Fake Tag = Ejection

[kylejt]

Forcing a player to slide by way of a fake tag, when there's no need to, would be unsportsmanlike in my book. How an umpire wants to deal with UC in dependant on each individual situation. (i.e. it's a judgement call). It can range from a "Hey, knock it off", to an EJ.

You won't find "warn and eject" in any rule book.

Good infielders can hold up runners by way of a fake catch and throw, as the ball goes by them. You see it all the time. If that forces a player to slow up, or even hit the deck, that's fine. What isn't fine is putting a glove down at the base, knowiingly, without the ball. Players at the upper levels get one in the ribs for doing this, and a word from the catcher. In a game played by kids, the umpires need to deal with it.

Maybe in the orginal situation, that player had been previously warned about doing this, and went ahead and did it again. The EJ report should reveal that, if there is one. I agree that if that report stated the sole reason the player was ejected was for the fake tag, that wouldn't fly. But, if it stated he was run for UC, there's no way to back out of that one.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by kylejt

You won't find "warn and eject" in any rule
.

Fed.

In LL I'm treating a fake tag as simple obstruction minus a RIM citation I'm not aware of. In Pony I'm deeming it legal.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Forcing a player to slide by way of a fake tag, when there's no need to, would be unsportsmanlike in my book.

It would more advisable to use a rule book.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Forcing a player to slide by way of a fake tag, when there's no need to, would be unsportsmanlike in my book. How an umpire wants to deal with UC in dependant on each individual situation. (i.e. it's a judgement call). It can range from a "Hey, knock it off", to an EJ.

The original post concerned a play in Michigan, using NFHS rules.

According to NFHS 3-3-1b (Penalty): "At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected."

Plain enough for you?

[DG]

Originally Posted by kylejt

I agree that if that report stated the sole reason the player was ejected was for the fake tag, that wouldn't fly. But, if it stated he was run for UC, there's no way to back out of that one.

The umpire should define what any UC ejection was for on the ejection report and not just list the reason as UC, which of course hides the fact that he tossed for fake tag on first offense.

[blueump]

More interesting information:

Apparently the ejecting official never filed a report.

Despite that, according to the MHSAA handbook there are no appeals of any ejections (even with misapplication of rules), no protests are allowed (even with misapplication of rules), and the player is still suspended for the remainder of the game - plus any other games that day as well as the next scheduled playing date (even if the official never files a report). The student ended up serving a total of 4 2/3 games suspension because the next playing date was a Saturday tournament...and the official never even filed a report!

[SAump]

Originally Posted by blueump

More interesting information:

Apparently the ejecting official never filed a report.

Despite that, according to the MHSAA handbook there are no appeals of any ejections (even with misapplication of rules), no protests are allowed (even with misapplication of rules), and the player is still suspended for the remainder of the game - plus any other games that day as well as the next scheduled playing date (even if the official never files a report). The student ended up serving a total of 4 2/3 games suspension because the next playing date was a Saturday tournament...and the official never even filed a report!

No one broke their leg as a result of another fake tag during one of those games.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by blueump

More interesting information:

Apparently the ejecting official never filed a report.

Despite that, according to the MHSAA handbook there are no appeals of any ejections (even with misapplication of rules), no protests are allowed (even with misapplication of rules), and the player is still suspended for the remainder of the game - plus any other games that day as well as the next scheduled playing date (even if the official never files a report). The student ended up serving a total of 4 2/3 games suspension because the next playing date was a Saturday tournament...and the official never even filed a report!

Well, maybe instead of expending so much energy on the legitimacy of the original EJ, you should be pursuing the idiotic post-EJ suspension rules that don't allow for multi-game tournament days. I've seen plenty of outrage expended over whether it's an EJ or not, yet no one's really commented on the stupidity of the rest of it.

Even if the EJ was something we all agree on, do we all think what turned out to be an automatic 4-game suspension is warranted? Unless he was swinging a bat around like he was Highlander, I'd suspect the answer is 'no.'

[blueump]

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

Well, maybe instead of expending so much energy on the legitimacy of the original EJ, you should be pursuing the idiotic post-EJ suspension rules that don't allow for multi-game tournament days. I've seen plenty of outrage expended over whether it's an EJ or not, yet no one's really commented on the stupidity of the rest of it.

Even if the EJ was something we all agree on, do we all think what turned out to be an automatic 4-game suspension is warranted? Unless he was swinging a bat around like he was Highlander, I'd suspect the answer is 'no.'

I suppose the answer you would get from the MHSAA is that they simply don't want to get involved. A ruling is a ruling. The policy is that if an ejection happens, for whatever reason, the ejected player or coach misses the remainder of games that day and the next scheduled date. That's been the policy for as long as I've been umping. Another reason I like the ability to restrict to the dugout when necessary.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by blueump

I suppose the answer you would get from the MHSAA is that they simply don't want to get involved.

Or maybe you would hear "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Coaches & players who know what the consequences are and still get ejected don't garner any sympathy from me.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by CT1

Or maybe you would hear "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Coaches & players who know what the consequences are and still get ejected don't garner any sympathy from me.

Coaches and players that violate an ejectable rule should face the consequences without complaint. Its the ones that get ejected without just cause or merit that is up for discussion here.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by blueump

I suppose the answer you would get from the MHSAA is that they simply don't want to get involved. A ruling is a ruling. The policy is that if an ejection happens, for whatever reason, the ejected player or coach misses the remainder of games that day and the next scheduled date. That's been the policy for as long as I've been umping. Another reason I like the ability to restrict to the dugout when necessary.

I never think of after-game consequences to an ejection. If the player/coach doesn't want to get suspended for four games -- here's a thought -- don't get ejected in the first place.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

I never think of after-game consequences to an ejection. If the player/coach doesn't want to get suspended for four games -- here's a thought -- don't get ejected in the first place.

Sure ... but what this kid (apparently) did didn't warrant the ejection in the first place. Hence the problem.