Am I A Softie ?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I would like to focus on what I did and if what i did was appropriate, in accordance with the rule book.

Fed rules?

If no, then ASA (for example) provides no such option as restrict to the bench.

If yes, then the rule(s) you presumably applied were 3-6-13-b (profanity) and/or 3-6-15 (arguing balls and strikes).

The penalty sections allows for umpire judgment that a violation was minor. If judged minor, the penalty is a team warning and ejection if repeated. If not minor, the penalty is ejection. Restriction to the bench is only available as an option under these rules if it is the coach who violates.

So, no, you were not according to the rules.

And, personally, I would not consider swearing directly at the umpire to be a minor violation. Swearing at oneself out of frustration would be a minor violation. Good-natured swearing is no violation at all at the high school age - unless it is loud. (If you don't understand what I mean, I can give an example.)

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Fed rules?

If no, then ASA (for example) provides no such option as restrict to the bench.

If yes, then the rule(s) you presumably applied were 3-6-13-b (profanity) and/or 3-6-15 (arguing balls and strikes).

The penalty sections allows for umpire judgment that a violation was minor. If judged minor, the penalty is a team warning and ejection if repeated. If not minor, the penalty is ejection. Restriction to the bench is only available as an option under these rules if it is the coach who violates.

So, no, you were not according to the rules.

And, personally, I would not consider swearing directly at the umpire to be a minor violation. Swearing at oneself out of frustration would be a minor violation. Good-natured swearing is no violation at all at the high school age - unless it is loud. (If you don't understand what I mean, I can give an example.)

Good example of 'good natured' swearing I had last week-

JV game...P is warming up and bounces the fifth one to the C...a little,but audible s*** comes out... she looks mortified seeing i saw it...I look at her, smile, and say, " Talking about mushrooms I hope!". her fielders go, "Oh yes..****take"! We all laugh and its over.


and yes, you should have ejected the 'f-you' girl

[Dakota]

Another example. I'm BU. Ball hit into left field (grounder). Ball goes under F7's glove and she has to chase it down. Runner now on 2B, and as I am moving to position, F8 says to F7, "Nice play." F7 replies, "F--- you."

Not loud; just betwen the two players - good natured ribbing. No violation, in my book.

[NSABlue]

Matbe it's just me but isn't "restricting a player to the bench" the same thing as ejecting her from the game? The player is not allowed to participate in the game any more. The only difference is that the player does not have to leave the dugout (for liability reasons). Isn't it still considered an "ejection"?

[BuggBob]

An ejected player in NFHS is expected to stay on the bench, after all you can't have little girls wondering around without adult supervision. The main difference here is with an ejection the player is also suspended for the next game. With this restriction there is no record therefore no additional suspension.

F-bombs buy you the pine modified seat (a spanking) where I grew up.

Bugg

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by BuggBob

An ejected player in NFHS is expected to stay on the bench, after all you can't have little girls wondering around without adult supervision. The main difference here is with an ejection the player is also suspended for the next game. With this restriction there is no record therefore no additional suspension.

F-bombs buy you the pine modified seat (a spanking) where I grew up.

Bugg

NFHS refers to "ejections" basically as restriction to the bench. There is no differentiation. And by the book, there is no suspension for the next game. That may be a local rule you are referring to.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

NFHS refers to "ejections" basically as restriction to the bench. There is no differentiation. And by the book, there is no suspension for the next game. That may be a local rule you are referring to.

Again, speaking NFHS, the NFHS rule book makes a clear distinction between a restriction to the bench and an ejection. See NFHS rules 2-19, 2-48, and 3-6-20. Ejection is a more serious sanction than restriction.

All states that I know of (which, I admit, is only a few) suspend ejected players, but not restricted players.

NFHS does make a concession to the in loco parentis responsibilities of the schools by not requiring minor children to leave the area. But that does not make ejection = restriction to the bench.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BuggBob

An ejected player in NFHS is expected to stay on the bench, after all you can't have little girls wondering around without adult supervision.

Not the umpire's issue. If the violation was bad enough to warrant an ejection as opposed to a bench restriction (and in this case I believe it did), the player should be gone. Babysitting her is the school's problem.

If you really want to instill the idea of what not to do on a ball field, dump the player. It probably will not happen again especially if an assistant coach has to sit on the bus or in the parking lot with the player.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not the umpire's issue. If the violation was bad enough to warrant an ejection as opposed to a bench restriction (and in this case I believe it did), the player should be gone. Babysitting her is the school's problem.

If you really want to instill the idea of what not to do on a ball field, dump the player. It probably will not happen again especially if an assistant coach has to sit on the bus or in the parking lot with the player.

Mike - while I agree with you in philosophy, the NFHS considers the practical side to this rule as well. Often, especially at the lower levels, there may only be one coach for a team. If an ejection requires the player to leave the field and an adult to go with her, the team may have to forfeit due to not having any other responsible school personnel available to coach the team.

As you say, not the umpire's issue, but that is the reasoning behind ejection/resticting to the bench in NFHS.

FWIW - here in AZ, we have to file a report if we eject or restrict to the bench.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NSABlue

Matbe it's just me but isn't "restricting a player to the bench" the same thing as ejecting her from the game? The player is not allowed to participate in the game any more. The only difference is that the player does not have to leave the dugout (for liability reasons). Isn't it still considered an "ejection"?

Speaking NFHS, no. It is a less severe penalty. Typically, the state will impose additional penalties on an ejection (suspension for the following game, for example), that do not apply to a restriction to the bench. Ejections require, again typically, the filing of an "incident report" or some such paperwork with the state. Restrictions to the bench may not.