Well, I never...

[ElkOil]

My partner and I were assigned to a "varsity playoff game." I was to be BU. Easy enough. OH HOW WRONG WE WERE!!

It all started when I arrived first and found that the field we were at was nothing more than a sandlot with some grass in a baseball-diamond shape. The "mound" was an eroded dirt amoeba with a sad pitcher's rubber sticking 6" above the surrounding surface, with the rubber itself nailed down with two enormous steel spikes sticking an inch above the rubber's surface (the rubber teetered with every move of F1's foot).

My partner and I kept asking each other how old the players were. They certainly didn't look old enough to be in any high school program, let alone varsity-level.

The parents were extremely energetic and vocal all game long. All. Game. Long. ALL THREE AND A HALF HOURS OF IT!  And one of the coaches never stopped telling us what we should be calling. Alas, there are too many details to go into, but suffice to say, the vibe that night was weird. Then come to find, the players ranged in age from 12 to 18. Whaaaat? The starting pitcher on one team was in sixth grade. Nobody looked older than 14. Anyhoo...

One of the younger kids was up at bat when he was rung up on strikes. He then throws his bat in disgust all the way from the batter's box to the dugout entrance. I called time and walked toward the coach who was hollering at his player to come over and get what was coming to him, but the kid was having none of it and planted himself on the dugout bench, sulking. As I walked closer, the player approached the dugout fence. "Son, you can't throw your bat like that," I said to him. Then to the coach, "He'll have to sit out the rest of the game." The coach just nodded, then began telling the player what was what as I went back to the field.

Next inning, F1 throws over to 3B. I saw him disengage properly, but the HC said, "Hey, that was a balk."

I shook my head and said, "No, he stepped off properly." That satisfied the coach... but not his assistant who was coaching 1B.

"But that was a BALK!" the AC hollered.

"Coach, you can't argue balks," I said. He then walked out onto the field.

"THAT WAS A BALK!" And then he kept walking to the parking lot after I informed him his presence was no longer required.

The whole game felt what I believe an intense little league game probably feels like. Afterwards, I called my assigner and deeply apologized for whatever it was my partner and I did to make him hate us.

[stkjock]

Ouch!  

[catsbackr]

Playoff game?

[VolUmp]

1)  Your Assignor should have known and should have told you what kind of a playoff game this was.  Sounds like two private schools that don't have enough players to field a Varsity team, so they will use 12-18 year olds.

2)  F1 need no disengage at all to throw to 3rd.

3)  I don't see how you ejected the 1BC, since by rule, he should have been restricted to the dugout, along with the HC.  You make no mention of him saying or doing anything that would warrant an EJ.  Come out of the box to object?  That's a restriction only.  There's actually nowhere in FED written or unwritten that a HC cannot question or object to a balk.  He can't delay the game, but he can question it.

[LittleBlue]

Those kind of games give me recurring nightmares. 

[scrounge]

2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

 

3)  I don't see how you ejected the 1BC, since by rule, he should have been restricted to the dugout, along with the HC.  You make no mention of him saying or doing anything that would warrant an EJ.  Come out of the box to object?  That's a restriction only.  There's actually nowhere in FED written or unwritten that a HC cannot question or object to a balk.  He can't delay the game, but he can question it.

Sure there is, just like any persistent arguing of a judgement call. An initial question? Fine, but that wasn't this. The 1BC loudly argued and received a clear verbal warning. Nevertheless, he persisted. He could have received a restriction, but in the judgment of the OP this was another offense after receiving a verbal warning, the OP followed the progression to ejection. Seems fine to me.

[ElkOil]

11 hours ago, VolUmp said:

1)  Your Assignor should have known and should have told you what kind of a playoff game this was.  Sounds like two private schools that don't have enough players to field a Varsity team, so they will use 12-18 year olds.

2)  F1 need no disengage at all to throw to 3rd.

3)  I don't see how you ejected the 1BC, since by rule, he should have been restricted to the dugout, along with the HC.  You make no mention of him saying or doing anything that would warrant an EJ.  Come out of the box to object?  That's a restriction only.  There's actually nowhere in FED written or unwritten that a HC cannot question or object to a balk.  He can't delay the game, but he can question it.

1. Perhaps.

2. I know.

3. By rule, he shall be ejected:

SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: a. leave the dugout during a live ball for an unauthorized purpose; b. fake a tag without the ball; c. carelessly throw a bat; d. wear jewelry (players participating in the game) or wear bandannas; e. hit the ball to players on defense after the game has started; PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected. In (b), it is also obstruction (8-3-2). f. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to, 1. use of words or actions to incite or attempt to incite spectators demonstrations, 2. use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon any other person, or taunting or baiting. The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting that is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under circumstances including race, religion, gender or national origin. 3. use of any language intended to intimidate, 4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play; 5. being in live ball territory (excluding team’s bullpen area) during the opponent’s infield practice prior to the start of the game. 6. any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire. 7. Confronting or directing unsportsmanlike conduct to the umpires after the game has concluded and until the umpires have departed the game site. g. enter the area behind the catcher while the opposing pitcher and catcher are in their positions; h. use of any object in his possession in the coach’s box other than a stopwatch, rule book (hard copy), scorebook; i. be outside the designated dugout (bench) or bullpen area if not a batter, runner, on-deck batter, in the coach’s box or one of the nine players on defense; j. charge an umpire; k. use amplifiers or bullhorns for coaching purposes during the course of the game; PENALTY: The umpire shall eject the offender from the game.

