Ejection

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
That is actually the only rule I think is really stupid. just my opinion of course. It comes down to vagaries of scheduling. If he intent is to suspend a player from a game at the same level of play, do that. If the intent is to suspend a player from the same level or a higher level, do that.

The situation I am thinking of is a player suspended from a Freshman game not being able to play again if they don't have any more freshman games. So a player could get bounced from a freshman game, have no remaining freshman games to play, and not be able to play at the varsity level for 10 games, while a player bounced from a varsity game could sit one varsity game and be back. Same offense, different result. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I know they shouldn't get ejected and all that, but ejections do happen and should be treated in a manner that is equal for all. Having a one-game suspension that affects more than one game for some and not for others is wrong to me.

Coach, I understand your point and agree with it for the most part. The one thing I could see happening is that a Freshman who plays on the varsity and the JV team gets tossed from a varsity game. The next nite there is a freshman game so the coach puts him on the team lets him get his suspension time served and has him available for the next JV game....it could go both ways...I think I prefer the system we have now..at this age I think it is better to make the penalty a little more harsh and try to get it under control. This being said, in the 7 years I have worked basketball and football, I have only seen 2 kids tossed by our associations...thankfully we just don't have that big of problem here.

[rotationslim]

My take is different, You need to make the "sit one game" rule apply to the "same level" for the following reason:

If a varsity player gets tossed, his coach could then decalare him Junior Varsity, have him sit the next JV game, and have him eligible for the next Varsity game. If the JV game was between the "game where ejection took place" and the next varsity game, he could, presumably avoid sitting out a varsity game through a loophole.

And don't think the coaches wouldn't try it!

FWIW... I am just a "Junior Member"

[rotationslim]

I said the same thing as cmathews, sorry. Like I daid, I am a JR. Member.

Rich, I would have to disagree on the case-by-case scenario. That would create more work for the state association, and would almost require the officials, players, coaches, and administrators to have to make themselves available for hearings, etc. It would be much easier to do everything across the board. Matter of fact, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Nebraska who doesn't like this rule.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Ref Ump Welsch
Rich, I would have to disagree on the case-by-case scenario. That would create more work for the state association, and would almost require the officials, players, coaches, and administrators to have to make themselves available for hearings, etc. It would be much easier to do everything across the board. Matter of fact, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Nebraska who doesn't like this rule.

Nope, the only input required is from the official who made the call. Right now that's the only input that the state gets in the must-suspend states anyway. You don't have to provide due process in order to have some flexibility.

When I lived in another state, I ejected a baseball coach from the district tournament he happened to be hosting. I received a call from the state office looking for feedback whereupon I read my ejection report word-for-word.

He got the 2 games that the state uses as a default penalty. However, there is still leeway for those situations where the suspension isn't warranted. Sometimes, the best ejection is the one that solves the problem for THAT GAME. I realize that this is more of an umpire's mentality than basketball official's, BTW, but that's because they are different sports with different protocols for arguing calls. And because I don't have a whistle and a technical foul I can use in a baseball game.

[Camron Rust]

In Oregon, a coach/player must sit out until one game is played at the level they were ejected from. Anytime a coach is ejected, they school/athletic department is fined. Each occurance (across all sports) increases the amount.

With all ejections, a form is filled out that has the officials statement. It is sent to the state and the school. There is a blank on the form for appealing the suspension part of the ejection. I know of a few cases where the officals statement even suggested that a suspension was unnecessary.

For example, A1 mouths off a little in the 1st half and is a saint for the rest of the game. With 1 minute left, A just scored to be down by 2, and B making a throwin, A1 bats the ball that is being passed along the endline to another thrower. T. Disqualified.

This should not be a suspension and I'm the state should and, I believe, will consdier the nature of the T: was it unsportsmanlike or a lessor T?

[TimTaylor]

OK, here comes my $.02......just throwing out some thoughts...comments appreciated.

What if you changed the words "suspended for the next game" to "suspended through the next game date" at the same level at which they were competing when ejected. I think that would simplify the situation and comply with the intent of the rule, at the same time making it almost impossible for coaches to play the smoke & mirrors game.

For example:
1. Player "A" plays JV only. At the JV game on Tues. night he/she is ejected. Result: he/she does not suit up on Friday.

2. Player "B" plays JV & swings to varsity. At the JV game on Tues. night he/she is ejected. Result: he/she does not play in the Varsity game that follows, and does not suit up for any games on Friday.

I think maybe there also needs to be a clear distinction between disqualification (5 personal or two technical fouls) and ejection (flagrant or unsportsmanlike conduct) with the suspension penalty applying only to the latter.....

[Hawks Coach]

First, I more agree with Rich that there should be no auto suspensions. Let the situation determine whether or not a person should be suspended. But, I am also a realist. And this would require a person or a committee to make a determination on every ejection, and an immediate report faxed after every ejection to support that decision. And the decision must be quick because the suspension might need to take effect the next night. So it is much easier from an adminstrative perspective (especially at the state level) to have it be automatic, even though it may lead to some inequities. Kind of like a red card in soccer - once it's out, you sit, regardless of whether or not your red card was not nearly as bad as somebody else's yellow card.

That said, I think there needs to be a clause in there that says greater or equal counts, or that it is served in the next game played at the same level without impact to other levels. The greater than or equal criteria can only be used if the player has played at a higher level during the current season. IOW, you can't dress a freshman for a varsity game for the first time all year and say it meets the criteria for serving the suspension. But if you have played in varsity games, you can sit out one varsity game to meet the requirement of the one game suspension for a feshman game. It seems to be fairer that way.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by TimTaylor
For example:
1. Player "A" plays JV only. At the JV game on Tues. night he/she is ejected. Result: he/she does not suit up on Friday.

