FED Ejection. Proper or not?
 

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

The pre-game conference cannot be a place where official team warnings are given. A team warning is given upon discovery of a violation. The next violator is not ejected, but rather restricted to the bench. (i.e.: if a state association has a suspension policy for ejections, bench restrictions do not count.)

Wrong call.

sounds like a smitty to me

I don't work HS so I don't know the particular rule, but an umpire getting regional playoff assignments should know better than to EJ the second batter of the game for a LiveStrong bracelet in a playoff game.

Tell the kid his shoe is untied, then have him take it off.

No, that's not the right way to do it. Give a team warning at that point and have the kid remove it. Don't just ignore the rule because the game is "important." Because it's important, the kid should know better. And when he removes it and you issue the warning, everyone else will see that and make sure you won't have to deal with it again.

I'd love to see the guy's plate meeting. Probably takes 10 minutes.

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

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,

While 3.3.1G does involve a pre-game warning, it also involves a pre-game infraction.

I can't find any rule or case play that suggests a warning is proper before an infraction occurs.

And certainly none that suggests a warning during the plate conference is proper.

JM

Hmmm
 

Under NFHS Rules a "player" can only be restricted for one reason and THIS AIN'T IT!

T

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

Wow, ...

Sadly we had the same exact thing happen in state regional several years ago and we just about did not make it out of town.

F3 hits HR in his at bat and as he's coming home, PU sees jewelry and ejects him. Said same thing about warning in pre-game. This was in first inning.

Three man crew and both of us tried to get PU to change his mind, but this guy was an old smitty "know it all" and he would NOT change his mind. :eek:

The home team lost that game, in extra innings and F3 was their best player, it was not a good situation for an umpire to be in.

I went to our state officials post game and they agreed it was wrong, and sent a memo to all officials.

For years after, everytime I went to that school fans would bring up that play again. :(

I made it a point to never calle a game again with that official, and our governing body never let him call a HS playoff game again. He quit officiating a couple of years later, thankfully I should say.

Thanks
David

TASO did send out that memo. During the game if a player is wearing jewelry, have the player remove the jewelry and give a warning. Next player found wearing jewelry IS ejected.

Splitting hairs but a TASO test question had no ejection for a player on the bench wearing jewelry. The player has to be "in the game". Of course you still remove the jewelry.

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.

3.3.1d says shall not wear jewelry, PENALTY that follows says team warning and eject next player. No team warnings at plate meeting.

Read 3.3.1a and tell me you issue team warning every time this happens.

Me too.

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.

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.......................:D

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.

Ha ha, I know where you live!! ;)

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. :D

http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...tml#post761942

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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."