How would you handle this

[chapmaja]

We had the following situation in a HS JV game (NFHS rules) (I am the PU). The team in question had only the coach involved on the coaching staff. They were the host school, so an administrator was present to keep the game going.

Top 3rd inning, the host school (visitors for this game), have R1 on 1st, B2 is at bat with 1 out. 1-0 count on the batter. Pitch is a ball that gets away from the catcher and R1 advances to 2nd, then as the throw goes to the pitcher, attempts to advance to 3rd. The pitcher throws to F5 who is standing with one foot in front of (towards 2b) and one foot on 3rd base. She catches the ball when the runner is about 2 strides from the base and extends her arms towards the oncoming runner. The runner does not attempt to slide and simply runs to 3rd base without regard for F5 who she runs over. In the process of the collision the glove is knocked off F5's hand and hits the ground rolling free. Both players end up in a heap on the ground at 3rd base.


Here is what we did and the totality of the situation that followed.

The B/U calls the runner out for interference. He does not rule malicious contact on the play. The OC does not like the call and begins arguing with the B/U. She doesn't like the answer she gets from him, so she asks him to come to me for "help" on the call. He refuses, stating it is a judgment call and I saw the play clearly. (She already tried getting help on a call at first and was denied on that as well, since she wanted to argue the throw vs foot arriving). He tries walking away, but the coach is still trying to argue. I want to get the game going, so I ask the coach to return to the coaches box area, so we can continue. She refuses and continues to make her point known to the B/U. At this point he attempts to restrict her to the dugout. Her response is "I'm not going to the dugout." He is trying to walk away, but I consider this a major act of unsportsmanlike conduct, and I eject the coach. I then have to go to the adjacent baseball field to get an athletic administrator to come over. He agrees to take over coaching the team (as it is required to have an adult present for the game to continue). The coach has spent this time standing next to the bleachers. We talk to the administrator and he goes over to inform the coach she needs to leave the vicinity.

Fast forward to the 5th inning. I am asked a question by the scoreboard operator regarding the count or outs. I turn around (he is located directly behind the plate/screen on a platform about 6 feet up. This platform offers a clear view of the area behind the backstop. I look up and there is the ejected coach, standing, talking on her phone (to whom I don't know) and watching the game. I verbally indicate that she needs to leave the vicinity of the field, which she does.

Did we handle this correctly. I felt, given that the team has only one coach, we needed to give her a lot of rope to play with. She used all of that rope to hand herself and get ejected, which she did.

I felt the refusal to follow the directive of an umpire was a serious case of unsportsmanlike conduct, and as a result required an ejection. Would you guys have handled it the same way or differently?

[BlueDevilRef]

Yep. Once your partner restricted her and she did not immediately shut up and go to her dugout, she is gone. And as far as her coming back, I would have done the same, make sure she leaves the sight/sound. If she does not, you forfeit. Never done it in NFHS but have for USSSA.

In Missouri, ejections require a report to the state. And require the school to respond to the state office as to what they addressed with the ejected party. We also require an ejected coach or player to miss the next game at that same level, even during playoffs. If it were to occur on last day of season, it is supposed to carry over to the next season too.

[Andy]

I would say that you should not have intervened until the coach was restricted to the dugout by your partner. Once this happened, your partner has declared that s/he is done with the coach and is no longer going to talk to her.

Get out to the coach and let your partner get away from her. Your actions at this point should be nothing more than..."Coach, you have been restricted, please return to your dugout" No discussion about the play or your partner or anything else. If she refuses, then eject. Now she has to leave sight and sound.

If I turned around and saw her at the scorers table directly behind the backstop, this game is over and I'm leaving.

I agree with your decision to give her a lot of rope since she was the only coach, but at some point, that rope runs out and her and her team needs to deal with the consequences. For me, the end of the rope is the ejection.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

... The runner does not attempt to slide and simply runs to 3rd base without regard for F5 who she runs over. In the process of the collision the glove is knocked off F5's hand and hits the ground rolling free. Both players end up in a heap on the ground at 3rd base.


Here is what we did and the totality of the situation that followed.

The B/U calls the runner out for interference. He does not rule malicious contact on the play.

Do you have FED rule support for this?

Running someone over is MC, which is a form of interference with the added penalty. Seems to me, this is where things starting breaking down.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Do you have FED rule support for this?

Running someone over is MC, which is a form of interference with the added penalty. Seems to me, this is where things starting breaking down.

First thing, your interpretation does not agree with the interpretation we have been given (not that I completely agree) The justification is rule 8-6-13. The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her.

The key part of the rule is does not legally slide (as opposed to illegally slides). By wording this rule in this way, it allows the runner not to slide. By adding the and causes illegal contact to the rule it allows a runner to not slide, but puts the onus on said runner not to illegally contact the runner.

(Part of the issue is our association has a couple lawyers who analyze everything from a legal standpoint).

