How would you handle?

[NFUA_44]

One of the auto ejections is a player drawing a line, that's balls and strikes.

Yes, he is upset about the strike call but he is not ejected for arguing balls and strikes. Actions by team personnel specifically intended to ridicule an umpire are grounds for ejection (i.e., drawing a line in the dirt to demonstrate location of a pitch). That is what he was ejected for, he did an action intended to ridicule the umpire.

the Manager starts on balls/strikes and the umpire gives the stop sign. If it is run through it is an ejection. Joe West had one a week or two ago that was discussed on the Pro thread with video to show it wasn't much at all to the uneducated viewer, but to us there was stop sign, stop sign ignored, and the toss. Pretty simple.

He wasn't ejected because he was arguing balls and strikes. He was ejected because he was ordered to do something and he did not do it. There is a difference.

If someone is in the dugout yelling at you about some pitch he didn't like you can't just eject him. Yes, he is arguing balls and strikes but the rules don't support an ejection yet. He must be warned. Once he is warned then if he continues yelling you can eject him for ignoring your warning.

The thing to remember is that the manager can stand in the dugout and yell at you about every pitch the entire game. The manager can come out and argue with you for ten minutes about one call. The rules don't say to simply eject for those actions. You must tell the manager that you don't want him yelling at you about the pitches, you must tell the manager that the discussion is over and to return to his position and to not follow you. If he doesn't do what you told him then you can eject him. Remembering this will make your ejections much better as you will be able to get warnings in as well as making your ejections look better under the rules.

I didn't really think you would have an answer for the quoted text I had for you above. Facts are simple. You are the only one in this conversation who can't support your statement with a reference from a legitimate source. Standing around saying that it's not supported by rule, after the rule has been given to you in more than one code, just goes to show how completely silly you sound.

[JaxRolo]

Guys, obviously Cactus does not want to learn this. Not one person supports his argument. So he is right and everyone else is wrong.

I would love to be a coach in one of his games and be able to argue all day.

[Mike Prince]

OK, I revise my initial response that spurred Cactus to try and "educate" us all - at the first instance of this behavior by F2 there is an immediate need to clean the plate and he's told that's enough. On the next word or turn of his head on a pitch he does not agree with, he is gone.

[Thunderheads]

Hang on guys....

I have a video that will shut this down and show Cactus that he is wrong ...........sit tight.................

[Thunderheads]

Cactus ....

NOW...watch ....and listen ....and then RE-THINK what you're saying ... OK ????

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=6829745

[mstaylor]

One of the auto ejections is a player drawing a line, that's balls and strikes.

Yes, he is upset about the strike call but he is not ejected for arguing balls and strikes. Actions by team personnel specifically intended to ridicule an umpire are grounds for ejection (i.e., drawing a line in the dirt to demonstrate location of a pitch). That is what he was ejected for, he did an action intended to ridicule the umpire.

the Manager starts on balls/strikes and the umpire gives the stop sign. If it is run through it is an ejection. Joe West had one a week or two ago that was discussed on the Pro thread with video to show it wasn't much at all to the uneducated viewer, but to us there was stop sign, stop sign ignored, and the toss. Pretty simple.

He wasn't ejected because he was arguing balls and strikes. He was ejected because he was ordered to do something and he did not do it. There is a difference.

If someone is in the dugout yelling at you about some pitch he didn't like you can't just eject him. Yes, he is arguing balls and strikes but the rules don't support an ejection yet. He must be warned. Once he is warned then if he continues yelling you can eject him for ignoring your warning.

The thing to remember is that the manager can stand in the dugout and yell at you about every pitch the entire game. The manager can come out and argue with you for ten minutes about one call. The rules don't say to simply eject for those actions. You must tell the manager that you don't want him yelling at you about the pitches, you must tell the manager that the discussion is over and to return to his position and to not follow you. If he doesn't do what you told him then you can eject him. Remembering this will make your ejections much better as you will be able to get warnings in as well as making your ejections look better under the rules.

