Replacematt

There's no push here.

I'm ejecting for this one. He took it up the line with him until he was in front of the opposing dugout. When we think about the two reasons for this rule (safety, sportsmanship,) and that he was waiting to do that until he could throw that bat up their ass, so to speak, we have a violation of the second one.

This was entirely a flop and the initial act is not even close to severe enough to do anything official unless there had been something else to this point, which is why we use our tools. And whether the runner falls or not is irrelevant. This is not a totally uncommon occurrence in college ball, people don't usually get thrown at over this, and an ejection here will have your coordinator questioning why you ejected for something so minor. The lack of a warning might also raise the national coordinator's eyebrows (there is a dedicated field to affirm/deny that a warning was given.) Hopefully the mistake of ejection doesn't come with the additional consequences of subsequent ejections, because nothing is going to get you questioned more than having multiple ones in the same game, let alone same incident. While we could eject here and have it supported by rule, it is not the tool that anyone wants us to use. Soft ejections without using all the tools are one of the big things that will keep an umpire from advancing or the postseason (and too many will get your schedule pulled.) In the old days, without instant video at coordinators' disposal, a written report on this incident probably wouldn't raise any questions. Now that nearly every college ejection can be seen by those who give us our schedules, we have to add another area where our judgment has to be on point--game management. Our bosses can see an ejection incident and tell if we misjudged its severity.

I was expecting something with a bit more meat when I read the thread before watching the video. Absent anything else happening to this point, this is getting a stern "Really?" from me to F3. And if BR asks me to do more, I'm going to ask him about his theater major.

We mentally note the situation while we are getting out of there, getting to our off-field area, calling our conference coordinator, and aligning on who is going to retrieve, watch, and document the video.

Like I said--neither relevant nor hypocritical. You seem to think the two things have anything in common (and even if they did, it still wouldn't be relevant.) They don't.

Nope. What they did is the opposite of what we have been trained to do--especially when we have video at our disposal.

This wouldn't have happened without illegal gambling. Legal gambling provides an avenue for reporting and reduces the influence that illegal actors can have on results.

If MLB had a history of illegally betting on games and influencing results, then that would possibly mitigate the irrelevance of this comment and simply change it into a whataboutism.

Which is likely the logic here, regardless of where the ball was.

Unfortunately your video does need a subscription. I think one of the major pieces of information needed is not apparent here...what was the ball's path in relation (both space and time) to F3 and F4?

There are only two reasonable conclusions, not mutually exclusive and perhaps actually overlapping, that can be made from not releasing that information: 1. Giamatti was trying to save Rose from further embarrassment (possible,) or 2. the information would have been devastating to MLB (more possible.) If you go with #1, then the rest of the argument about trying to be on a power trip loses support. And if #2 is true, then any grace extended to Rose is a significant favor. To me, this is strong evidence as to the nature of what was not released, and aimed at preventing retroactive statistical actions and civil actions due to the outcomes of games played. Take that as you will. It was absolutely not impossible. It was quite simple, in fact. Disavow gambling, be contrite...and this carrot had not changed. And for this argument to have any validity, we would have to assume that not one, not two, but three commissioners were on power trips regarding this.

Absolutely F*#King not. Facts: 1. Without Rule 21, MLB would not exist. It would have been abandoned in droves as people lost confidence in the validity of the contests. 2. As violations of Rule 21 have the potential to kill MLB, violations of it must be punished to the fullest extent available (in this case, rendering one ineligible to be involved with MLB.) 3. Rule 21 is known to all participants, to include Rose. 4. Rose deliberately and repeatedly violated Rule 21. 5. When confronted with the evidence, Rose agreed to be made permanently ineligible in exchange for facts to remain private. 6. Thus, not only did he bet on his own team, he did worse things that have not been made public. 7. As part of the deal, Rose could apply for reinstatement with conditions. 8. He not only did not comply with those conditions, he contradicted them. Since he did things even beyond what got him banned, and he did not feel it was worth reinstatement to comply with the conditions to which he agreed, and he repeatedly lied and showed a lack of remorse about it, where is the mitigating argument to support reinstatement?

Uhh... The OP did specify, and the resulting conversation has stayed on course. Not sure what purpose this response has.

Then you're subject to protest using that logic. It's voluntary release, not voluntary transfer. As long as the fielder intentionally released their hold on the ball in the glove, it's a catch. Take a look at the play from MLB last year with the liner to F6 that came out very quickly after getting in the glove.