Would you eject ?
 

Mens ASA local SP league.

R1 on 1B, grounder to F6. Throw to 2B,out, runner about 3-5 feet from bag. F4 doesn't make throw to 1B. Starts *****ing about R1 being in the way-should have had interference. My judgement was the runner didn't do anything wrong-just no time to get out of way of the play. So I had a no call.

then 2B says next time he'll just hit the runner in the face and it's on ME. SO I ask him if just threatened to injure another player . He mumbled nothing and we moved on.

should I have ejected him for the "hit the runner in the face comment" ?

I think I would have handled it much the way you did.

Another reason I no longer work the AA leagues.

To his whining about the lack of an INT call, I would have first told him that I can't call INT unless there is INT. Then when he said that he would purposely throw at the runner, I would have said that if he purposely and maliciously injures another player, I've got a rule to cover that... and that he probably doesn't want to find out what that rule is.

Been there.

Me: Mr. Second Baseman, to begin, he doesn't have to get out of your way as he has every right to attempt to gain 2nd base and he cannot just disappear. Second, you are not going to put the next one between his eyes because that would be a premeditated crime since you just announced your intentions. Finally, I have absolutely no problem taking a day or two off from my real job to support any criminal AND civil action brought against you should you choose to act like a complete ***.

I have this down pat and have used it no less than a half dozen times in the past few years. The thing is I'm in quite a small community and the players know I would get great satisfaction out of dumping a player who acts like an idiot.

I had a similar no call in a High school game several years ago. Coach goes nuts. Tells me to either call it or he'll instruct his players to throw at the runner. He did not coach the next year. Parents of little girls don't like it when their darlings are taught to, or are, intentionally hurt to make a point.

I thoroughly agree with the above reponses and concept of the runner not evaporating. However, for a recent play ruling and at a recent clinic, I was told that is wrong; and it is INT if the runner prevents or disrupts the throw, regardless of how close to the base they were. Is this different in various rule sets? :confused:

Well, knowing this wasn't one of my clinics ;) , I will say such an interpretation is ludicrous. It actually FORCES the runner into a precarious, no-win situation. The runner should not have to think about anything other than advancing to the next base.

This was one of the more highly debated scenarios when ASA pulled the "intent" requirements from most rules involving INT. At one point, the discussion among some of us including a couple members of the NUS in the lobby in Colorado Springs host of the National Convention. It was an intense and interesting discussion, even to the point the fire alarm was activated :eek:

'nuff said... Yes.

But seriously. I just say, "Well you can't throw AT him or we'd have serious problems... And he kept running straight. Are you not good enough to throw around him?"

I thoroughly agree with the above reponses and concept of the runner not evaporating. However, for a recent play ruling and at a recent clinic, I was told that is wrong; and it is INT if the runner prevents or disrupts the throw, regardless of how close to the base they were. Is this different in various rule sets?
I knew that from your previous comment, but hoped for some NCAA & NFHS interps.

I think sometimes talking about a play during a clinic or over a beverage after a clinic (which is much more fun) it is easy for people to read things into a situation that they would never have come up with if they simply were seeing the play happen.

For instance, if F4 simply turns toward 1B, sees the just retired runner coming from 1B and just chooses not to make a throw.. I think most of us would judge that to be a no call. Simply existing or failing to disappear when retired between 1B and 2B does not in and of itself constitute INT.

On the other hand, there does not need to be contact to have INT. Suppose the retired runner is doing something more than just not disappearing; something that in your judgment hinders the defense, then you do have INT. This something more could be moving to screen the fielder from being able to throw, yelling, waving arms, etc. etc. In a men's low level SP game I have seen it and called it more than once.

Heck no, that's when you sweetly remind him that if he does, he goes to jail for malicious (intended and premeditated) assault. Then you won't have to throw him out, the ppolice will drag him off.

Aw, life is good, idiots abound (not you`ChesRef). :D

Thats, sir, is an ejection. Immediate, out of sight, out of mind, out of park out of any contact with anyone for the remainder of the night.

This man has indicated that he is going to instruct minors to commit a crime. If he as much as blinks before he leaves, I got a forfeit. There is zero-nada-no- plce for this and YOU can easily be held accountable if something happens.

Think about it. :mad:

I haven't heard anything in NCAA or HS around here that would contradict this.