Umpires Will Be Required To Issue A Warning In 2016

[Cato the Younger]

I am surprised that there is not a thread about the Federation baseball rule change for 2016 which I am not a fan of. 

Beginning with the 2016 season, umpires will be required to issue a warning to coaches before restriction to the bench/dugout or ejecting them as part of a new penalty progression to promote preventive officiating.  

The revision to Rule 3-3-1 Penalty was one of two changes recommended by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee at its June 7-9 meeting. 

Previously, issuing a warning to an offending coach was optional for umpires, who will now restrict to the bench/dugout or eject coaches who commit a violation after previously being warned for a minor offense. However, coaches can still be ejected on a first offense if it is deemed to be major. Also part of the modification to Rule 3-3-1 Penalty, coaches who receive a written warning (Rule 10-2-3) will be restricted to the bench and/or dugout for the remainder of the game. 

“The new rule change has initiated a penalty progression, starting with a written warning, restriction to the bench/dugout and subsequent ejection from the contest,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and student services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.
The changes to Rule 3-3-1 Penalty will help to de-escalate contentious situations and allow coaches to dictate their status in the game by their behavior, Hopkins said.
“A successful game official practices preventive officiating, and this new penalty progression will allow the official to issue penalties that give the coach the opportunity to remain in the game and teach his players.” 

Mr. Hopkins some of these coaches (clowns) should not have "the opportunity to remain in the game and teach his players.”  I wonder how many of you plan on adjusting game management with this rule change?

I can hear some of the biggest offenders thinking they now get a free shot. "Are you not suppose to give me a warning" Sure you can still give the hook right away but I think it will put the ejection under more scrutiny than in the past.

[grayhawk]

We had a thread on this a few months ago when it was announced. I don't anticipate this changing the way I manage a game. Any major violation will result in immediate ejection, just like before. Any minor offense gets a warning or restriction, just like before.

[Cato the Younger]

@ grayhawk - BTW I love your handle!

[ricka56]

 

I can hear some of the biggest offenders thinking they now get a free shot. "Are you not suppose to give me a warning" Sure you can still give the hook right away but I think it will put the ejection under more scrutiny than in the past.

There are a few HS knucklehead HCs that will dance on the EJ line. Actually, I am looking forward to seeing the look on their face when I say, "That's enough...THIS IS YOUR WARNING" and pull out my line-up card and start writing. 

I think that teaching umpires to give a written warning at the first stupid thing coach says, might reduce the need for EJs. 

 

[JaxRolo]

Stupidest thing ever

[maven]

Umpires are NOT required to warn first (the thread title is incorrect). Upon suitable provocation, immediate ejection is and will remain supportable.

This is FED's attempt to promote good game management. I think we all know umpires who give 37 warnings and never follow up (I'd hate to see their children). We also all know umpires (probably rarer than the first group) who eject upon the slightest provocation. FED now provides a procedure we can all use: 1 written warning, then restrict, then eject.

Some will still not be able to manage a game: they'll just continue to do what they've always done, never regarding any behavior as sufficiently over the line to get a written warning. Implementing procedures is no substitute for proper training and supervision.

But we can hope that some umpires will benefit from this procedure, perhaps those who feel that they need "cover" to do what needs to be done. This procedure now provides them such cover.

Since the new procedure won't prevent anyone from managing a game as they please, it's hard to see why anyone would get bent out of shape over it.

[Mike Walsh]

The rule change does not require a written warning. It says that when warnings are issued, they must be recorded (written). Subsequent violations require ejection even if minor. Serious transgressions can still result in an ejection without a warning.This does not prohibit us from using preventative umpiring techniques such as IAWRE, either. It's just that when we get to the warning phase, we have to write it down, and if they behave badly after that, they get ejected. Not really much of a change; more like a clarification.

Mike

[Cato the Younger]

Umpires are NOT required to warn first (the thread title is incorrect). Upon suitable provocation, immediate ejection is and will remain supportable.

