Grounds for EJ?

[Kyle_Stevens]

I have been back umpiring for just about a year now, altogether about 2 1/2 years. I haven't sent anyone to the parking lot. However, there is an instance that I want to see how you all would have handled.

Situation: HS tournament, I am U1, top of 3rd. Visiting team is down by 3-4 runs and are at bat. I get hit by a foul ball for the second time in 2 innings. I call a strike at the letters and VC calls time and walks down from the coach's box. He says, 'Blue, you feeling ok?' Being polite I say 'Sure! What's up?' Coach: " I don't think you are seeing things well, that wasn't a strike' as his voice starts to rise. In the middle of this I turn and start to walk back to the plate. He shouts, 'There's no way that was a strike'. I turn around and hold up my hand, 'THAT'S ENOUGH!' (Thanks, Mr. Siegel) To which he walks back down the line to the coaches box. His team was thumped. I hear him mumble the rest of the game but nothing I or my partner could make out. After the game one of the area veteran umpires who was watching the game said that he thought I was going to toss him for sure but appreciated my professionalism.

So, what say you all? Was I too easy on him?

[LMSANS]

I tend to be more tolerant than most. In this case, I am leaning towards tossing him as soon as his "concern" became critical because he was baiting. No one is allowed to argue balls/strikes. You have grounds as soon as he goes there.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Warn then eject.

As soon as he said, "I don't think you're seeing things to well, that wasn't a strike," that's when he gets his warning:

"Coach, we aren't going to discuss Balls and Strikes."

Any further mention of the strike zone, or Balls and Strikes, or anything related to the subject, he gets a ticket to the parking lot.

[DesertRat]

Had it been I, this coach would have been gone once he mentioned anything my calling about balls and strikes when he left the coaching box. The rules are clear: no one is permitted to leave their position to argue balls and strikes, and ejection is the penalty provided in the rules for that kind of conduct. I might warn him if I was uncertain as to his position or what the topic of his remarks were, but if he were obviously outside the coaching box and if he were clearly criticizing the calling of balls and strikes, it's time for him to go! The purpose of the rule is to prevent time-wasting arguments. Fans want to see BASEBALL, not immature conduct.

[mstaylor]

When it's just between you and he and it is a quiet conversation, assure him you are all right. When makes his not a strike comment, warn him and walk away. Anything after that is his ticket to the parking lot.

Edited November 29, 2008 by mstaylor
Completing proper sentence structure

[jjb]

No, I think you handled it just fine. You got your point across, kept control, and moved on.

[ump81]

Kyle, my opinion here is a very clear, very deserved ejection! He can not leave his position to argue balls and strikes under any circumstances. When he asked if you were OK thats fine but he got a shot in when he said thats not a strike, the yell as he walked away is an automatic! If you want to keep a private conversation with him out of ear shot thats fine but the loud and clear complaint is an automatic and I'm sure the coach knew it. I'm a bit dismayed over some of the responses that what the coach did was not too bad and not ejectionable, BS! Think of this, do you want to be the ump who has this coaches next game? He now thinks loud complaints over balls and strikes are OK from the coaches box, he will only push it more and show less respect. Early in my career I was told by a veteran "be the guy in your association that the next crew loves to follow, because you have taken care of business and earned respect and professionalism from all involved" I'm no red ass either I had one ejection for 2008 and 2-3 for 2007, I do about 130 games a year in all levels from NCAA to PONY Mustang. Not a personal attack on you just my feelings on the issue. Be the guy who steps up and commands respect without being a "red ass".

[mstaylor]

ump81

You have expressed the feelings of many today. Don't throw friviously but toss all that need it. If done consistantly across a group, your ejection rate will be amost zero. No matter how well you define the line someone will insist on crossing it.

[jjb]

Sorry, I can't imagine Kyle's actions as somehow being inappropriate. The coach came down to argue balls and strikes, Kyle warned him, and shooed him back to his box. End of conflict. He immediately stopped the coach's inappropriate actions, maintained control of the game, and went back to work. Sounds downright professional to me....

MS, I agree with you completely about "crossing the line." The thing is, you've got to let the coach or player know where the line is as he walks toward it, not just wait until he crosses it. Know what I mean? A coach whines about your zone from the box, you stop, take off your mask, and tell him to knock it off. He whines again, you stop, give him the "I've heard enough." The next time he does it, you can tell him, "hey, I tried to keep you in the game", and launch him. It's all on him, and everybody knows why he's left the building. Toss him the first time, and I guarantee everybody in the ballpark will be wondering, "what happened?"