That is semantics at the best. It is a distinction without a difference. If you want operate in that way, fine, but it is not the correct path. I assure you if you were to ask twenty MLB umpires what happens if a manager comes out to argue balls and strikes, they will tell you they will be ejected. If you were to ask twenty MLB managers, if will get at least 16 tell you the same thing.

Just remember that when it's you against the world, bet on the world. While it's not always true, I have tilted a few windmills in my time, it true more than not.

[Ros@]

I believe I do understand what cactus is trying to say/explain.

When somebody argues on any judgement call, normaly you would give a warning first (at least I do so).

It may be a wording or "the hand".

Then on the second time this or any other person starts argueing on any judgement call, you toss the fellow

out of th game because they did not respect the warning given!

So you acctually toss them for disobeying the prior warning and not for arguing on the judgement call.

The arguing on the judgement call led to the warning only . .

Are we all here with me?

Ros@

[Forest Ump]

Guys, obviously Cactus does not want to learn this. Not one person supports his argument. So he is right and everyone else is wrong.

I would love to be a coach in one of his games and be able to argue all day.

It is very clear to me that Cactus is not an umpire. Can you say Troll.

[Thunderheads]

Guys, obviously Cactus does not want to learn this. Not one person supports his argument. So he is right and everyone else is wrong.

I would love to be a coach in one of his games and be able to argue all day.

It is very clear to me that Cactus is not an umpire. Can you say Troll.

Forest, ..he has the 'troll' tendency for sure .... but he's one of those who will read a post, but only see words :rolleyes:

[yawetag]

Cactus ....

NOW...watch ....and listen ....and then RE-THINK what you're saying ... OK ????

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...tent_id=6829745

How did I miss this one before? That's pretty funny. "You know what? You're outta here! You're not going to say anything to me like that!"

I love it!

[Thunderheads]

Cactus ....

NOW...watch ....and listen ....and then RE-THINK what you're saying ... OK ????

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...tent_id=6829745

How did I miss this one before? That's pretty funny. "You know what? You're outta here! You're not going to say anything to me like that!"

I love it!

Isn't it great ?!?!? It's from 2009 ....notice how Gibson gives Greinke a warning first?? :rolleyes:

[Cactus]

That is semantics at the best. It is a distinction without a difference. If you want operate in that way, fine, but it is not the correct path.

I'm telling you what the correct path is. If I was wrong the manual would list arguing balls and strikes as a reason to eject someone. A lot of people don't seem to understand this. Listen to the announcer. http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=15264919

I assure you if you were to ask twenty MLB umpires what happens if a manager comes out to argue balls and strikes, they will tell you they will be ejected. If you were to ask twenty MLB managers, if will get at least 16 tell you the same thing.

Actually they would say that the manager would be warned to stop and if he continued then he would be ejected.

So you acctually toss them for disobeying the prior warning and not for arguing on the judgement call.

The arguing on the judgement call led to the warning only .

Yes, that is the point.

[Cactus]

Isn't it great ?!?!? It's from 2009 ....notice how Gibson gives Greinke a warning first??

Of course you can eject someone without warning them if they do certain things.....arguing balls and strikes is not one of those things. Of course they may do something to cause the ejection without warning while arguing balls and strikes.

OK, I revise my initial response that spurred Cactus to try and "educate" us all - at the first instance of this behavior by F2 there is an immediate need to clean the plate and he's told that's enough. On the next word or turn of his head on a pitch he does not agree with, he is gone.

That is great. Getting the warning in might prevent the ejection. If you end up having to eject him you will end up looking very good because you had warned him to stop first.

[Thunderheads]

Of course you can eject someone without warning them if they do certain things.....arguing balls and strikes is not one of those things. Of course they may do something to cause the ejection without warning while arguing balls and strikes.

Cactus .... Gibson ejects Greinke for complaining about balls and strikes .... BOOM...he's done ....or , didn't you watch the video?

[NFUA_44]

Cactus, on 10 June 2011

Of course you can eject someone without warning them if they do certain things.....arguing balls and strikes is not one of those things. Of course they may do something to cause the ejection without warning while arguing balls and strikes.

