WNBA Ejection/Rescission
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPszG1SuRQY

Hmmmm...not sure that was ejection-worthy contact.

Honestly, why is she touching him at all?

Peace

Why are BOTH of them touching him?

That is what I would like to know. Even NBA players know not to be in the personal space of the officials. To me, this was something these players could have avoided.

Peace

I believe under the NBA rules umbrella, intentionally contacting an official is an automatic ejection.

The league didn't think so. Would like to hear the officials' perspective as I'd imagine it'd be different.

You invade an official's personal space, you run the risk of being penalized.

Nothing against you rocky but that is a bad video. Looks like it has been edited to make the situation look bad.

Here is a video that starts a second earlier, you can clearly see the official is walking past the player and she deliberately sticks her arm into his belly. She knew what she was doing.

https://streamable.com/ncrju

The WNBA folks who made the final decision had access to the 'enhanced video' which is totally independent of that provided to TV broadcasters.

The HD videos from the new Monumental Sports and Entertainment complex are far more detailed than earlier generations of the 'eye in the sky' which are deployed in all pro basketball arenas.

Clearly they felt fully justified in their decision.

Sort of like a player running into a defender with his/her head turned. She was mostly just there and he more ran into her hand/arm than anything else. Sure, she could have moved it out of the way, but I don't think this was even T-worthy, much less ejection worthy.

I get the notion of players touching the officials is an automatic ejection, but I don't see this.

He's walking and talking with one player, the other player is addressing one of them (based on images I'm assuming official) he may hear her but is not paying attention to where she is relative to him. He walks through the arm she is trying to show one them. Suddenly turns and from his perspective she's walked up and put her arm on him. Glad the league rescinded it.

If that is ejection worthy than everytime an officials back pedals into a player, or gets bumped walking through crowd people are doing to need to be ejected.

The ejection cannot be rescinded, by rule. The player is excluded from participating in that game and from being present within sight and sound of the playing area. However, the suspension and fine can be rescinded.

"The ejection cannot be rescinded, by rule."

Tell that to the people who make the rules. According to the article, "The WNBA announced on Monday that the league rescinded the technical foul and ejection, stating it 'should not have been assessed.'"

While obviously they cannot go back in time and rescind the missed time. They can have the ejection wiped from the records. For historical purposes and more importantly for tracking of techs, ejections, etc tied to regulation and discipline the ejection has gotten rescinded as it was given in error and will be treated as if it didn't happen.

That does look "worse", but still not ejection-worthy, at least according to the league.

Once a player is removed from the game, (s)he cannot be reinstated for the current game. This is why flagrant fouls are reviewed, to ensure that someone does not get ejected for a flagrant foul penalty 1. Flagrant technical fouls cannot be reviewed, so if a player did something that an official deems ejection-worthy, (s)he is gone. In the context of the game, one cannot be legally "un-ejected" from that game.

The suspension and fine can be vacated, but the player will remain ejected, at least from the current game, once the ejection is issued by the calling official. I have scoured through all the basketball rulebooks and casebooks known to man, and in none of them can an ejection be undone. For that matter, neither can technical fouls.

Thus, the league is allowed to vacate the suspension for the ejection, however the ejection still happened. One cannot deny what has already happened.

Incorrect. They essentially said that while the player didn't return to the game, the reason is no longer an ejection. It is a footnote. You can undo time, but you can redefine what happened. What happened did happen but it wasn't, by retroactive declaration, an ejection.

I think we can all agree that the big lesson here is a fundamental one: Don't walk through players.

But by all means, please, continue to fight this man on another one of his trivial matters.

George Brett "Pine Tar Game" ...
 

First off, basketball ain't baseball.

Sometimes you can go back and "do over" a baseball game, maybe most famously the George Brett "Pine Tar Game" in which Brett, who had apparently hit a ninth inning two run homer to put his Royals ahead, instead hit a game-losing home run, losing because he had too much pine tar on his bat (after Yankee manager Billy Martin brought it to the attention of the umpire), and Brett was called out, the third out of the inning and the last out of the game, the Yankees beating the Royals 4-3. The Royals protested the umpire's decision.

Four days later, American League president Lee MacPhail upheld the Royals' protest, ruling that Brett had not violated the spirit of the rules nor deliberately altered the bat to improve the distance factor. Brett's home run was restored and the game resumed with two outs in the top of the ninth inning with the Royals leading 5–4. MacPhail retroactively ejected Brett for his outburst against the umpire. He also ejected Royals manager Howser and coach Rocky Colavito for arguing with the umpires, and Royals pitcher Gaylord Perry for giving the bat to the bat boy so he could hide it in the clubhouse. The game was restarted about three weeks later with about 1,200 fans in attendance at Yankee Stadium and officially ended with the Royals winning 5–4.

Since 1913 there have been fifteen such resumed protested MLB games.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gbEHAsZxRYo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B...=0&w=280&h=169