This is FED's attempt to promote good game management. I think we all know umpires who give 37 warnings and never follow up (I'd hate to see their children). We also all know umpires (probably rarer than the first group) who eject upon the slightest provocation. FED now provides a procedure we can all use: 1 written warning, then restrict, then eject.

Some will still not be able to manage a game: they'll just continue to do what they've always done, never regarding any behavior as sufficiently over the line to get a written warning. Implementing procedures is no substitute for proper training and supervision.

But we can hope that some umpires will benefit from this procedure, perhaps those who feel that they need "cover" to do what needs to be done. This procedure now provides them such cover.

Since the new procedure won't prevent anyone from managing a game as they please, it's hard to see why anyone would get bent out of shape over it.

 

I appreciate what you guys are saying, and I realize that a warning is not required. “Coaches can still be ejected on a first offense if it is deemed to be major.” Quoting my OP from above. 

The problem is when this is covered as a rule change with the coaches next spring many coaches are going to interpret this as a should be warned before being ejected situation. The ruthless reality is many coaches (I work with a bunch of them in an administrative capacity beyond umpiring) don’t think they are that far out of line when many umpires think that they are well over the line.

Here’s the scenario I’m most concerned about. There is a close play.....Coach "Tasmanian Devil" comes flying out of the dugout protesting the call. The umpire has had enough but has not issued a formal warning throws coach Taz out of the game. Coach Taz goes back to his athletic director and says: "This guy must have been yelled at by his wife as he had rabbit ears. I was supposed to receive a warning. I didn’t swear at the official. It was a terrible call. He should not have thrown me out of the game. It a shame that guys like that are getting paid with that brutal of a call. Blah blah blah.......Now the umpire who had a perfectly legitimate ejection is now defending why he did not give a warning to his assigner. If he’s lucky enough to have a supportive assigner no problem. But there’s a lot of athletic directors and assignors that I know that are company men and women that would throw the umpire under the bus in support coach Taz not getting his warning.

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Majordave
Changed assignOr (incorrect) to assigner (correct)

[MidAmUmp]

 

 

Here’s the scenario I’m most concerned about. There is a close play.....Coach "Tasmanian Devil" comes flying out of the dugout protesting the call. The umpire has had enough but has not issued a formal warning throws coach Taz out of the game. Coach Taz goes back to his athletic director and says: "This guy must have been yelled at by his wife as he had rabbit ears. I was supposed to receive a warning. I didn’t swear at the official. It was a terrible call. He should not have thrown me out of the game. It a shame that guys like that are getting paid with that brutal of a call. Blah blah blah.......Now the umpire who had a perfectly legitimate ejection is now defending why he did not give a warning to his assignor. If he’s lucky enough to have a supportive assignor no problem. But there’s a lot of athletic directors and assignors that I know that are company men and women that would throw the umpire under the bus in support coach Taz not getting his warning.

 

Unless a coach personally insults you or makes physical contact with you, he should always be warned before ejecting him. Learn the phrase, "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected."

 

The "written warning" has been the greatest rule addition to NCAA baseball. There is no misunderstanding -- everyone knows the jackass has been warned.

The problem/complaint we always hear is one of two things: 1) I didn't know he warned me...meaning the umpire thinks "knock it off" was sufficient warning, but that left gray area for the coach. OR 2) I want to know when I'm about to cross the line, then I can decide if it's worth getting ejected. I think this is a very reasonable request from a coach.

Giving a written warning eliminates a coach from telling an administrator he didn't know he had been warned. Telling a coach "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected" takes away any doubt in his mind and supports you if you do eventually eject. 

[Cato the Younger]

Unless a coach personally insults you or makes physical contact with you, he should always be warned before ejecting him. Learn the phrase, "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected."

