Register or Sign In to remove these ads
hill2933

1st ejection(s) of the season

39 posts in this topic

In the OP, if you thought the helmet throw was in respose to your call then EJ him. But just throwing it because he's mad he got out...maybe there was a bee in it etc. doesn't rise to that level for me. Again I wasn't there. The rules allow for an EJ 3-3-L "deliberatly throw a bat, helmet, etc." but we have to put context around the action and use our judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads
5 minutes ago, Specks said:

In the OP, if you thought the helmet throw was in respose to your call then EJ him. But just throwing it because he's mad he got out...maybe there was a bee in it etc. doesn't rise to that level for me. Again I wasn't there. The rules allow for an EJ 3-3-L "deliberatly throw a bat, helmet, etc." but we have to put context around the action and use our judgement.

The rules REQUIRE an EJ.  Perhaps you need to re-read the rule.  YES, I agree with context being considered ... but the final six actions under 3-3-1 are not allowing ... they are requiring ejections.

I called a very heated district tournament game about 3 years ago where the best player swung three times and whiffed three times with bases loaded for the third out.  He flung his bat to the dugout rail with nets.  There was no one within 25 feet of the bat.  He couldn't have possibly been angry/frustrated with anyone other than himself.  Even if you play the safety card, I would say that does not apply.  He knew he threw it where it couldn't hurt anyone.

DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY JUSTIFICATION ... ANY CONTEXT ... ANY "SPIRIT" OF RULE 3-3-1 L that could have let this player out of an Ejection?

Quite simply, no.  The PU would have been heavily reprimanded and probably been prevented from progressing further into the post season had he not made the ejection ... REGARDLESS of what the other team did.  They were so happy to pitch out of serious trouble that they may have let it go.  So what?  There are certain rules you can turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to or use judgment to mitigate the penalty.  A helmet thrown to the backstop or a bat thrown to the netting are not examples of that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

The rules REQUIRE an EJ.  Perhaps you need to re-read the rule.  YES, I agree with context being considered ... but the final six actions under 3-3-1 are not allowing ... they are requiring ejections.

I called a very heated district tournament game about 3 years ago where the best player swung three times and whiffed three times with bases loaded for the third out.  He flung his bat to the dugout rail with nets.  There was no one within 25 feet of the bat.  He couldn't have possibly been angry/frustrated with anyone other than himself.  Even if you play the safety card, I would say that does not apply.  He knew he threw it where it couldn't hurt anyone.

DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY JUSTIFICATION ... ANY CONTEXT ... ANY "SPIRIT" OF RULE 3-3-1 L that could have let this player out of an Ejection?

Quite simply, no.  The PU would have been heavily reprimanded and probably been prevented from progressing further into the post season had he not made the ejection ... REGARDLESS of what the other team did.  They were so happy to pitch out of serious trouble that they may have let it go.  So what?  There are certain rules you can turn a deaf ear or a blind eye to or use judgment to mitigate the penalty.  A helmet thrown to the backstop or a bat thrown to the netting are not examples of that.

Do you eject a catcher when he picks up the offensive teams bat and throws it towards their dugout in an effort to be helpful? A black and white reading of the rule would say he is ejected for deliberately throwing a bat, but I sure hope nobody would eject for that. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spiffdawg7 said:

Do you eject a catcher when he picks up the offensive teams bat and throws it towards their dugout in an effort to be helpful? A black and white reading of the rule would say he is ejected for deliberately throwing a bat, but I sure hope nobody would eject for that. 

No, I don't ... because that is a matter of common sense, and the writers and publisher of the FED Books allow hundreds of errors to remain each year with no interest in correcting them ... same with test questions.  I know.  I wrote to the editor with an offer to overhaul everything free of charge. He thanked me and said, "They are not interested in making corrections."

Elliott Hopkins.  Our Educator.

Carelessly throwing a bat and deliberately throwing a bat are two of the most worthless adjectives FED could have chosen to describe two infractions that have penalties ranging from nothing to an ejection.

a couple of more words or phrases could clear it up once and for all. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

No, I don't ... because that is a matter of common sense, and the writers and publisher of the FED Books allow hundreds of errors to remain each year with no interest in correcting them ... same with test questions.  I know.  I wrote to the editor with an offer to overhaul everything free of charge. He thanked me and said, "They are not interested in making corrections."

Elliott Hopkins.  Our Educator.

Carelessly throwing a bat and deliberately throwing a bat are two of the most worthless adjectives FED could have chosen to describe two infractions that have penalties ranging from nothing to an ejection.

a couple of more words or phrases could clear it up once and for all. 

I agree with you that it is poorly worded and think the intent is only in protest with an umpires call. I do not think they meant when a player throws a bat or helmet because he is upset with himself. The wording is not clear sketched way so it is up to interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spiffdawg7 said:

Do you eject a catcher when he picks up the offensive teams bat and throws it towards their dugout in an effort to be helpful? A black and white reading of the rule would say he is ejected for deliberately throwing a bat, but I sure hope nobody would eject for that. 

There is a HUGE difference in the catcher tossing a bat 'to help out' and throwing a bat or hat in anger. It doesn't matter who they are mad at - throwing bats and hats in anger is UNSAFE and POOR SPORTSMANSHIP. The anger throw gets an ejection.

 

9 minutes ago, spiffdawg7 said:

I agree with you that it is poorly worded and think the intent is only in protest with an umpires call. I do not think they meant when a player throws a bat or helmet because he is upset with himself. The wording is not clear sketched way so it is up to interpretation

We are not mind readers - they throw something after an out, strikeout or whatever/whomever they are mad at, they deserve the ejection.