I read and adjudicate every ejection report that comes in from our league, (and we've got over 100 umpires). In each case, I ask the umpires a question: "what did you do to try and keep him in the game?" Understand, sometimes the answer is "nothing, I never got a chance to try", and that's good enough for me. And I'll tell you that I'm well-known for backing my guys 100%. But, just between us girls, you know as well as I that there are just as many "red-asses" out there, who're making it just as tough for us, as there are the "candy-asses" who let the lunatics run the asylum. Personally, I'd prefer a guy who bends a little, before he snaps: it makes us look better out there.

Edited December 1, 2008 by jjb

[Stan W.]

I think you handled it fine, I admit I probably would have wanted to launch him once I figured out his "concern" for your health was just an opportunity to take a hack at you for balls and strikes.... You got your point across well... and professionally

[Replacematt]

Sorry, I can't imagine Kyle's actions as somehow being inappropriate. The coach came down to argue balls and strikes, Kyle warned him, and shooed him back to his box. End of conflict. He immediately stopped the coach's inappropriate actions, maintained control of the game, and went back to work. Sounds downright professional to me....

It's a technique. There are multiple acceptable ways to deal with something like this, and this is one of them.

MS, I agree with you completely about "crossing the line." The thing is, you've got to let the coach or player know where the line is as he walks toward it, not just wait until he crosses it.

BS. He knows where the line is, unless he's an absolute moron. This is HS, not Little League. This isn't a case of a rat arguing a call on the bases, in which the line might not be readily apparent. He did this full-well expecting to get tossed.

Know what I mean? A coach whines about your zone from the box, you stop, take off your mask, and tell him to knock it off. He whines again, you stop, give him the "I've heard enough."

That's fine, given those circumstances. Apples and oranges.

The next time he does it, you can tell him, "hey, I tried to keep you in the game", and launch him. It's all on him, and everybody knows why he's left the building. Toss him the first time, and I guarantee everybody in the ballpark will be wondering, "what happened?"

No, everyone would know, given the public nature of the offending comment. Again, apples and oranges--if the offending comment is known only to the participant and the umpire, then the response should be in kind. Likewise, a public disapproval requires a public response.

I read and adjudicate every ejection report that comes in from our league, (and we've got over 100 umpires). In each case, I ask the umpires a question: "what did you do to try and keep him in the game?"

Wrong question. The only question you should be asking (and not necessarily to the ejecting umpire) is whether umpire behavior precipitated the ejection.

What you are doing is micro-managing game management. Yes, there are ways to reduce ejections and conflict--but those ways involve proper training and skill sets. Arm your umpires with those tools, and have the understanding that they will use them if and when they feel it is appropriate. Don't dictate procedure to them.

Understand, sometimes the answer is "nothing, I never got a chance to try", and that's good enough for me. And I'll tell you that I'm well-known for backing my guys 100%. But, just between us girls, you know as well as I that there are just as many "red-asses" out there, who're making it just as tough for us, as there are the "candy-asses" who let the lunatics run the asylum.

You are confusing a "red-ass" with someone on a power trip. If the situation warrants it, an ejection is acceptable. If it doesn't, then it's not. It is really that simple. Change your question to the one I mentioned, and you'll find those guys who are causing the conflicts.

Personally, I'd prefer a guy who bends a little, before he snaps: it makes us look better out there.

Pay close attention to what you just said and your choice of words. Your words imply that an ejection is the result of loss of emotional control on the umpire's part. While umpire error often leads to ejections, and umpires can let emotions take control, ejections are not invariably the product of an irritated umpire. In fact, in 15 seasons, I can only think of one ejection (out of about 25) in which I felt emotionally affected. It's like The Godfather: It's not personal, it's business. Just because I toss someone doesn't mean I am mad or feel that the ejectee is a bad person. It means that I have made the decision that the person has behaved in a manner so that not to eject would either elicit further misbehavior and/or minimize my ability to manage the game.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Matt

[mstaylor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

Sorry, I can't imagine Kyle's actions as somehow being inappropriate. The coach came down to argue balls and strikes, Kyle warned him, and shooed him back to his box. End of conflict. He immediately stopped the coach's inappropriate actions, maintained control of the game, and went back to work. Sounds downright professional to me....