The ejection or warning isn't in question. Your complete insistence that there is no rule support for dumping them for arguing balls and strikes is the issue. It has been given to you in rule references and video format, and still you refuse to accept what reality is.

Think of an ejection report:

U1 - In the bottom of the 2nd I warned VT manager about arguing balls and strikes. In the bottom of the 4th he argued balls and strikes again and was ejected. Fact is he had to have argued balls & strikes both times to suffer the consequences.

It matters not that he went past the warning, or when he went past the warning, he was warned BECAUSE HE WAS ARGUING SOMETHING THAT THE RULES DON'T ALLOW HIM ARGUE! Do we allow a certain amount of it before the warning is issued and further action taken. Yep, most of us do. But your making outlandish claims that there isn't support for it, is just completely wrong.

And Jax:

I just can't stop myself! :shrug:

[mstaylor]

Cactus, I am growing weary of this discussion because you have presented nothing to back up your stance. If you are trusting announcers for baseball rulings you can forget it.

[Cactus]

It matters not that he went past the warning, or when he went past the warning, he was warned BECAUSE HE WAS ARGUING SOMETHING THAT THE RULES DON'T ALLOW HIM ARGUE! Do we allow a certain amount of it before the warning is issued and further action taken. Yep, most of us do. But your making outlandish claims that there isn't support for it, is just completely wrong.

I know this discussion is going around but the rules do not state that they can't argue balls and strikes (if they don't leave their position). Within the rules it is the same as arguing out/safe or fair foul. Of course you can eject someone for arguing out/safe, fair/foul, ball/strike but you seem to be thinking that ball/strike is different under the rules when in fact it is not. It is just treated differently on the field.

Cactus, I am growing weary of this discussion because you have presented nothing to back up your stance. If you are trusting announcers for baseball rulings you can forget it.

I cited the PBUC manual when you talked about ejecting for arguing balls and strikes when you were actually ejecting for something else. The video I posted was to show how wrong the announcers were, although it seems that some of you on here would agree with him.

[Mike Prince]

The unfortunate thing is that this thread has devolved into a pissing match about semantics over the process used to eject someone rather than discussing the original question (to help the OP) of how do you handle a 12U catcher who acts inappropriately and puts himself at risk of an EJ. Everyone can quote PBUC and JEAPU manuals and show MLB videos, but in my opinion we have strayed too far from the OP's question.

[mstaylor]

cactus, we were not setting it aside or treating it differently, we have all said that arguing judgment can get you tossed. You made it a seperate discussion, incorrectly I may add.

Back to the OP, the initial yelling needs a very stern and public warning or and ejection, depending on volume, Because the PU made a stupid statement, that invited tthe rest of the tirade. Aproper warning usually will shut it down but if the catcher does stand up then he is gone.

[NFUA_44]

The unfortunate thing is that this thread has devolved into a pissing match about semantics over the process used to eject someone rather than discussing the original question (to help the OP) of how do you handle a 12U catcher who acts inappropriately and puts himself at risk of an EJ. Everyone can quote PBUC and JEAPU manuals and show MLB videos, but in my opinion we have strayed too far from the OP's question.

+1 Dead on the Money.

Cactus, I will finish with this. You didn't provide anything outside of a statement that something isn't listed in a PBUC manual. No reference or anything else. We'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. Have some fun out there this weekend fellas.

Tom

[Mr Umpire]

Well, it does depend on how they argue balls/strikes. As mstaylor said, it is how they do it.

If a manager says, "That was a strike earlier" or "You were calling it before", then it is just a warning. Followed by EJ if persistent.

But, if he says "Call it both ways", he is gone immediately. He is still arguing balls/strikes but he also implied I am calling it unfairly against his team only. Or, if F2 "gets up and turns around", he is gone as well b/c he has left his position. His position was to face forward and be prepared to catch the next pitch.

