USC, injury

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

I'm surprised, Mike, that you wouldn't mind her blowing off steam with her equipment if you struck her out looking.

I'm not speaking for Mike, but I have the same opinion as he does.

An on the field demonstration like this shows up the umpire and the game, even if she is just mad at herself for taking that pitch. A player with enough self-control to exit the field without directing her actions or a verbal outburst at the umpire deserves to have her actions off the field considered her private business, in my opinion.

[CecilOne]

The point of the OP is about the shorthanded rule, subs for ejected players, etc.; not whether her behavior deserved penalty.

"Got me thinking...
IF batter had gotten tossed earlier, and the injury brought them down to 8, does that call for a forfeit?
Or only if it happened the other way around? "

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

An on the field demonstration like this shows up the umpire and the game, even if she is just mad at herself for taking that pitch. A player with enough self-control to exit the field without directing her actions or a verbal outburst at the umpire deserves to have her actions off the field considered her private business, in my opinion.

I respect your opinion. But I certainly don't agree with it. If I can see and/or hear her actions, so can others, and that still shows up the umpire and the game. Those kinds of outbursts have no place on the field or around it.

And, No, I don't go looking for it. The tirade would have to be one that attracts virtually everyone's attention and just cannot be ignored.

[jmkupka]

Manny,

And that's why I mentioned not slamming them against a fence. Actually quite quiet. The helmet went into the tall weeds adjacent to the field.
I'd be more concerned about ticks than anything else.

Something that gets you whipping your head around at the sound may require more attention.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I respect your opinion. But I certainly don't agree with it. If I can see and/or hear her actions, so can others, and that still shows up the umpire and the game. Those kinds of outbursts have no place on the field or around it.

And, No, I don't go looking for it. The tirade would have to be one that attracts virtually everyone's attention and just cannot be ignored.

It strikes me that we are imagining different levels of outburst. I read the OP to be fairly contained, just included winging her helmet. It seems you are reading something a little more out there.

There is always a line somewhere; in this case, as neither of us actually saw and heard it, we can easily both be right (or even both be wrong!!) in how we would react to what we are thinking happened.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It strikes me that we are imagining different levels of outburst. I read the OP to be fairly contained, just included winging her helmet. It seems you are reading something a little more out there.

There is always a line somewhere; in this case, as neither of us actually saw and heard it, we can easily both be right (or even both be wrong!!) in how we would react to what we are thinking happened.

And that's why I mentioned the severity of the outburst as being one that attracts everyone's attention. If it is a minor transgression, I won't react at all.

Also, I was speaking in general and not addressing the OP specifically. I agree that what happened in the OP wouldn't warrant any response.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I respect your opinion. But I certainly don't agree with it. If I can see and/or hear her actions, so can others, and that still shows up the umpire and the game. Those kinds of outbursts have no place on the field or around it.

And, No, I don't go looking for it. The tirade would have to be one that attracts virtually everyone's attention and just cannot be ignored.

So if a coach or player gets ticked and kicks over the bat rack because s/he didn't like a called 3rd strike, you are going to toss that individual. At least, that would be in the team area.

If it isn't on the field or in the team area, and as stated before, doesn't directly affect the game on the field,IMO, it isn't the umpire's business

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Personally, I couldn't care less what the player does off the field with her equipment as long as there is no direct affect on what is happening on the field. And no, I'm not talking about being a distraction.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm not speaking for Mike, but I have the same opinion as he does.

An on the field demonstration like this shows up the umpire and the game, even if she is just mad at herself for taking that pitch. A player with enough self-control to exit the field without directing her actions or a verbal outburst at the umpire deserves to have her actions off the field considered her private business, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So if a coach or player gets ticked and kicks over the bat rack because s/he didn't like a called 3rd strike, you are going to toss that individual. At least, that would be in the team area.

If it isn't on the field or in the team area, and as stated before, doesn't directly affect the game on the field,IMO, it isn't the umpire's business

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It strikes me that we are imagining different levels of outburst. I read the OP to be fairly contained, just included winging her helmet. It seems you are reading something a little more out there.

There is always a line somewhere; in this case, as neither of us actually saw and heard it, we can easily both be right (or even both be wrong!!) in how we would react to what we are thinking happened.

Originally Posted by Manny A

I respect your opinion. But I certainly don't agree with it. If I can see and/or hear her actions, so can others, and that still shows up the umpire and the game. Those kinds of outbursts have no place on the field or around it.

And, No, I don't go looking for it. The tirade would have to be one that attracts virtually everyone's attention and just cannot be ignored.

I don't know if you guys were being rule-set specific or stating what you believed to be generally applicable to all rule sets, but NFHS has covered this directly:

Rule: 10-1-2
ART. 2 . . . Umpire jurisdiction begins upon the arrival of one umpire within the confines of the field and ends when the umpires leave the field of play at the conclusion of the game.
NOTE: The umpires maintain administrative responsibilities for the contest through the completion of any required reports or correspondence in response to any action occurring while the umpires have jurisdiction.
Rule: 2-15
The confines of the field includes the field of play, the designated dugout/bench area, and any enclosed or clearly marked area designated as a warm-up area that is adjacent to the field and within the view of the umpire(s).
Rule: 3 SECTION 6 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT
ART. 16 . . . Team personnel shall not deliberately throw bats, helmets or any other piece of equipment.
PENALTY: (Arts. 11 through 16) The umpire shall eject the offender from the game, unless the offense is judged to be of a minor nature. If minor, the umpire may warn the offender and eject if the offense is repeated. (Arts. 11, 13) For coaches who violate, the umpire may restrict the offender to bench/dugout for the remainder of the game, or eject the offender.

Clearly, the dugout is within the umpire's jurisdiction AND throwing any equipment is an ejectable offense. In a high school game, if this draws my attention, there is AT LEAST a warning issued.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I don't know if you guys were being rule-set specific or stating what you believed to be generally applicable to all rule sets, but NFHS has covered this directly:



Clearly, the dugout is within the umpire's jurisdiction AND throwing any equipment is an ejectable offense. In a high school game, if this draws my attention, there is AT LEAST a warning issued.

Yes, the dugout is within the umpire's jurisdiction which I indicated in my responses. AFA, the kicking of bats, odds are you are not going to know who did anything with the equipment unless you are standing there, watching the dugout. But if you are watching the dugout, who is watching what is happening on the field. Yeah, I know that is picking a nit, but IMO so is acting on anything which does not affect the game on the field. We have enough to do inside the fences without worrying about anything else.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yes, the dugout is within the umpire's jurisdiction which I indicated in my responses. AFA, the kicking of bats, odds are you are not going to know who did anything with the equipment unless you are standing there, watching the dugout. But if you are watching the dugout, who is watching what is happening on the field. Yeah, I know that is picking a nit, but IMO so is acting on anything which does not affect the game on the field. We have enough to do inside the fences without worrying about anything else.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that the state HS league here places a great degree of emphasis on sportsmanship. Also, part of this is a safety issue for HS-age kids. And, the written rule deals with it directly and explicitly. If I only see the equipment flying, but don't know who, then a team warning follows.

[UmpireErnie]

Everyone has their "line in the sand".

Competition is an emotional thing. I'll allow a participant some level of initial reaction to a call they don't like as long as it's not too direct or personal by simply "failing to notice". It's how that participant handles themselves after the initial reaction that concerns me more.

Many players are simply blowing off anger at themselves i.e. for taking the pitch.