It's a technique. There are multiple acceptable ways to deal with something like this, and this is one of them.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

MS, I agree with you completely about "crossing the line." The thing is, you've got to let the coach or player know where the line is as he walks toward it, not just wait until he crosses it.

BS. He knows where the line is, unless he's an absolute moron. This is HS, not Little League. This isn't a case of a rat arguing a call on the bases, in which the line might not be readily apparent. He did this full-well expecting to get tossed.

If, as jjb says, you decide this is crossing the line then he goes. If not then send him back to the coach's box. It will depend on game situation and personalities involved. I would probably dump him. As Matt says, in HS he knows what he can do and what he can't. If he doesn't then it can be a learning experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

Know what I mean? A coach whines about your zone from the box, you stop, take off your mask, and tell him to knock it off. He whines again, you stop, give him the "I've heard enough."

That's fine, given those circumstances. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

The next time he does it, you can tell him, "hey, I tried to keep you in the game", and launch him. It's all on him, and everybody knows why he's left the building. Toss him the first time, and I guarantee everybody in the ballpark will be wondering, "what happened?"

No, everyone would know, given the public nature of the offending comment. Again, apples and oranges--if the offending comment is known only to the participant and the umpire, then the response should be in kind. Likewise, a public disapproval requires a public response.

I agree 100% with both of you on the first one. That is the way to handle it and it is apples and oranges. The second is as Matt says, private conversation gets handled quietly, public offense gets handled publicly. Whether it is a warning as in the first case or an ejection as Matt and I suggest it is done publicly so everyone knows you are handling it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

I read and adjudicate every ejection report that comes in from our league, (and we've got over 100 umpires). In each case, I ask the umpires a question: "what did you do to try and keep him in the game?"

Wrong question. The only question you should be asking (and not necessarily to the ejecting umpire) is whether umpire behavior precipitated the ejection.

What you are doing is micro-managing game management. Yes, there are ways to reduce ejections and conflict--but those ways involve proper training and skill sets. Arm your umpires with those tools, and have the understanding that they will use them if and when they feel it is appropriate. Don't dictate procedure to them.

Now I agree you are handling this incorrectly it for a different reason. It sounds like you aren't getting well written reports. A correctly done report will give you everything you need. It should include all the game info( who, where, when and game situation). Then it should describe EXACTLY what was said by both and the resaon he was tossed. What it shouldn't have is editorial comments about the player or coach. As they used to say on Dagnet,"Just the facts." From that you will be able to see whether it was a good toss or not. Then you may want to help him improve his game management skills or just tell him it was a good job accordingly.

You are confusing a "red-ass" with someone on a power trip.

Matt, I don't know where you are from but redass and being on a powertrip is the same thing or at least close. Redass here means you are the guy who is going to toss everyone for the littlest thing and to show what what you know. There are a few powertrip guys that go beyond that and just try to be a jerk whenever possible just to show they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjb

Personally, I'd prefer a guy who bends a little, before he snaps: it makes us look better out there.

Pay close attention to what you just said and your choice of words. Your words imply that an ejection is the result of loss of emotional control on the umpire's part. While umpire error often leads to ejections, and umpires can let emotions take control, ejections are not invariably the product of an irritated umpire. In fact, in 15 seasons, I can only think of one ejection (out of about 25) in which I felt emotionally affected. It's like The Godfather: It's not personal, it's business. Just because I toss someone doesn't mean I am mad or feel that the ejectee is a bad person. It means that I have made the decision that the person has behaved in a manner so that not to eject would either elicit further misbehavior and/or minimize my ability to manage the game.

jjb, I would agree to the colon but not after it. It does sound like you think it is an umpire loss of control that leads to ejections. Now this might be a little strong but Matt is right, it is just business. Very rarely do umps throw out of anger and even when they do it probably fits in the they had to go criteria. I had an adult last year disagree with an C/NC and refused to leave the base. When he did he started a childish slow walk to the dugout. When I told him to move it along he threw his helmet across the infield. It pissed me off and I threw him but he needed to go whether I was mad or not.

[mstaylor]

Many times we are not all that different in our beliefs and on the field we handle situations petty much the same. However on the internet we have the time to discuss the little differences in style.

[jjb]

First, I've dealt with coaches from T-ball through college, and, in my opinion, most have no idea where the line is. They deal with the entire spectrum of umpires, and, unless they've worked with you before, they are pretty clueless about what they're allowed to do out there. Just read the differing opinons in this thread.