 

Well in 2016 by Federation Rule you may be partially correct. But to be fully accurate in 2016 in highschool baseball you should be saying, "This is your warning, if you continue you will be restricted to the dugout." So even the lay of the land has changed for you. It's warn /restrict/and then eject world in 2016 according to the good committee which seem to think this rule change is promoting good sportsmanship. Water down a game control rule and that is going to encourage coaches to behave better???????? I don't get the logic.

Maybe this thread was not such a good idea for the new guy around here to start. I am not trolling and really like my posting about umpiring to be positive. But this rule change struck a cord as well as your post.

I have deep respect for all umpires and the decisions they make on the field but I strongly disagree with the statement you made above and fully admit to ejecting a coach without a warning on a number of occasions......... and not only with insulting me or making physical contact. Using the phrase "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected." as you suggest above would have been a huge mistake in game control philosophy in many of those situations in my opinion.

I consider myself a moderate with game control not a "Red A** but I also absolutely disagree with the NFL mode of operation where if someone says something inappropriate you ask them if the care to repeat the comment........ and if they do then flag them. That is a Marshmellow approach to game control which sadly is becoming more and more common in umpiring......... not only in philosophy but now by rule. Some behaviors do not deserve a get out of jail free card even when they are not blatant.

[MidAmUmp]

 

Well in 2016 by Federation Rule you may be partially correct. But to be fully accurate in 2016 in highschool baseball you should be saying, "This is your warning, if you continue you will be restricted to the dugout." So even the lay of the land has changed for you. It's warn /restrict/and then eject world in 2016 according to the good committee which seem to think this rule change is promoting good sportsmanship. Water down a game control rule and that is going to encourage coaches to behave better???????? I don't get the logic.

Maybe this thread was not such a good idea for the new guy around here to start. I am not trolling and really like my posting about umpiring to be positive. But this rule change struck a cord as well as your post.

I have deep respect for all umpires and the decisions they make on the field but I strongly disagree with the statement you made above and fully admit to ejecting a coach without a warning on a number of occasions......... and not only with insulting me or making physical contact. Using the phrase "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected." as you suggest above would have been a huge mistake in game control philosophy in many of those situations in my opinion.

I consider myself a moderate with game control not a "Red A** but I also absolutely disagree with the NFL mode of operation where if someone says something inappropriate you ask them if the care to repeat the comment........ and if they do then flag them. That is a Marshmellow approach to game control which sadly is becoming more and more common in umpiring......... not only in philosophy but now by rule. Some behaviors do not deserve a get out of jail free card even when they are not blatant.

Your feelings and mine aren't very far apart. When I umpired at the high school level I never restricted a coach to the dugout and I don't want the umpires in my association doing it now. My personal opinion is if you are issuing a written warning to a coach, that coach should be restricted to the dugout at that point. What we have to understand about NFHS is they have the largest group of uneducated/untrained umpires of any organization. For instance, in Missouri the only requirements to become a HS certified umpire are to pay your registration fee and take an open book test. No training, no rules education, no clinic. Other states have higher training/education standards, but NFHS has to cover from Maine to Hawaii. Not every umpire knows how to handle situations...or cares to handle situations. There are guys who eject the first time they hear a fart (search YouTube for examples) and there are umpires who wouldn't eject if a coach pulled out a gun and shot someone. I don't agree with what they're doing, as a whole, but the written warning is a very valuable tool that we didn't like when the NCAA first came out with it, but we've grown to love it. 

While you may disagree with my first post, I work at a pretty high level and I can tell you learning that phrase will save your ass when a coach tries to turn something on you...as you've suggested in your posts. That coach goes to the AD and says, "I don't know why he threw me out." or "He shouldn't have thrown me out." The AD looks at your report that says, "I told him 'This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected.' He continued to argue and at that point I ejected him from the game." What's the AD going to say? 

[BT_Blue]

This leads to another thing that Cato has not brought up, but MAU (forgive me, I forgot your real name) has. And that is report writing. A coach comes charging at you and you feel the ejection was warranted. Then put it in the report. There are plenty of threads on here about report writing. So one should not have to go into the specifics here.