The careless throwing of the bat is different - slippery handle, etc - we warn then eject.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am comfortable with my EJ and would have the same thing next time. My question is for those who say they may not eject on these. Do you feel this opens the door for the other team to expect a "freebie"? It would be hard to run someone on their team after passing on something like this.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hill2933 said:

My question is for those who say they may not eject on these. Do you feel this opens the door for the other team to expect a "freebie"?

Yes ... the other team should expect a common sense freebie ... actually lots of them. 

7 hours ago, hill2933 said:

It would be hard to run someone on their team after passing on something like this.

Not at all. Don't confuse being scared to eject at all with judicious ejecting. If I didn't EJ the guy that you did, but next half inning the other team's player throws his helmet in rage over my call, I would eject without even considering the first helmet throw. Any argument that the two incidents were equivalent would not be taken seriously... "is that all you've got coach, then this discussion is over". 

7 hours ago, hill2933 said:

I am comfortable with my EJ and would have the same thing next time. 

So why did you post what you did. If you are just looking for kudos about your misadventures, then you came to the wrong web site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hill2933 said:

I am comfortable with my EJ and would have the same thing next time. My question is for those who say they may not eject on these. Do you feel this opens the door for the other team to expect a "freebie"? It would be hard to run someone on their team after passing on something like this.

Sounds like you're over-thinking this. Behavior worthy of an ejection can stand on its own and context with other behavior isn't always necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 9:32 PM, hill2933 said:

Bottom 5 close rivalry game. Kid tries to score and throw beats him to the plate. Runner slides wide to avoid tag but misses the plate. Catchers dives back and tags him before he can get back to touch. Called the out and the runner sits up and throws his helmet to the backstop. Ran him and then coach wanted to know why I couldn't understand that his player was just emotional. When I decided not to allow him to stay with us the coach says (loud enough for everyone to hear) "well that's bullSH*#!" And there was number two. Gues that's what I get for taking last minute games.

Another situation that reminds me of the saying 

"Sports doesn't build character, it reveals it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

Yes ... the other team should expect a common sense freebie ... actually lots of them. 

Not at all. Don't confuse being scared to eject at all with judicious ejecting. If I didn't EJ the guy that you did, but next half inning the other team's player throws his helmet in rage over my call, I would eject without even considering the first helmet throw. Any argument that the two incidents were equivalent would not be taken seriously... "is that all you've got coach, then this discussion is over". 

So why did you post what you did. If you are just looking for kudos about your misadventures, then you came to the wrong web site.

 Not looking for kudos at all. Just looking to get better. Usually just come hear to read the discussions and see what everyone else is dealing with. Whenever I have something out of the ordinary I look to find the rule to cite and look on here to get other's input. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, spiffdawg7 said:

I disagree.  There has to be gray area in the rule.  The rule states the player is to be ejected for deliberately throwing a bat or helmet.  What would you say if your catcher was ejected for throwing a bat towards the offensive team's dugout?  What if your catcher is ejected because he takes his helmet off and throws it ten feet away while trying to catch a popup? I know these would be two ridiculous ejections, but reading the rule without interpretation would lead to these ejections.  So Ricka56 and myself interpret the rule to mean deliberately throwing equipment in disgust of an umpires call.  Now if the player chunked his helmet in disgust of himself I would give him a warning and tell him he was on thin ice.  I just don't think the rule can be read in black and white.

Where do you see a gray area when the rules call for an automatic ejection for the offense committed ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:50 PM, BrianC14 said:

So Ricka56 and myself interpret the rule to mean deliberately throwing equipment in disgust of an umpires call

As do I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 3:39 PM, hill2933 said:

Do you feel this opens the door for the other team to expect a "freebie"? It would be hard to run someone on their team after passing on something like this.

Unlike some who are hell-bent on twisting and dissecting your words, my answer is YES ... if you let this action go, it will indeed be more difficult to punish the opposing team for something similar but more egregious.

I dislike/disagree with plenty of FED rules, but it really does a disservice to everyone when you start picking and choosing what to enforce and what not to enforce.

Just yesterday, a catcher came out and had the two-piece mask and skullcap combo. No ear coverage. I told him to hustle back and get a legal helmet. He said, "My coach lets me use this."

i walked over to the coach and said, "Coach, you need to get a legal helmet for your catcher to use.  What he's got isn't legal.  And then … he said it …

"We were told it's umpire's discretion, and he's been using it all season."

"Who told you it's umpire's discretion?"

"The first umpire we had this year."

Well ... I corrected him, but what really sucks is I also believe him.  I believe it was an umpire who told him erroneously that it's up to us ... and the 10-15 references in the Rules and Casebooks including the inset image on page 13 of the RB (1-5-4) aren't really to be taken seriously (not to mention the test question that says, "If the umpire feels the equipment is safe, the catcher may use it even if it does not meet the specifications laid out in the rulebook.")

I don't really like this rule, plenty of MLB catchers wear the combo, but we are basically under oath to uphold the FED rules — most especially the safety rules and sportsmanship rules.  If our State Director caught wind of an umpire knowingly ignoring this rule, we'd be taken to task over it.

BOTTOM LINE

If a kid throws a helmet or bat in disgust, it's not up to us to decide at whom he's disgusted.  We get told every year the diamond is an extension of the classroom. If a kid threw a textbook across the room and hit the wall with it, no one would shrug it off and say, "He's just emotional — he didn't do well on the last quiz."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now