Tennessee vs Auburn crash
 

I dont know if I agree with the base runner ejection on the crash. I didnt think it was flagrant, I thought the catcher had some responsibility for the contact by running at runner on the tag.
Should the call of been a dead ball on the contact with the batter runner being returned to first?
Tough decision for the crew!

C'mon Man!
As soon as the batter did not make a squeeze bunt attempt, R1 should have easily seen that she was pizza meat. But what did she do? She kept on at full speed and thrust both forearms into F2. How could you NOT consider that to be flagrant or even a difficult decision for USC?

I watched the video and think that I would like have had an ejection. The runner had multiple legal options and elected to use none of them. Though I don't see her "thrust both forearms" (she never pushed off with them), she certainly went in illegally and with great force with the rest of her body. Her demeanor after the play confirms her acts during the play. Ejection.

Anyone have a link to video of it?

Looked pretty bad to me, but of course much more detail in slow motion. While she doesnt really push out with the arms, she does take her left forearm and goes up into the neck/face of the catcher with it.

An ejection here is a no-brainer. I would be extremely disappointed if the player wasn't ejected.

And I don't care if it was NCAA or 10 JO, no place for BS like that. This runner came in with full intent of causing a collision. There was absolutely no hesitation or any indication she was going to try and avoid it.

Was the runner that ended up on second, put back on first? If they ruled flagrant it should have been a dead ball and all runners return to base at time of infraction. Dave

They didn't really show the ruling. In fact, it was bizarre, because it took several minutes for word to get up to the announcers that the player was in fact ejected. The catcher was carried off in a stretcher so there was more attention paid to her than to the penalty.

As for the TH, this guy, Adam Amin, is very knowledgeable in the rules and IMO, the best softball TH out there. He was paired up with Michelle Smith, who isn't bad either.

:eek:

I'm sure they did. The PU appeared to be right on top of things from the moment the collision occurred, video showed the crew conferencing, and we know they ruled flagrant because of the ejection of the Auburn BR.

?????
If in your mind that wasn't flagrant, what would you consider a flagrant collision?
They could add a picture of that play to the NCAA rule book right under 12.14.

Based on the PU's actions, I was under the impression the ejection was immediate.

He called the out then pointed at the runner and said something to her when she headed back to the dugout.

That was my impression too.

i saw the point also and was expecting the ncaa ejection mechanic. does it still exist? thoughts on why it did not occur? how important is it or not that the umpire should have given it?

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.

A collision does not speak for itself. An ejection mechanic is required whether you like it or not. That's like saying that if a runner is out by 10 feet, we don't signal out because the ball in the glove well before the runner arrived spoke for itself. Ejections are not as common and it was not that clear cut here.

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

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."

Ammended to say that she had a pretty good game. :o

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.

Geeeeeeezus. Are you serious? Of course mechanics should be used.

I also know there is rulebook/manual right, ballpark wrong.

This is what I get for crawling out of the ol' deathbed. I can;t get this board on my Android. I think I regret getting on here. Bye.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

That seems appropriate and, IMO, where it should end.
<O:p

Quote:

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

<O:p</O:pWhy? 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.

John,
You ucking idiot. Now that you're back here, don't you dare leave again.

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

Steve, can't you see he got the f out of here?

I would totally disagree. Hell, I showed it to non softball peopele and they knew what the heck happened.

no need to be overly demonstrative there....

Damn I miss most of you guys. Thank you for making me laugh Mike.

and he used the 'required' mechanic too!

Welcome back, and don't leave on account of someone that most of us have blocked...

I must have missed it...

Where did I say he should have been "overly demonstrative?" That's contrary to what I said. Nice of you to misrepresent what I said though.

I guess I will be banned
 

EsQUmp,

I figured I may be banned for this and it is unprofessional but you are unbearable and are a punk.
Go back under your rock.
If I ever find out who you are, you will never work for me.

Good Day

Bill

I apologize to you for recommending that the mechanic could have been more evident and citing my reasons. It's juvenile how many people who post on forums preach the rules and mechanics, not allowing for even moderate deviations for the smallest things, yet choose to argue against them based on personal opinion for a specific case.

I thought that the call was accurate. I thought the mechanics could have been better. The mechanics lacked a dead ball signal and moderately animated ejection signal. That's all I was saying.

xtreamump
 

I thought the play was lacking control of the PU, I only saw very little of the play just like everyone here. In FP SB the mechanics have to be quick and clear, I want my partner to know what is going on first, then both coach's. You are not trying to show up a player that just caused a TRAIN WRECK by tossing her, she earned that all by herself. We as Umpires have to control the game. EsqUmp, I think most of these Clones do Rec ball or Slow pitch, they can read a book, and spend all day on the forum picking everyone apart that does not interpret the intent of a rule or mechanic there way.

