jewlery. A pre-game plate conference warning is not sufficient. Since no "official warning" was offered in the above situation, kids on both teams were not aware of any sort of jewlery warning. So when the kid got tossed, it turned into a race of who could take their jewlery off before an umpire noticed it.
If the umpiring crew had dealt with the situation correctly and offered an official warning to both teams at that point, the catcher and other players on the field would have had the fair chance they deserved to remove the rest of their jewlery before risking an ejection.

The above situation is absolutly outragous, and if i were in a positon to repremand the umpiring crew for this game, they would never again be able to umpire in the high school state tournament.

[UmpJM]

northshoreump,

I pretty much concur with your observations, except in one respect.

I don't believe FED rules prohibit participants from wearing jewelry while in the dugout nor before the start of the game.

So, had an umpire observed a player wearing jewelry while in the dugout before the game - say while checking the bats and helmets, for example - I don't believe a warning then would be appropriate or "official" either.

Also, when one team does violate the jewelry rule, only that team is warned - not both teams.

JM

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by northshoreump1

The above situation is absolutly outragous, and if i were in a positon to repremand the umpiring crew for this game, they would never again be able to umpire in the high school state tournament.

Crew may not have agreed with the ejection. Also could have been a split crew.

[northshoreump1]

ump JM,
yes, you are correct. so i guess mikestrybel's point was not even a little bit right. If the FED jewlery rule does not prohibit jewlery from being worn in the dugout, then i guess an official warning, even then, would not be acceptable.
and umpjim, also, you are right, could have been a split decision

[nopachunts]

It could have been a split crew that reached a split decision. At that point, the PU would have made the decision that was implemented.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by nopachunts

It could have been a split crew that reached a split decision. At that point, the PU would have made the decision that was implemented.

I read it as batter walking up to bat and PU ejecting on the spot. I picture the rest of the crew as WTF. But maybe everybody was thinking that's how it works. A previous poster had a Hampton Roads UC thinking that way.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Crew may not have agreed with the ejection. Also could have been a split crew.

My understanding is that the eject was made solely and unilaterally by the PU without any consultation with the BU.

On a completely unrelated note....

The sub who replaced the ejected player ended up "batting in" all of the runs his team scored - the winning run scored on a grounder he batted to short and the F6 made a throwing error trying to retire the BR that allowed what turned out to be the winning run to score.

JM