Second, you should know what I'm dealing with with here in my world: an ejection in our League carries an automatic suspension with it. The first EJ in a season is 1 game, the next EJ in that season is 3 games, and the third EJ in a season is Permanent Disbarrment from participating in any form, forever. We take ejections seriously, and it's resulted in a pretty peacefull environment around here. We've found a way to actually have fun out there.

Third, We use a detailed and thorough Ejection Report that utilizes fill-in-the-blanks information, (date/time/field/names of everyone involved), coupled with the specific rule violation which caused the ejection, and then a narrative of the incident(s) that led to the ejection. Trust me, guys, by the time I've read the report, I know exactly why the umpire tossed him. (We also require EJ's from the umpires' partner, so that we have corroberation from another party). This is what gets turned over to the League, with any recommendations (further suspension of the coach/player, etc). Our League keeps a close eye on the coaches and players, and, in return, I and our Umpire Directors keep a close eye on the umpires. It works for us, and after about 3500 games this season, we had 14 ejections.

Now, before you guys start writing the "whoa, you should have WAY more ejections", replies, let me tell you that it's because we are very selective about who works for us. We pay close to HS fees for most games, and better than HS fees for Tournaments; we turn away as many people as we hire. (Red-asses need not apply). And here's the point: if we've got a game where, (as was suggested), a coach comes out of the box, argues a strike, and Boom, he's tossed, I'll want to be absolutely sure it was necessary that the umpire could not regain control without ejection. Our umpires have learned how to handle conflicts professionally, quietly, and most important, firmly. We put up with very little nonsense. If we need to eject, we'll do it, but only after we've tried other avenues.

When I talk about control, I don't mean it in the sense that the umpire loses control of himself: I mean that he loses control of the game. As an umpire, I want the focus of the game to be on the game: not the hooting, hollering and tantrums of coaches and players. If it occurs, it's my job to get the focus off the coach or player, and get it back where it belongs. I've thrown my share of people, and I can gaurantee I'll be throwing more before I hang up the mask for good. But I take no great pleasure from ejecting someone, and, if can regain control of the game without launching him, I consider it a win-win for everyone.

Let me say this one more time, and then I'll shut up: in the original post, Kyle had a coach who sandbagged him into arguing a strike. He warned the coach that he wasn't allowed to do that, sent him back to his box, and got on with the game. In my opinion, he handled it perfectly, and he can work here anytime.

[mstaylor]

It sounds like you use a system similar to N.C. The coaches are very aware not to even approach the line so it does lead to very few ejections. The problem is most of us don't work under these conditions and since the consequences are so little they don't worry about it.

In the OP I agree that the way it was handled was fine but others may handle it differently. There are different personalities, game situations( what preceded it) the way it was said. All these things lead to eject/not eject decisions. Like I said above most of us aren't that far apart.

[MCLEOD36]

I think he handled it correctly too. Thats enough, usually are the best two words that can be used. Not one more word is a recipe for disaster. A hand up with thats enough usually works too, they can then make a few under the breath comments and it is done. If not...toss.

This weekend, in a tourney, two coaches proceeded to tell their players to on a high tag pushing match, next time punches are acceptable. THe boys were warned and coaches tossed, an easy one.

[Bailey8]

Is something that can be covered at the pre-game meeting at the plate?

[LMSANS]

Is something that can be covered at the pre-game meeting at the plate?

No, you don't want to start the game off with the negative aspects of what could happen. The pre-game is to exchange lineups and cover the ground rules. In HS, you'll also get the coaches to verify the equipment and sportsmanship. That's it.

[Umpire in Chief]

Is something that can be covered at the pre-game meeting at the plate?

No, do not address this at the plate meeting. It will set the wrong tone for the game. At the plate meeting stick to only what has to be said:

Introductions

Define the rule set

Length of game in time and/or innings

Properly Equipped/sportsmanship?

Ground rules

Good luck!

No warnings, no bringing up history, just the basics.

Here's mine:

[introductions & line up exchanges]

Gentlemen we have a 7 inning game under Federation rules.

Is everybody legally, properly and safely equipped?

(Wait for affirmative vocal response)

This field is well enclosed with the lights and scoreboard beyond the fence, if the ball does get out we will book rule it.

[special ground rules]

Coaches please remember our sportsmanship obligations and good luck.

