I didn't say the umpire. I said NFHS. :)

FWIW....for HS ball in AZ, coaches can either be restricted to the dugout or ejected. If ejected, they are to leave the premises (sight and sound). We require our umpires to file an ejection report with the state office on an ejection of the coach and there will probably be additional sanctions.

HS players are not to be "ejected", they are to be restricted to the dugout. This is considered equivalent to an ejection for that player. We also ask the umpire to file an ejection report with the state office in this case. My understanding is that we cannot send a HS player out of sight and sound due to the liability issues.

You srue about this one. I thought it was second and all subsequent offenders restricted to the bench.
________
The Legend Condo

I've always wondered the ramifications if you cannot keep a player quite after being restricted to the bench.

Not the umpire's problem. That is an issue for the school employee whether a coach or administrator who, by law, is acting in loco parentis.

You think our belts can't do anything more than hold our pants up? :D

But seriously, at that point, tell the coach that if s/he can't shut up his/her player, the coach will need to find a babysitter.

I would disagree with the wording of that.
Player is ejected and kept in the dugout.
Never filled out a "restriction to dugout" form... not yet. :D

I don't do FED softball, but I do FED football and basketball in Nebraska, and one thing that's hammered into us as officials when ejecting a player is not to let them leave the confines of the field or gym without adult supervision. Someone challenged the state association, saying it's not our responsibility as officials to monitor this. The state association just said to make sure that some adult goes with them, and if we observe the lack thereof, to make a report to the state (or notation in the ejection report) and they would deal with the school for not having adult supervision. Some states do expect officials to observe this and report if necessary, so it could become the umpires' problem if "mandated" by state.

True for all subsequent offenders, but repeated misconduct by the same restricted offender results in an ejection.

At the rate we're going, I foresee this happening in the near future. Along with the "warm fuzzies" background checks, etc.

Who would be enforcing the rules on behalf of the state association who is using NFHS rules... :eek:

Right, but I'm saying that in this case, the umpire is not making the decision between restriction versus ejection. The umpire is simply handling the situation as prescribed by NFHS.

We don't make the rules. We just enforce them. :)

Speaking ONLY NFHS rule, not as modified or adjusted by various states, there is NEVER a choice given in ANY penalty for ANY infraction between restriction to the bench or ejection. If an ejectable offense is judged minor, the penalty is a warning, NOT a restriction to the bench.

If they keep repeating, then we have a(n) __________ ?

... forfeit due to lack of players? ;)

Yep, she started the story with: "I have a fairy tale for all to hear.:):D:D:)