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, ElkOil said:

1. Perhaps.

2. I know.

3. By rule, he shall be ejected:

SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not: a. leave the dugout during a live ball for an unauthorized purpose; b. fake a tag without the ball; c. carelessly throw a bat; d. wear jewelry (players participating in the game) or wear bandannas; e. hit the ball to players on defense after the game has started; PENALTY: At the end of playing action, the umpire shall issue a warning to the coach of the team involved and the next offender on that team shall be ejected. In (b), it is also obstruction (8-3-2). f. commit any unsportsmanlike act to include, but not limited to, 1. use of words or actions to incite or attempt to incite spectators demonstrations, 2. use of profanity, intimidation tactics, remarks reflecting unfavorably upon any other person, or taunting or baiting. The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting that is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under circumstances including race, religion, gender or national origin. 3. use of any language intended to intimidate, 4. behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play; 5. being in live ball territory (excluding team’s bullpen area) during the opponent’s infield practice prior to the start of the game. 6. any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire. 7. Confronting or directing unsportsmanlike conduct to the umpires after the game has concluded and until the umpires have departed the game site. g. enter the area behind the catcher while the opposing pitcher and catcher are in their positions; h. use of any object in his possession in the coach’s box other than a stopwatch, rule book (hard copy), scorebook; i. be outside the designated dugout (bench) or bullpen area if not a batter, runner, on-deck batter, in the coach’s box or one of the nine players on defense; j. charge an umpire; k. use amplifiers or bullhorns for coaching purposes during the course of the game; 

No, Elk, No.  You conveniently skipped 2/3 of page 29 and quoted the wrong penalty.

3-3-1 is clearly broken down into 3 sections, which should be memorized by all offials:

A) Warnable Infractions

B) Mostly Warnable Infractions that in egregious (major) cases can be ejectable.

C) Automatic Ejectable Infractions.

Nothing in your post (OP) sounds egregious or major.  Ignorant?  Sure. Egregious?  Major?  Absolutely not.

The correct Penalty is:

PENALTY:  The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur. 

What you had was a perfect case of RESTRICTING both the AC for leaving the box to object, and the HC (guilty by association and responsible for said AC's behavior).  You even emphasized this above in red.

If what you described is considered to be MAJOR in your mind, I can promise you that you wouldn't last a week around here.  You would be banished to the world of JV (with no partner) and Middle School.

 

[ElkOil]

11 hours ago, VolUmp said:

No, Elk, No.  You conveniently skipped 2/3 of page 29 and quoted the wrong penalty.

3-3-1 is clearly broken down into 3 sections, which should be memorized by all offials:

A) Warnable Infractions

B) Mostly Warnable Infractions that in egregious (major) cases can be ejectable.

C) Automatic Ejectable Infractions.

Nothing in your post (OP) sounds egregious or major.  Ignorant?  Sure. Egregious?  Major?  Absolutely not.

The correct Penalty is:

PENALTY:  The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur. 

What you had was a perfect case of RESTRICTING both the AC for leaving the box to object, and the HC (guilty by association and responsible for said AC's behavior).  You even emphasized this above in red.

If what you described is considered to be MAJOR in your mind, I can promise you that you wouldn't last a week around here.  You would be banished to the world of JV (with no partner) and Middle School.

 

Eh... I'm okay with how I handled it. I wouldn't want to call ball in a place where they'd banish me anyway.

[udbrky]

 

[VolUmp]

On 4/28/2017 at 0:22 PM, ElkOil said:

Eh... I'm okay with how I handled it.

I don't care that you are "OK with the way you handled it ... " as FED would not be OK with it ... as this is not a judgment call, it's a rule that is black and white.

What I'm really not OK with is your feeble attempt to fool us readers of this forum by incorrectly stating the wrong penalty for the situation you describe.  That's akin to either plagarism or stupidity.

[cp9]

8 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I don't care that you are "OK with the way you handled it ... " as FED would not be OK with it ... as this is not a judgment call, it's a rule that is black and white.

What I'm really not OK with is your feeble attempt to fool us readers of this forum by incorrectly stating the wrong penalty for the situation you describe.  That's akin to either plagarism or stupidity.

Can we please keep the discussion civil?  

 

As for the ejection, since we weren't there and were not privy to the antics or volume of the assistant coach, this may have been a bona-fide no brainer ejection.  I don't see anything wrong with this EJ.  Beginning this season in NC, this is an automatic ejection for an AC, no warning, no questions asked. 

[ElkOil]

9 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I don't care that you are "OK with the way you handled it ... " as FED would not be OK with it ... as this is not a judgment call, it's a rule that is black and white.