Home team take the field.

I can be done with the plate conference in about two minutes.

I actually changed my pregame spiel this year at the request of an evaluator. I use to say, "If you have any questions call time and we'll take care of you." I was told it looks weak and plants the impression that I'm going to give them need to present a question, and diminishes my authority.

After giving it some thought I agree and no longer include this.

[PeteBooth]

Kyle, my opinion here is a very clear, very deserved ejection! He can not leave his position to argue balls and strikes under any circumstances. When he asked if you were OK thats fine but he got a shot in when he said thats not a strike, the yell as he walked away is an automatic! If you want to keep a private conversation with him out of ear shot thats fine but the loud and clear complaint is an automatic and I'm sure the coach knew it. I'm a bit dismayed over some of the responses that what the coach did was not too bad and not ejectionable, BS!

There is no clear-cut answer regarding EJ's I do not agree with your post.

From the OP

He says, 'Blue, you feeling ok?' Being polite I say 'Sure! What's up?' Coach: " I don't think you are seeing things well, that wasn't a strike' as his voice starts to rise. In the middle of this I turn and start to walk back to the plate. He shouts, 'There's no way that was a strike'

No F bomb or profanity used

No Personal attack on Kyle

Why EJ!

When the coach shouts "There's no way that was a strike" it's simple

"Skip you are not arguing balls / strikes are you? "

You kept control over the game. Told EVERYONE you will not tolerate anything further and it's time to play ball.

From my experience "mission accomplished" and the coach stops at least at the HS and above level. REC or Youth ball is a "horse of a different color" so I am not going there.

We all have our own lines that can't be crossed. As I said there is no recipe for EJ's. It's a game by game scenario.

Generally speaking I toss someone when they get personal with me OR they do not conduct the discussion professionally. By Professionaly I mean the coach thinks he is Lou Pinella and comes storming out of the dugout foaming at the mouth and think I will give him the time of day.

IMO, I do not have a problem with what Kyle did as long as the objective was accomplished.

Now after you say That's enough etc. If the coach continues I think we all agree it's time to go skip.

Based soley on Kyle's OP I see nothing derragatory in what the coach said. As mentioned - NO F bomb uttered or a personal attack on Kyle.

Pete Booth

[catoblue]

For me, I'd take it as a personal attack when he tied "are you feeling OK" to "I don't think you are seeing things well, that wasn't a strike' as his voice starts to rise." THIS is the point for "That's Enough". When he continued with "There's no way that was a strike!", he's gone. Not only is he questioning balls & strikes, he's publicly questioning an umpire's ability to see/call balls and strikes. THAT is when the coach crossed the line and punched his ticket to the parking lot.

Edited January 19, 2009 by catoblue

[theedeuce]

I got tossed once as a coach when I was warned by the PU with those famous words "one more word and your outta here"...

I responded with the question "Can you toss me for thinking?" The PU didn't answer me and as soon as he turned and walked away I said, "good because I think you suck"...

Needless to say I got the heave-hoe

[Stan W.]

I got tossed once as a coach when I was warned by the PU with those famous words "one more word and your outta here"...

I responded with the question "Can you toss me for thinking?" The PU didn't answer me and as soon as he turned and walked away I said, "good because I think you suck"...

Needless to say I got the heave-hoe

also needless to say......a well deserved ejection..........

[BT_Blue]

This is why I stopped using the "one more word" command. Cause what should have happen is the minute "Can you..." came out of your mouth I would have be REQUIRED to eject.

I hate to be cornered and thats exactly what I would have done if I threatened with the "one more word" command.

[Old Nr 24]

I keep seeing the word "warning" used in relation to coaches and ejections, and I have to say I was never a big fan of the warning. Oh, maybe the ball/strike situation where you tell he guy to stop it once, but other than that, the warning has already been given....in the rule book!

When an umpire ejects anyone it has to be based on a rule somewhere, the breaking of which carries the penalty of ejection. We have to read the book and know the rules, and coaches are also responsible for that, no matter the level. I remember coaching at the lowest levels of baseball when my son was young, and the first thing I got when I volunteered was a rule book!

And I could not agree more with the comments that the action (or inaction) of one umpire affects every other umpire in the association. We may not always like it, but the umpiring corps has to present a united front at all times. After all, have we not all heard, "All we ask of the umpire is consistency."? Well, that should also apply to ejections. But in the words of the comedian Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.