I, too, would have like to have seen some sort of indication that left no question the player was ejected. A large part of our jobs as umpires is to communicate. Players, coaches, partners, officials scorers, and even fans deserve to know what an umpires' ruling is. I didn't feel the results of this illegal action were communicated clearly enough for all to understand.

Do I have a huge problem with how the EJ was handled? No. I just think it could have been more clearly indicated. I especially want my partners to know what's going on in the event they need to get involved and keep a situation from getting worse.

This comment is true unless the umpire was not going to rule interference. However, with a runner still active, a DB signal should have been made

That has got to be one of the dumbest ****ing comments I've seen on this board in a while.

:eek: :eek: :(
That is the most completely wrong you and probably anyone has ever been. :( :o

With only 25 years experience of FP and 15 years of SP, only one ASA National, only two PONY Nationals, only one USSSA World Series, only D3 & JUCO college, only a few HS State Championships and 9 years on this forum; I am still less credentialed than most of those who continue to try to help with meaningful and useful posts.

John, glad to see you back here. Also glad to see you made it back to God's country. :D

It is interesting to read about the expected mechanic in softball vs. baseball. In baseball it would be expected to call the out and issue an immediate visible ejection. Just goes to show they are not the same game.

With all the trolls showing up here, things must have gotten boring on the baseball board.

xtreamump
 

Nice Resume, now try to show us what you have learned in 25 years.
With 4 pages of "Useful Posts" on this kind of play, the water is muddy my friend. Lets agree to move on. Its OK to do SP, we all will have to slow down eventually.

You just proved that you have no credibility with your first post....and are little more than a troll with your follow-ups.

Your contribution to the thread was less than those you are trying to mock.

xtreamump
 

I am not trying to mock anyone, I am stating a fact that this thread has gone on too long, and my OP is credible. And you Clones wonder why you are on a new Forum. NCASAUMP. You can all go over there and talk about your "SP Beer games". Some of us need new material about FP SB.

xtreamump
 

Why don't you tell us what happened ? This is a perfect case of interpretation. It does not show anything but the runner crashing into the catcher. Have another drink and make something else up. SP "CLONE"

I'm not sure what your issue is, and why you think you have to demean others. If you dont like someones point of view, why not counter it in a professional manner without all the antics?

xtreamump
 

"and are little more than a troll with your follow-ups".

I will be professional just like you. (MOVE ON)

You came in blasting, calling people names...It's not the first time. It's also not the first time you have been asked to be respectful. Why not come in, disgree, discuss, and learn like most others?

Typical - I can be called unbearable, a punk, and anything else that requires a "@#$%^&*"

No one seems to mind that. I don't mind either. I have thick skin.

But when the table turns, it's like the world is going to come to an end.

If you're going to complain about someone doing it to you, be a little more careful about doing it to others.

See, when you put things in writing, it's easy to go back to see all the instances that would allow you to be called a hypocrite.

Be careful with what you say or it can be used against you later on.

xtreamump
 

There is a lesson to be learned here "Silence cannot be mis-quoted" remember that when you are on the field.

My question still stands...

I don't think I could umpire or even live without a better grasp on reality than a couple of our participants. :( :o

I was not silent and glad you can quote me.
Very well meant what I said.

xtreamump
 

"Ump Esq

You strike me as a very young sophomoric umpire.

You are excused".


You are full of STUPIDITY spewing from your mouth onto the keyboard. I would love to see you coming on my field if I was coaching FP you would be a small snack. If you have nothing better to do find Az. Big Dog & Cecil "lol" and find a SP game somewhere and dress up as Umpires, (CLONES) drink some rot gut beer and fade away. The best thing that you have posted is that you should be kicked off the Forum. Silence

who is Az.Big Dog?

and thank you for explaining a couple of things. I get you now. You're here for the entertainment. You could have just said so.

xtreamump
 

Please don't thank me Big Dog, its all good fun. Have a great day and please let this Post drop off the bottom of the Forum because thats where it belongs. Oh and I made a spelling mistake once, so I bought the best spell checker thing that an Ump could afford, so a dog is a dog...

Easy.... calm down my good man...no need to toss out the credentials to prove a point...we prove ourselves ON the field, not on the boards...dont let anyone get to you....

I'd really be great if you guys would quit quoting those on my ignore list. I really hate having to read their drivel even indirectly.

Can you please provide a list? :rolleyes: :D

Well, I COULD, but I suppose the list is pretty obvious... ;)