What I'm really not OK with is your feeble attempt to fool us readers of this forum by incorrectly stating the wrong penalty for the situation you describe.  That's akin to either plagarism or stupidity.

Bring it in. We're gonna hug this out.

[Thunderheads]

12 hours ago, VolUmp said:

I don't care that you are "OK with the way you handled it ... " as FED would not be OK with it ... as this is not a judgment call, it's a rule that is black and white.

What I'm really not OK with is your feeble attempt to fool us readers of this forum by incorrectly stating the wrong penalty for the situation you describe.  That's akin to either plagarism or stupidity.

easy there Bob .... it's all going to be ok  

[VolUmp]

10 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

easy there Bob .... it's all going to be ok  

Jeff, it is not OK to piece together the rules book in such a way to make it say something it doesn't.

YES ... I'll chill out and the world is still wonderful.  Yes baseball is the greatest game.

No, what ElkOil did to try to justify his action is not OK.  If he just quoted the entire rule or none of it and said, "This is how I interpret it" or "This is the way we are told to do it around here despite the book," then it's debatable and OK.  I despise parts of the FED book.  If our Association says, "To hell with page XX ... we are lowering the boom on AC's because they are ruining the game" I'll be first in line to agree.

[ElkOil]

28 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Jeff, it is not OK to piece together the rules book in such a way to make it say something it doesn't.

YES ... I'll chill out and the world is still wonderful.  Yes baseball is the greatest game.

No, what ElkOil did to try to justify his action is not OK.  If he just quoted the entire rule or none of it and said, "This is how I interpret it" or "This is the way we are told to do it around here despite the book," then it's debatable and OK.  I despise parts of the FED book.  If our Association says, "To hell with page XX ... we are lowering the boom on AC's because they are ruining the game" I'll be first in line to agree.

Feel better?

[lawump]

On 5/1/2017 at 0:42 AM, VolUmp said:

I don't care that you are "OK with the way you handled it ... " as FED would not be OK with it ... as this is not a judgment call, it's a rule that is black and white.

 

Actually, the rule is not "black and white" in the way you imply it to be.  One of the issues we faced nationally, when this rule was changed for the 2016 season, was that coaches were challenging (to their state association) that their ejection should be overturned on the grounds that they had not received a verbal or written warning prior to their ejection. Some (not all) states were buying this argument and "overturning" ejections due to the fact that the umpire had failed to issue any warning prior to the ejection.  In other states, the 2016 rule change was "a complete mess" (to quote a league administrator in one of the largest states in the union) in that the states did not know what FED was trying to accomplish with the rule change. 

One of the reasons the rule was changed for the 2017 season was to clarify that coaches could be ejected without having received a prior warning if their inappropriate conduct was "major" in nature.  (In fact, a coach can be ejected after having received both a verbal and written warning, after having received only one type of warning, or after having received no warnings.  The 2017 rule change makes this clear.)

By its very wording, the 2017 rule change (and accompanying interpretations) injects a degree of subjectivity.  The umpire, and the umpire alone, has to determine if the coach's conduct is "major".  This degree of subjectivity means that the rule is not "black and white".  While we certainly strive for consistency and uniformity, we umpires are (still) humans and can disagree as to what constitutes "major" conduct.   It would be great if 100% of umpires could agree with one another as to what actions constitute...and which actions do not constitute..."major" conduct.  But, alas, one only has to read these message boards to know that umpires are far from being in uniform agreement with one another on almost any issue.  Thus, what I may consider "major" conduct, may not be considered "major" conduct by you.  Thus, the rule is not so black-and-white. 

Now, as for the OP, whether or not the first base coach's conduct was "major" (or in this case "severe") to warrant an ejection after having only received a verbal warning, it is a HTBT.  I can tell you that in my state, by state directive, assistant coaches have a very short leash.  My state would fully support this ejection; but that would be, as you have alluded to in other posts in this thread, by state directive and not the FED rule book.

[zm1283]

All I know is that an assistant who is told to shut his mouth, then comes on the field, is leaving. I don't care what level or rule code it is. If it's FED I'll just put in the report that I judged it to be a major infraction or whatever...case closed. 

[Replacematt]

On 4/28/2017 at 1:25 AM, VolUmp said:

No, Elk, No.  You conveniently skipped 2/3 of page 29 and quoted the wrong penalty.

3-3-1 is clearly broken down into 3 sections, which should be memorized by all offials:

A) Warnable Infractions

B) Mostly Warnable Infractions that in egregious (major) cases can be ejectable.

C) Automatic Ejectable Infractions.

Nothing in your post (OP) sounds egregious or major.  Ignorant?  Sure. Egregious?  Major?  Absolutely not.

The correct Penalty is:

PENALTY:  The umpire shall warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur. 

What you had was a perfect case of RESTRICTING both the AC for leaving the box to object, and the HC (guilty by association and responsible for said AC's behavior).  You even emphasized this above in red.

If what you described is considered to be MAJOR in your mind, I can promise you that you wouldn't last a week around here.  You would be banished to the world of JV (with no partner) and Middle School.

 

An AC coming onto the field to argue a balk after being told not to? Done. And my association and state supported it with no heartburn.