He may have (off camera but probably not). My guess is that he simply informed the Auburn HC that the BR was ejected for colliding with F2.

He had the collision, knows an ejection is going to follow, made the out call, gave the point with his arm. No need for anything more demonstrative than that.

IMO it was handled very professionally by the PU and the crew.

I agree. I see no reason to play the fool with all the demonstrative crap many umpires seem to feel is necessary. I let the people know who needs to know, no big show...not even a little show. :D

I would agree the contact between the two player would be considered excessive. The defensive player was not waiting to apply a tag, I may of gave a little leeway to the runner because the catcher took the tag to the runner. Though, under those circumstances it was the right call.

The runner that had advanced from first to second on the play was allowed to stay on second?

The conversation regarding when/how she was ejected is exactly why the NCAA manual mandates an actual ejection mechanic. Pointing is NOT that mechanic. The umpire is to hold up his right arm with palm open and forward. Draw the hand back to the ear and redirect the arm skyward at a 45 degree angle away from the body with the index finger extended.

That is not overly demonstrative, but is clear to everyone.

I wasn't sure if she was ejected right away. I thought the crew may have gotten together to discuss it.

That point meant nothing to me.

Use proper mechanics.

Ridiculous that there would be such a mechanic. And people think ASA are control freaks. ;)

I don't know. That all sounds kind of...robotic.

Or maybe even...clone-ish. :rolleyes:

He-he, I have to admit that crossed my mind, too!

Certainly better than a mere point that leads to confusion. If it were done at least along those lines we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I sincerely doubt there was much confusion as to whether she was ejected or not. The collision speaks for itself.

Must be a second Michelle Smith.

Who was confused? The player or her coach? No. The THs? Yes, but if the purpose of the umpire's signals is to prevent TH confusion, that's a pretty tall order (and impossible to fulfill)!

Who are the signals actually for? Players? Coaches? Fans? THs / commentators?

If the players & coaches were not confused, does anyone else matter (wrt umpire signals)?

Good points, and there's nothing inaccurate in what you're saying, and I'm pretty confident that the NCAA ejection mechanic is one that we all have down pretty good.

And yes, absolutely the EJ signal as outlined in the Manual could have been utilized right after the out call by the PU, and made in a non-demonstrative, non-attention getting manner, simply indicating to all what had just occurred, and have been perfectly proper. Because you're 100% correct, that's why its in the Manual.

In viewing the video though, I knew exactly what he meant by with the point and the flick of his arm, but that's just me. But to be fair, yeah, probably a good many folks in the stands, and personnel on the field (team and umpires) possibly didn't see it. So again, you make a good point for it's use.

I feel, as you do, that the crew (probably) did get together...I saw at least one additional crew member near the PU when he was talking with one of the coaches. And again, what we don't know is that at some point the PU may have utilized the proper EJ signal as you described it, after the crew huddled and made sure they had everything correct. It's just not in the video.

PU made a choice (it seems) to 'low key' the EJ signal and as some of us have stated, we're OK with his choice....keeping in mind that by rule on this type of play the EJ is automatic.

All that said, I think as/if the game video gets reviewed farther up the line (NCAA? SEC?) to see if any suspension is warranted, or if there was a SEC or SUP observer at the game, the PU and the crew get nothing but high marks here.

Notes made on another site:

The catcher did not "charge" up the line toward the runner as some who are trying to justify the runner's actions claim. That catcher moved around the batter, took two steps and squared to the approaching runner. The catcher was standing at the front left corner of the BB. To me, that is not up the line.

For those who believe the runner had no choice, watch the replay. The runner was NOT even close to halfway to home when the catcher received the ball. She had five steps once the catcher moved into the BB.

AFA the ejection is concerned, there is never a need for theatrics, let alone a mechanic. You tell the player's coach, the opposing coach and the scorekeeper why there is a substitute entering the game. If there is an announcer, the scorekeeper will communicate that, if possible. If not, the PU may inform that individual.

It's been years since I've pointed or waved my arm on an ejection. It is like a walk. The player knows where they need to go, I don't need to show them the way.

The environment can be tense and electric enough without the umpire adding to the excitement.

Mike, there was a directive given to NCAA umpires (maybe 2006 or 2007) about making a very overt ejection signal. This was in response to a renewed emphasis to sportsmanship. Our directive was to give a counter point to the "coach ejects himself or herself." We were to demonstrate that we interpreting their behavior as non sporting and worthy of ejection. That is not to say that we were to give the big "heave-ho" like in an Earl Weaver confrontation.

However, you are correct that this ejection is not a time to even give an ejection signal. The ejection follows the infraction:
My critique of this play is that PU should have come up with a big "DEAD BALL" and then administered his ruling.

Gawd, I don't post anything in two years, and here I am, twice in four days.

IMHO, anyone who didn't see an immediate ejection over this needs to seriously consider another avocation.

The POE in 2006-07 was, as stated just before this, to point out the coach has ejected him/her self. Neither the rulebook, Umpire Manual nor the UIP were designed to make it easier for TH. Not even The Bible can do that, it's just an impossible thing. I know, I have been a TH.

The ejection mechanic is not meant to show up a player. I don't give a damn if it's college. The umpire could very well have said "you're gone" very discreetly along with the non-approved-yet-we-all-know-what-it-meant signal. Then go to the coach, say "Hey, #X is gone. That collision was flagrant coach, and she's ejected." No need for excessive whatever. While there is no need for clones/robots, there's no need for Jocko Conlon.

And again, if you don't clearly see the need for ejection on this, please go umpire rugby.