wiping out b.box lines

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

...This is basically the same as an ejection, but NFHS likes to restrict to the dugout rather than remove them from the park....

This is not correct, exactly.

NFHS has a 3 tier sanction system for players/coaches/teams infractions.

1) Warning. a) This is given for the first offense of a minor or less serious infraction, such as carelessly throwing a bat, illegal equipment, intentionally removing the lines, etc. b) A warning can also be given for an unsporting act judged to be minor.

2) Restriction to the dugout/bench. This is given for the second offense of the minor or less serious infraction of the kind in 1) a).

3) Ejection. This is given without warning for a serious unsporting act, such as malicious contact and fighting. It will also be given after a warning for a minor unsporting act that is repeated or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

NFHS does not require minor children who are ejected to be removed from the ball park, but it does require ejected coaches to leave the area.

Also, typically, ejection carries additional penalties imposed by the state association (e.g. multi-game suspensions and the like) whereas restriction typically does not.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is not correct, exactly.

NFHS has a 3 tier sanction system for players/coaches/teams infractions.

1) Warning. a) This is given for the first offense of a minor or less serious infraction, such as carelessly throwing a bat, illegal equipment, intentionally removing the lines, etc. b) A warning can also be given for an unsporting act judged to be minor.

2) Restriction to the dugout/bench. This is given for the second offense of the minor or less serious infraction of the kind in 1) a).

3) Ejection. This is given without warning for a serious unsporting act, such as malicious contact and fighting. It will also be given after a warning for a minor unsporting act that is repeated or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

NFHS does not require minor children who are ejected to be removed from the ball park, but it does require ejected coaches to leave the area.

Also, typically, ejection carries additional penalties imposed by the state association (e.g. multi-game suspensions and the like) whereas restriction typically does not.

I'm not seeing what you and I are saying as being mutually exclusive, nor was I implying that NFHS does not have ejections. I was saying that they prefer restrictions to the dugout rather than an ejection. My statement had more to do with how you handle "what comes next," which is roughly the same as if you had ejected the player.

But again, I reiterate that I'm ASA-only, so take my statements for what you will. This is just how it's been explained to me in the past by guys in our area who call HS softball.

[Dakota]

Well, the umpire does not EVER have a choice between restriction or ejection. A restriction is not ever given when an ejection could be an option.

Depending on the infraction, it goes like this:

Infraction type 1: Warn, if repeated, restrict, if repeated again, eject
Infraction type 2: Warn, if repeated, eject
Infraction type 3: Eject immediately

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, the umpire does not EVER have a choice between restriction or ejection. A restriction is not ever given when an ejection could be an option.

Depending on the infraction, it goes like this:

Infraction type 1: Warn, if repeated, restrict, if repeated again, eject
Infraction type 2: Warn, if repeated, eject
Infraction type 3: Eject immediately

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

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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

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

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[ronald]

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

[Andy]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.

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

My understanding is that we cannot send a HS player out of sight and sound due to the liability issues.

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

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.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by Andy

HS players are not to be "ejected", they are to be restricted to the dugout.

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.

Originally Posted by Andy

My understanding is that we cannot send a HS player out of sight and sound due to the liability issues.

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.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Some states do expect officials to observe this and report if necessary, so it could become the umpires' problem if "mandated" by state.

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

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

... or if an infraction that resulted in restriction to the bench is repeated.

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