As for restrictions. I have done it twice in my career. Both were Head Coaches. Assistant coaches do not get the same treatment. I am not a fan of the restriction clause. But like MidAmUmp, I am a huge fan of the written warning.

[Cato the Younger]

 there are umpires who wouldn't eject if a coach pulled out a gun and shot someone..................

I have more to say on this topic but I confess this made me lol Sad but so funny true. Your whole post was so very good but this was a gem. 

 

Edited November 30, 2015 by Cato the Younger

[JaxRolo]

Your feelings and mine aren't very far apart. When I umpired at the high school level I never restricted a coach to the dugout and I don't want the umpires in my association doing it now. My personal opinion is if you are issuing a written warning to a coach, that coach should be restricted to the dugout at that point. What we have to understand about NFHS is they have the largest group of uneducated/untrained umpires of any organization. For instance, in Missouri the only requirements to become a HS certified umpire are to pay your registration fee and take an open book test. No training, no rules education, no clinic. Other states have higher training/education standards, but NFHS has to cover from Maine to Hawaii. Not every umpire knows how to handle situations...or cares to handle situations. There are guys who eject the first time they hear a fart (search YouTube for examples) and there are umpires who wouldn't eject if a coach pulled out a gun and shot someone. I don't agree with what they're doing, as a whole, but the written warning is a very valuable tool that we didn't like when the NCAA first came out with it, but we've grown to love it. 

While you may disagree with my first post, I work at a pretty high level and I can tell you learning that phrase will save your ass when a coach tries to turn something on you...as you've suggested in your posts. That coach goes to the AD and says, "I don't know why he threw me out." or "He shouldn't have thrown me out." The AD looks at your report that says, "I told him 'This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected.' He continued to argue and at that point I ejected him from the game." What's the AD going to say? 

And they make things harder for those that do it properly.

[grayhawk]

 

The "written warning" has been the greatest rule addition to NCAA baseball. There is no misunderstanding -- everyone knows the jackass has been warned.

The problem/complaint we always hear is one of two things: 1) I didn't know he warned me...meaning the umpire thinks "knock it off" was sufficient warning, but that left gray area for the coach. OR 2) I want to know when I'm about to cross the line, then I can decide if it's worth getting ejected. I think this is a very reasonable request from a coach.

Giving a written warning eliminates a coach from telling an administrator he didn't know he had been warned. Telling a coach "This is your warning, if you continue you will be ejected" takes away any doubt in his mind and supports you if you do eventually eject. 

I have always felt that "knock it off" or "that's enough" is not a sufficient warning - it's too vague.  One of Ken Allan's phrases that I really like is:

"This is your warning for the rest of the game.  If you continue to __________, then you will be ejected."

There is absolutely no gray area there.  The coach knows exactly where he stands.  "That's enough" just doesn't cut it, IMO.

[maven]

I have always felt that "knock it off" or "that's enough" is not a sufficient warning - it's too vague.  One of Ken Allan's phrases that I really like is:

"This is your warning for the rest of the game.  If you continue to __________, then you will be ejected."

There is absolutely no gray area there.  The coach knows exactly where he stands.  "That's enough" just doesn't cut it, IMO.

If "that's enough" is too vague, then perhaps Ken Allan's phrase is too specific. If I warn a coach about arguing balls and strikes (using "argue balls and strikes" to fill in the blank of your warning phrase), and he later persists in arguing a safe/out call, then the prior warning would seem not to apply.

I guess I don't see what's vague about "that's enough." If you want to use the word "warning" in there somewhere, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to add much substance.

The problem is thinking that we can verbally legislate coaches into submission. There is no magic phrase or any other form of language that we can employ to guarantee either (a) coach will comply from then on, or (b) coach will have no basis for complaint or confusion. Human behavior is far too complex for that to be so. Add in the fact that much of what we communicate in these confrontations is non-verbal, and the imperative to wordsmith the phrasing just right goes by the board.

