NCAA Test Question - Coach spikes his hat

[Forest Ump]

The visiting team's head coach comes out of the dugout to argue an interference call on his hitter. After shouting at the plate umpire for several seconds and gesturing toward the plate, he takes off his hat and spikes it to the ground. The plate umpire ejects the head coach for his actions. Which of the following statements is true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

A. The ejection is the only applicable penalty.

 

B. The umpire can use his judgment to determine the most appropriate penalty.

 

C. By spiking his hat to the ground, the coach committed an extreme unsportsmanlike act and will be penalized by a two game   suspension in addition to that game's ejection.

 

D. By spiking his hat to the ground, the coach committed an extreme unsportsmanlike act and will be penalized by an additional one game suspension in addition to that game's ejection.

 

I'm capitulating between A and D. On one hand, I feel D is in line with the rule book section 15  regarding unsportsmanlike conduct by a head coach. On the other hand, I don't think spiking his hat deserves a one game suspension. Answer A comes from the Misconduct Penalty Chart on page 26. It states that a Head Coach is ejected from the present contest, no suspension for unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

Game Misconduct
SECTION 15. a. Unsportsmanlike-Conduct Rule. No coach, player or team shall at any time, whether from the bench, the coaches’ box or on the playing field, or elsewhere:
1) Incite or attempt to incite, by word, sign or actions that dispute an
umpire’s decision and potentially incites a demonstration by spectators;

PENALTY for (1), (2), (3)—The offender shall be ejected from the contest.
After an ejection, an additional one-game suspension is added.

[johnnyg08]

A. Just the Ejection.

I think the key here is "extreme unsportsmanlike" isn't anywhere in the book.

I think we just get the normal EJ here.

That being said, I can see your side too.

[MPLSUMP]

Lots of discussion on that point in our study group. We had guys arguing for each answer. Final consensus was just the EJ. Final answer. Spoiler alert. That's correct also.

[Haid D' Salaami]

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

[johnnyg08]

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Agree w/ Haid

[MidAmUmp]

I had this situation last year and just ejected the coach. We did not suspend him...he went for a walk and never returned, but that's another story..........

 

When we called in the ejection to the supervisor and told him the coach left on his own and didn't return, he wanted to verify that we DID NOT issue a suspension. I told him after the ejection I informed the acting head coach that the player was suspended 1 game, but the head coach was not. At the plate meeting for the 2nd game we also verified that everyone understood that the head coach (who was still missing) was not suspended.

 

I was told we handled it correctly.

[MidAmUmp]

Agree w/ Haid

 

 

That's the first time this has ever been written on this message board.

[Forest Ump]

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Yes, that one added this; Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

I have that as: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

[johnnyg08]

 

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Yes, that one added this; Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

I have that as: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

 

 

I think the head coach gets reduced suspension rules due to his status as head coach.  

[noumpere]

 

 

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Yes, that one added this; Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

I have that as: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

 

 

I think the head coach gets reduced suspension rules due to his status as head coach.  

 

Sometimes that's true -- but anyone who prolongly argues gets two more games.

[Forest Ump]

 

 

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Yes, that one added this; Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

I have that as: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

 

 

I think the head coach gets reduced suspension rules due to his status as head coach.  

 

The answers given are:

 

A: He is ejected and must serve an additional three-game suspension, one for spiking his hat and two for prolonged arguing.

 

B: He is ejected for that game and must serve an additional four game suspension, two for spiking his hat and two for prolonged arguing.

 

C: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

 

D: Because of the head coach's unique role as his team's primary spokesperson, the ejection is his only penalty.

 

It's not A because we have already determined it a no suspension penalty. Definitely not B. So that leaves  C or D. I'm leaning towards C because there has to be some additional penalty after having been warned.

 

Here's the whole question:

 

The visiting team's head coach comes out of the dugout to argue an interference call on his hitter. After shouting at the plate umpire for several seconds and gesturing toward the plate, he takes off his hat and spikes it to the ground. The plate umpire ejects the head coach for his actions. Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

[johnnyg08]

I don't have it with me, but I think the rule book suspension chart is probably clear as a bell on this.  

[Majordave]

Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire.

 

These are the magic words to tell you the answer if you are looking at the rule or the table.

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

Agree w/ Haid

 

 

That's the first time this has ever been written on this message board.

 

You might be right JB

[Haid D' Salaami]

 

 

this is just the ejection.. there is another question that the coach spikes, then doesnt leave in a timely manner.. that is the game suspension. 

 

Yes, that one added this; Following the ejection, the coach refuses to leave the field in a timely manner, even after a warning from the plate umpire. Which of the statements are true regarding the penalties for the coach's actions?

 

I have that as: He is ejected and must serve an additional two game suspension for the prolonged arguing.

 

 

I think the head coach gets reduced suspension rules due to his status as head coach.  

 

yes.. Unless he prolongs it like he did in this Sit.... he gets 2 games suspension.

[Forest Ump]

Just hit submit. Got a 98. Hiller says you have to take it twice if you don't get 100% the first time. Starting number 2.