2. Player "B" plays JV & swings to varsity. At the JV game on Tues. night he/she is ejected. Result: he/she does not play in the Varsity game that follows, and does not suit up for any games on Friday.

I think maybe there also needs to be a clear distinction between disqualification (5 personal or two technical fouls) and ejection (flagrant or unsportsmanlike conduct) with the suspension penalty applying only to the latter.....

What gets me about this is that player C plays varsity, does the same thing as player B, and only sits one game. Player B sits 3 games for one ejection. How is this fair?

Mind you I don't support players getting ejected, but this just seems like two players doing the same thing and being punished differently for it.

[TimTaylor]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
[/B]

What gets me about this is that player C plays varsity, does the same thing as player B, and only sits one game. Player B sits 3 games for one ejection. How is this fair?

Mind you I don't support players getting ejected, but this just seems like two players doing the same thing and being punished differently for it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Since most associations limit player participation to 5 quarters total in any given game day, player B wouldn't really miss 3 full games.

To turn it around on you, suppose player B gets tossed in Q3 of the JV game, having played in 3 quarters. Is it fair for him to miss only his 2 quarters of eligibility in the subsequent varsity game and be eligible again the next game date.

Let's compromise - how about we make it subsequent games on the same game date as ejected through the next game at the same or higher level at which they regularly participate. That way player B would miss the subsequent varsity game the same evening and the JV game the next game date, but still be eligible to play 1 quarter in the following varsity game.

That's why I said I think there needs to be a clear distinction between disqualification and ejection - the latter being only for flagrant acts or repeated USC.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
First, I more agree with Rich that there should be no auto suspensions. Let the situation determine whether or not a person should be suspended. But, I am also a realist. And this would require a person or a committee to make a determination on every ejection, and an immediate report faxed after every ejection to support that decision. And the decision must be quick because the suspension might need to take effect the next night. So it is much easier from an adminstrative perspective (especially at the state level) to have it be automatic, even though it may lead to some inequities. Kind of like a red card in soccer - once it's out, you sit, regardless of whether or not your red card was not nearly as bad as somebody else's yellow card.

That said, I think there needs to be a clause in there that says greater or equal counts, or that it is served in the next game played at the same level without impact to other levels. The greater than or equal criteria can only be used if the player has played at a higher level during the current season. IOW, you can't dress a freshman for a varsity game for the first time all year and say it meets the criteria for serving the suspension. But if you have played in varsity games, you can sit out one varsity game to meet the requirement of the one game suspension for a feshman game. It seems to be fairer that way.

I actually have the ejection stats for spring sports handy for my state. They include this in the packet at the state rules meeting.

Last season a TOTAL of 59 baseball player ejections happened statewide (47 in the spring season and 12 in the summer season). 17 ejections in girls soccer, 1 in softball, and 3 in boys track and field (there was 1 in tennis in 1999, which I'm still trying to figure out).

20 total coaches all last season -- 13 in baseball, 3 in softball, 3 in girls soccer, and 1 in track-and-field. At all levels.

79 ejections from March through June. I think each one could be looked at for a couple of minutes without rocking the boat too much. I also think that there would be more ejections if the auto-suspension was not there -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm willing to bet that many should have-been ejections didn't happen because officials didn't think the punishment fit the crime. Instead, the officials probably took grief that they shouldn't have to take.

It could be worse though -- in a state I used to live in, the penalty for head coach ejection used to include forfeit, I believe.

--Rich

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I actually have the ejection stats for spring sports handy for my state. They include this in the packet at the state rules meeting.

Last season a TOTAL of 59 baseball player ejections happened statewide (47 in the spring season and 12 in the summer season). 17 ejections in girls soccer, 1 in softball, and 3 in boys track and field (there was 1 in tennis in 1999, which I'm still trying to figure out).

20 total coaches all last season -- 13 in baseball, 3 in softball, 3 in girls soccer, and 1 in track-and-field. At all levels.

79 ejections from March through June. I think each one could be looked at for a couple of minutes without rocking the boat too much. I also think that there would be more ejections if the auto-suspension was not there -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm willing to bet that many should have-been ejections didn't happen because officials didn't think the punishment fit the crime. Instead, the officials probably took grief that they shouldn't have to take.

It could be worse though -- in a state I used to live in, the penalty for head coach ejection used to include forfeit, I believe.

--Rich

Wow, no ejections in Basketball or Football!?!

I also talked to our asst director of the state org. I asked if a kid got 2 Ts for slapping the ball on a throw-in, if he would have to sit one additional game. The answer was yes. It is too difficult to get into the nuances, he said. You get tossed, you sit, period. And no, disqualification for 5 fouls does not mean a suspension.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Wow, no ejections in Basketball or Football!?!

I also talked to our asst director of the state org. I asked if a kid got 2 Ts for slapping the ball on a throw-in, if he would have to sit one additional game. The answer was yes. It is too difficult to get into the nuances, he said. You get tossed, you sit, period. And no, disqualification for 5 fouls does not mean a suspension.

Don't have those stats handy. The ones I gave were only for spring sports.

Too difficult to get into the nuances? Auto suspensions are as bad as the California three strikes law -- sure you're going to get serious offenders, but you're also going to get the person shoplifting from Walmart.

--Rich

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


Don't have those stats handy. The ones I gave were only for spring sports.

Too difficult to get into the nuances? Auto suspensions are as bad as the California three strikes law -- sure you're going to get serious offenders, but you're also going to get the person shoplifting from Walmart.

--Rich

1. As for ejection stats, it was unclear to me what your parameters were. Thanks for clearing that up.

2. On the autosuspension: I understood his point and can see why they do it that way, I just disagree with it.

WOW! An ejection in tennis???? I would love to hear that story! Maybe it was some offspring of John McEnroe's.