[grayhawk]

If "that's enough" is too vague, then perhaps Ken Allan's phrase is too specific. If I warn a coach about arguing balls and strikes (using "argue balls and strikes" to fill in the blank of your warning phrase), and he later persists in arguing a safe/out call, then the prior warning would seem not to apply.

I guess I don't see what's vague about "that's enough." If you want to use the word "warning" in there somewhere, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to add much substance.

The problem is thinking that we can verbally legislate coaches into submission. There is no magic phrase or any other form of language that we can employ to guarantee either (a) coach will comply from then on, or (b) coach will have no basis for complaint or confusion. Human behavior is far too complex for that to be so. Add in the fact that much of what we communicate in these confrontations is non-verbal, and the imperative to wordsmith the phrasing just right goes by the board.

Accurately filling in the blank with the behavior that will lead to ejection is important.  But in no case am I trying to verbally legislate a coach into submission.  I merely want him to know that continuing whatever behavior he is displaying will lead to his ejection.  It's completely up to him at that point whether he decides to stay or go.

As MidAmUmp said, it leaves no question that the next step is ejection (or restriction, if that's the path he's on).  Using "knock it off" or something similar just gives a coach gray area to say that he didn't know it was to be interpreted as an official warning.

[ricka56]

Someone somewhere wrote the revised 3-3-1 rule, but I can't find it anywhere anymore. From what I remember, the written warning comes with a bench restriction. If so, I'm not sure how I'd implement it without starting a $#!+storm.

Can someone please post the new rule text. 

[Cato the Younger]

As MidAmUmp said, it leaves no question that the next step is ejection (or restriction, if that's the path he's on).  Using "knock it off" or something similar just gives a coach gray area to say that he didn't know it was to be interpreted as an official warning.

 

You know why I am so proud to be an umpire is exactly this discussion. Coaches are reacting on "Monkey Tilt!!!!!! and as an umpire we are examing if using "This is your warning for the rest of the game. or..... If you continue to __________, then you will be ejected." is better then "knock it off" with a coach acting like a complete jack a** for game management!

I once told a coach to knock it off, or he would be on the bus. After I had ejected him for arguing balls and strikes among other goofy behavior, he proceeded to climb on top the hood of a full-sized school bus and yell at me about 100 yards from the field. The coach pleaded ignorance to understanding what "knock it off" meant for his game status to a wonderful old man who was a retired AD and the Conference Commissioner that hired me to work the game. He told the coach " Your, a good coach but if I were your AD, I would consider firing you for thinking that I am so stupid to think you didn't understand what this young man meant while you were making an ass out of yourself. And that was before you climbed on the bus." He made the coach apologise to me and moved me to the coaches next game. I miss that man dearly we need more like him.

I think these are all sound ideas but don't think for one minute that "knock it off" or "that's enough" is not a sufficient warning because the coach is unclear what it means. The only question that remains is if he can get a parting shot or two or three before going bye-bye depending on the umpire. 

[ricka56]

Rule change text: 

Rule 3 Substituting - Coaching - Bench and Field Conduct - Charged Conferences

SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT

Art. 1 A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

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 tam’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 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 warn the offender unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case an ejection shall occur. If the offender has a subsequent minor violation, the offender shall be ejected. The warning or ejection shall be made at the end of playing action. Coaches who receive a written warning (10-2-3j) shall also be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game.For coaches who violate f(1-5), g, h, i, j or k, the umpire may (1) restrict the offender to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game or (2) eject the offender. For violation of f(6), both the head coach and the offending coach shall be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game, or id the offense is judged severe enough, the umpire may eject the offender and restrict the head coach. Any coach restricted to the bench shall be ejected for further misconduct. A coach may leave the bench/dugout to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured. In f(7), the state association shall determine the appropriate action.

l. deliberately throw a bat, helmet, etc,;

m. initiate malicious contact on offense or defense;

n.. call “Time’ or use any command or commit any act for the purpose of causing a balk; or

o. use tobacco or tobacco-like products within the confines of the field.

p. leaves their position or bench area during a fight or physical confrontation.

q. have physical contact, spit, kick dirt or engage in any other physical action directed toward and umpire.