Now, as for my taking action in the first place. I told the coach to return to the coaches box AFTER my partner attempted to walk away from the play. At that point he has attempted to distance himself from the play and I was within my rights to ask her to return to her designated area. When she kept on him, that is when he attempted to restrict her, which she wasn't going to accept.


As for the coach wanting him to come to me. She is lucky that he didn't come to me for assistance because I would have not only said we have an out, but I personally would have been going against the interpretation we were given, and I would have ruled MC and ejected. I was not going to do that on a call where my partner was the primary calling umpire and had a clear view, then did not ask for assistance.

(Per a previous discussion that would not go well, because I was a B/U and would have ejected on a collision at the plate, and was clearly told not to do that on this board).


Blue Devil, the only difference between here and there is that Michigan does not carry over the penalty from year to year. An ejected coach or player is barred from the next day of competition (so both games of a DH in this case).

[BlueDevilRef]

Missouri has written it so ejection penalty is next game at that level. We do V/JV nights here. If they didn't have that clause, varsity player could get tossed in V game and then "sit" the JV game and be ready to go next day. Trying to eliminate that kind of stuff

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

First thing, your interpretation does not agree with the interpretation we have been given (not that I completely agree) The justification is rule 8-6-13. The runner does not legally slide and causes illegal contact and/or illegally alters the actions of the fielder in the immediate act of making a play on her.

The key part of the rule is does not legally slide (as opposed to illegally slides). By wording this rule in this way, it allows the runner not to slide. By adding the and causes illegal contact to the rule it allows a runner to not slide, but puts the onus on said runner not to illegally contact the runner.

(Part of the issue is our association has a couple lawyers who analyze everything from a legal standpoint).

If this is how your association is interpreting, then they are off base (pardon the pun). As you 8-6-13 the runner is "never required to slide."

The illegal contact is part of an illegal slide, period. For an illegal slide, there must be a slide (and defined in 2-52-2). In your case, there was no slide, therefore it cannot be an illegal slide (and illegal contact), therefore cannot fall under 8-6-13. I can see this, and my only law training is multiple reruns of Law and Order. And this is in light being . . .

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Missouri has written it so ejection penalty is next game at that level. We do V/JV nights here. If they didn't have that clause, varsity player could get tossed in V game and then "sit" the JV game and be ready to go next day. Trying to eliminate that kind of stuff

This is why the day of competition rule, not next game rule is in place. I know the MHSAA frowns on schools playing games. We had a varsity and jv coach suspended by their school (in consultation with the MHSAA) for playing games with this. Friday JV game, pitcher is ejected. She is "called up" to varsity for a Saturday tourney, but is suspended. She then plays Monday. MHSAA ruled when she was suspended she had to sit the next JV day of competition. When she played Monday she was an ineligible participant and as such the team forfeits both games and the coaches were suspended for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

But is it automatically malicious?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If this is how your association is interpreting, then they are off base (pardon the pun). As you 8-6-13 the runner is "never required to slide."

The illegal contact is part of an illegal slide, period. For an illegal slide, there must be a slide (and defined in 2-52-2). In your case, there was no slide, therefore it cannot be an illegal slide (and illegal contact), therefore cannot fall under 8-6-13. I can see this, and my only law training is multiple reruns of Law and Order. And this is in light being . . .

the runner stayed on her feet, which seems the be the first 5 words of 8-6-14, which is the applicable rule.

8-6-14 is a judgment on the umpires part. Per the definition of malicious contact in rule 2-35 the umpire must judge what is excessive force with an opponent. Personally I would have called it malicious, but that was not my call as I was not the covering umpire.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

But is it automatically malicious?

No, but NFHS rules either has MC with out and ejection or nothing, no provision for a "crash" out (ASA provides for a crash with an out and no ejection).

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

8-6-14 is a judgment on the umpires part. Per the definition of malicious contact in rule 2-35 the umpire must judge what is excessive force with an opponent. Personally I would have called it malicious, but that was not my call as I was not the covering umpire.

See my response to Cecil. NFHS rules do not provide a "crash" out and no ejection. Either you have an out and ejection under 8-6-14 or nothing. And that was the point of my first post to you: what rule gives the bases for your partner's ruling? And 8-6-13 is not the answer.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

See my response to Cecil. NFHS rules do not provide a "crash" out and no ejection. Either you have an out and ejection under 8-6-14 or nothing. And that was the point of my first post to you: what rule gives the bases for your partner's ruling? And 8-6-13 is not the answer.

You guys really need to pay attention to the wording of the rules, including the comma's, (As does the NFHS). As I have previously stated, the wording of the rule, as stated by several umpire/attorney's does in fact allow for such a ruling based on the way 8-6-13 is written. Is it the way 8-6-13 is intended to be applied? Maybe, maybe not, but given the way NFHS rules are worded, I think their writing is sloppy, which allows for this legalized interpretation for plays like this.

As I have also stated, if he had come to me for assistance, we would have had a MC contact ejection as well as the coach who I'm sure would have still earned her trip to the parking lot.