FED Ejection. Proper or not?

[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

[Altor]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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.

Perhaps not an official warning, but I would think preventive officiating would be appropriate in this situation.

"Young man, that necklace will have to come off before you enter the field."

[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