Penalty: The umpire shall eject the offender from the game…

Rule 10 Umpiring

Rule 10-2-3j - His duties include those listed in 10-2-1, 2 and the following:
j. Keep a written record of defensive and offensive team charged conferences for each team and motive the respective coach each time a conference is charged to his team. He shall also be responsible for keeping a lineup card and recording all substitutes, courtesy runner participation, and warnings (1-1-5, 3-4-1, Courtesy Runner Rule #6).

[ricka56]

As I read it, a written warning comes with a bench restriction. So it is more than a warning, it is a penalty in and of itself (bench restriction).

So how do we implement this "warning" without inflaming the matter. I don't want to be hollering across the field "That's your warning (writing it on the LU card)...and BTW you're restricted to the dugout" (that'll go over like a turd in the punchbowl). Nor do I want to go over to the dugout to inform him of his warning/restriction (it looks like I went looking for a fight). 

I'm not sure how I'd do this without escalating (this rule change was suppose to be a de-escalating technique). 

 

[Mike Walsh]

As I read it, a written warning comes with a bench restriction. So it is more than a warning, it is a penalty in and of itself (bench restriction).

So how do we implement this "warning" without inflaming the matter. I don't want to be hollering across the field "That's your warning (writing it on the LU card)...and BTW you're restricted to the dugout" (that'll go over like a turd in the punchbowl). Nor do I want to go over to the dugout to inform him of his warning/restriction (it looks like I went looking for a fight). 

I'm not sure how I'd do this without escalating (this rule change was suppose to be a de-escalating action). 

 

I don't want to be hollering across the field at all, even if a coach is. If you are in the A position and the coach is at 3rd spouting off, you might get away with telling him that's enough (unofficial, unrecorded). But if he keeps it up, before the rule change what would you do? If someone is yelling at you, the Fed objective is to keep him in the game if possible, and resume the game. Understood, sometimes it's not possible. But if he hasn't crossed the line, I try to get the coach to approach me, asking him something like, "What did you have, Joe?". If I can beckon him over, I might meet him part way, and then when he doesn't need to yell to be heard, he might calm down. If not, then he will get an official warning. I'd record it, and last year, we would move on. This year Fed would also require me to bench him. That change is not going to help.

Mike

[Cato the Younger]

 

 

 

This is an interesting twist to the rule change. You are correct this is from the Fed press release this summer to confirm the post above regarding 3-3-1:

"Also part of the modification to Rule 3-3-1 Penalty, coaches who receive a written warning (Rule 10-2-3) will be restricted to the bench and/or dugout for the remainder of the game."

 “The new rule change has initiated a penalty progression, starting with a written warning, restriction to the bench/dugout and subsequent ejection from the contest,” said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of sports and student services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee."

The way I first read it I had it as first a written warning...then restriction....... then ejection.

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Cato the Younger

[Cato the Younger]

Until tonight I figured coaches would love this rule change knowing they should get a warning before anything bad happens. Now I am less concerned as coaches will hate this rule, and many umpires will not like enforcing it with the automatic restriction. So I see it going the way of the batters box rule.  

I think where it does get interesting for me is when I give a written warning next season is that I have never restricted a coach to the dugout ever. This will be something new to reconcile in my game management philosophy. The warning has worked well for me, but I have not had to deal with the frowny faced coach sulking because he can't go out to third base to coach because of my warning because he didn't do anything bad enough to go bye-bye. 

[Cato the Younger]

I am already glad I joined this site and am now pondering how many other rules I have misread while practicing my delayed-dead-ball signal for next years high school baseball season.