Tennessee vs Auburn crash

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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:

12-14-2 In order to prevent injury and protect the defensive player attempting to make a play on a base runner, the base runner must be called out if she remains on her feet and deliberately, with great force, crashes into a defensive player holding the ball and waiting to apply a tag. In order to prevent a deliberate crash ruling, the base runner can slide, jump over the top of the defender holding the ball, go around the defender (if outside the runner's lane, the base runner would be called out) or return to the previous base touched.

EFFECT—The ball is dead. The base runner is called out for deliberately crashing into a fielder, even if the ball is dislodged. If the base runner deliberately crashed into a fielder holding the ball before she was put out and, in the umpire's judgment, it was an attempt to break up an obvious double play, the offender and player being played on shall both be declared out. If the deliberate crash occurs after the base runner was called out, the base runner closest to home plate will also be declared out. If an obstructed base runner deliberately crashes into a fielder holding the ball, the obstruction call will be ignored, and the base runner will be called out.

Note: If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender will be ejected.

My critique of this play is that PU should have come up with a big "DEAD BALL" and then administered his ruling.

[bkbjones]

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.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

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.

So you not only want to ignore a specific mechanic, but also a POE?

Perhaps if you actually knew what the NCAA Softball Umpire Manual said you wouldn't find it so offensive. But clearly you don't know what it says, so I will fill you in:

"It is imperative when making this signal that no aggressive move or gesture, real or perceived, is made toward the person being ejected. The signal should be MODERATELY ANIMATED after increasing the physical distance between the umpire and the ejected person as needed. The degree of animation is dictated by the situation. This signal does NOT have to be exact, but it must be CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that someone has been ejected."

"Partners in particular, but also other players and fans, must know when an umpire has ejected someone."

[bkbjones]

Obviously, you do not know me. Just as obviously, your are one tremendously pretentious, um, person. And, yes, I do know what it says because someone took pity on me and sent me the manual. (Just because I am no longer physically capable of being on the field doesn't mean I don't care.) I saw the play in question and saw how it was handled, and I do not have a problem with it.

Neither should you.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Obviously, you do not know me. Just as obviously, your are one tremendously pretentious, um, person. And, yes, I do know what it says because someone took pity on me and sent me the manual. (Just because I am no longer physically capable of being on the field doesn't mean I don't care.) I saw the play in question and saw how it was handled, and I do not have a problem with it.

Neither should you.

The issue isn't whether we are getting on the umpire. The discussion is whether it could be handled better in the future and more by the book.

You clearly must know the mechanics, since you do have the manual, you just don't think it's so necessary to use them.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

"It is imperative when making this signal that no aggressive move or gesture, real or perceived, is made toward the person being ejected. The signal should (may) be MODERATELY ANIMATED after increasing the physical distance between the umpire and the ejected person as needed. The degree of animation is dictated by the situation. This signal does NOT have to be exact, but it must be CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that someone has been ejected."

That seems appropriate and, IMO, where it should end.

"Partners in particular, but also other players and fans, must know when an umpire has ejected someone."

Why? Does the NCAA see a need to embarrass someone more than the ejection has already? Do they deserve it? Maybe, but I'd rather just move on with the game.


The players already know or is it really that important to make sure the outfielders are aware; other than the PU, my partner doesn't really have an immediate need to know; and why would the fans need to know that prior to an announcement?


To me, this is overkill. Just don't see the need for it.

[BretMan]

But giving the old full wind-up over-the-head roundhouse heave-ho is just so much damn...fun!