Both ways are equivalent in saying "I don't agree with your strike zone". But, they are completely different in their delivery and get different results. I don't care if the rules say I can do it on the first objection or the 20th objection to balls/strikes. If they don't handle it correctly, then they go the first time. And, I guarantee I will not be reprimanded either way once the language he used is put into the report or if I gave a warning.

Some things get no warning. And, this is one of them depending on the umpire and circumstances.

[mtnump]

There is nothing that says you have to warn them. That is a courtesy we extend in most cases trying to save the manager/player from themselves. It says in the rules "SHALL NOT" that means they can't do it... not that they shouldn't that they CANNOT! Penalty =

Cactus, I am glad you don't work any where near me so I don't get stuck with you as a partner.

[T-Rav]

Well, it does depend on how they argue balls/strikes. As mstaylor said, it is how they do it.

If a manager says, "That was a strike earlier" or "You were calling it before", then it is just a warning. Followed by EJ if persistent.

But, if he says "Call it both ways", he is gone immediately. He is still arguing balls/strikes but he also implied I am calling it unfairly against his team only. Or, if F2 "gets up and turns around", he is gone as well b/c he has left his position. His position was to face forward and be prepared to catch the next pitch.

Both ways are equivalent in saying "I don't agree with your strike zone". But, they are completely different in their delivery and get different results. I don't care if the rules say I can do it on the first objection or the 20th objection to balls/strikes. If they don't handle it correctly, then they go the first time. And, I guarantee I will not be reprimanded either way once the language he used is put into the report or if I gave a warning.

Some things get no warning. And, this is one of them depending on the umpire and circumstances.

Interesting that you mention the "call it both ways blue", on Wednesday, we had district strong team championship for majors(12u). During the game I was U1, working a 3 man, the PU had a confrontation with the visitors assistant coach. From what he told us in the post game, the AC kept saying "wow" after each pitch, on a walk that started with a 0-2 count. He said on ball 4 AC said "call it both ways blue", and that's when I saw him walk over to the dugout. The PU was really pissed about it after the game.

[Dragon29]

OK - I've read this whole thing and have one question for the lone wolf in the pack.

Cactus - Why would you warn a player or coach about doing something that's not against the rules?

[zm1283]

One of the auto ejections is a player drawing a line, that's balls and strikes.

Yes, he is upset about the strike call but he is not ejected for arguing balls and strikes. Actions by team personnel specifically intended to ridicule an umpire are grounds for ejection (i.e., drawing a line in the dirt to demonstrate location of a pitch). That is what he was ejected for, he did an action intended to ridicule the umpire.

the Manager starts on balls/strikes and the umpire gives the stop sign. If it is run through it is an ejection. Joe West had one a week or two ago that was discussed on the Pro thread with video to show it wasn't much at all to the uneducated viewer, but to us there was stop sign, stop sign ignored, and the toss. Pretty simple.

He wasn't ejected because he was arguing balls and strikes. He was ejected because he was ordered to do something and he did not do it. There is a difference.

If someone is in the dugout yelling at you about some pitch he didn't like you can't just eject him. Yes, he is arguing balls and strikes but the rules don't support an ejection yet. He must be warned. Once he is warned then if he continues yelling you can eject him for ignoring your warning.

The thing to remember is that the manager can stand in the dugout and yell at you about every pitch the entire game. The manager can come out and argue with you for ten minutes about one call. The rules don't say to simply eject for those actions. You must tell the manager that you don't want him yelling at you about the pitches, you must tell the manager that the discussion is over and to return to his position and to not follow you. If he doesn't do what you told him then you can eject him. Remembering this will make your ejections much better as you will be able to get warnings in as well as making your ejections look better under the rules.

No, he can't. He will be dumped long before that.

According to Cactus, managers are only ejected for ignoring warnings, not for arguing balls/strikes. This is utter nonsense, and he has provided zero rule references to back up his outlandish claims even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is presented.

I'm with the other guy who said he is glad Cactus is not in his area so he doesn't get stuck with him working a game. I don't think he is an umpire though, just a troll.