1st ejection since 2013, well over 400 games.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

13u tournament, FED rules.  I'm on the bases. VT HC is coaching 3rd, down 5-0 in top of 3rd, but threatening to score.  He starts chirping at partner over balls/strikes.  Partner ignores him for 3-4 pitches, but has had enough when coach shouts "C'mon blue, give us a stinkin chance."  Partner turns to coach with 'stop sign' "Coach, we're not going to have any more talk about the strike zone.  It stops right now."  Guess what, it didn't stop, just kept getting even more personal "have a clue", "we'd better get that strike next half inning", and 3-4 versions of "give my boys a chance".  Partner calls time, takes 2 steps toward 3BC and says "Coach, you're restricted to the bench for the rest of the game."

"What?....Why?.... What's the deal with that?...What'd I do?...What'd I say?...I'm not allowed to speak?"  No response from partner, just allows him to rant, this goes on for a minute or so.  As it became obvious to me that he had no intention of going to the bench, I decided I needed to get involved.  I walked over near him, keeping about 4-6 feet distance between us and calmly said "coach, you've been restricted to the dugout.  You need to comply."  His response is swift "what if I don't?"  "You'll be ejected."  He thought for a moment, then said "this doesn't concern you, it's between HIM and me."  I told him "that's not how it works.  This is the third time WE have told you you're restricted, you need to get off the field NOW."  His final words were almost predictable "You guys are SOOOO bush league and full of yourselves."  "OK, NOW you're ejected!"

He's now only about 10' from the gate, but still facing me and continuing the rant.  I just stood there and let him continue to make a fool of himself.  When he finally stopped long enough to breathe, I asked the assistant coach "which of you are the head coach NOW?"  AC says "I guess that would be me."  "OK, your first duty as acting manager is to get HIM to understand he needs to LEAVE." 

 

[LittleBlue]

Sounds like a good ej to me. Your partner didn't seem to want to handle his business, but you took control. Any reason why he wasn't stepping up?

[conbo61]

I wouldn't say Fleas' partner didn't handle his business.  

It has been my experience that when one partner issues a restriction or ejection, the other partner takes the lead in wrangling the offender off the field.

It sounds like that was what Fleas was trying to do when the jack-wagon decided to escalate the situation. 

[LittleBlue]

3 hours ago, conbo61 said:

I wouldn't say Fleas' partner didn't handle his business.  

It has been my experience that when one partner issues a restriction or ejection, the other partner takes the lead in wrangling the offender off the field.

It sounds like that was what Fleas was trying to do when the jack-wagon decided to escalate the situation. 

Maybe I read it wrong, but the way I read it was that his partner restricted the coach and then let him rant about it for more than a minute without telling him he would be ejected if he did not comply. Then it was Fleas who had to get involved to get the coach to comply with the restriction, which eventually led to the ejection. If I was the PU and issued the restriction and the coach did not go to the bench in a timely manner, he would be warned and then ejected. I would not let him yell about the restriction for an entire minute.

[HuskerUmp22]

I think you handled it awesome, Fleas. 

I'm wondering if your partner should have given the HC a verbal warning (after he gave the stop sign) by writing it down on his lineup card. Something like, "VT HC ball/strike warning" this is your warning" say that real casually so the coach knows he's been warned and write it down in the lineup card. I was told by one of my assigners to do that real casually to try to stay calm and keep the coach calm to know he's been warned. 

I could be wrong on this, but in Federation aren't we encouraged to give a verbal warning before restricting to the dugout? 

I guess when your partner said, "Coach, we're not going to have any more talk about the strike zone.  It stops right now." that could be treated as a warning, Did the coach know he was being warned?

[FleasOf1000Camels]

Between innings, the AC (now acting HC) approached me to apologize for his HC's antics.  It was apparent they did NOT understand the concept of the bench restriction.  He also asked if it was common practice for ONE umpire to give the warning, then the OTHER umpire do the ejection. 

I explained it like this; "Let's say 8 year old Johnny is acting up.  It gets so bad Mom orders him to go to his room.  He refuses to go.  What do you suppose is going to happen to Johnny when Dad gets home?"

[ZebraStripes]

17 hours ago, HuskerUmp22 said:

I think you handled it awesome, Fleas. 

I'm wondering if your partner should have given the HC a verbal warning (after he gave the stop sign) by writing it down on his lineup card. Something like, "VT HC ball/strike warning" this is your warning" say that real casually so the coach knows he's been warned and write it down in the lineup card. I was told by one of my assigners to do that real casually to try to stay calm and keep the coach calm to know he's been warned. 

I could be wrong on this, but in Federation aren't we encouraged to give a verbal warning before restricting to the dugout? 

I guess when your partner said, "Coach, we're not going to have any more talk about the strike zone.  It stops right now." that could be treated as a warning, Did the coach know he was being warned?

Fed has the written warning and the restriction to the dugout in the same step based on the interpretation here in Georgia.

[Welpe]

12 hours ago, ZebraStripes said:

Fed has the written warning and the restriction to the dugout in the same step based on the interpretation here in Georgia.

It's also in the penalty for 3-3-1:

"Coaches who receive a written warning (10-2-3j) shall also be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game."

[FleasOf1000Camels]

I didn't initially notice it, but there apparently was a reason my partner just stood there and let coach rant after being told he was restricted.  Partner was making note on his game card to document the warning/restriction.

[scrounge]

2 hours ago, Welpe said:

It's also in the penalty for 3-3-1:

"Coaches who receive a written warning (10-2-3j) shall also be restricted to the bench/dugout for the remainder of the game."

Yep, there's no interpretation needed on this one, the black letter of the rule quite clearly says that a written warning IS a restriction. Not may, not possibly, but IS.

Now, some states are choosing to go with preliminary NFHS communications where they did say the rule would be a progression from warning to restriction. But when the rule came out, it didn't say that. So those states aren't really interpreting the rule, they're replacing it with their own.

[ZebraStripes]

I was remembering those in other states going off the preliminary communications.

[urout17]

MHO.....too much talking.  A very loud "KNOCK IT OFF" says two things....we're done talking about the strike zone and there's your warning.  The next option he chooses to take will determine his fate.

[Cajunyankee]

"Coach, this is your ball/strike warning. Anything further and you will be ejected."

Unless this is FED, there's no reason (in my opinion) to take the 'restrict to the bench' step. In fact, I'm not sure it's a rule-supported option outside of FED games but I could be wrong.

Ignore him. Acknowledge him. Warn him. then eject him. 

 

[Richvee]

10 hours ago, Cajunyankee said:

"Coach, this is your ball/strike warning. Anything further and you will be ejected."

Unless this is FED, there's no reason (in my opinion) to take the 'restrict to the bench' step. In fact, I'm not sure it's a rule-supported option outside of FED games but I could be wrong.

Ignore him. Acknowledge him. Warn him. then eject him. 

 

For this EJ, the OP states FED

[kstrunk]

On 5/1/2016 at 11:38 PM, LittleBlue said:

Maybe I read it wrong, but the way I read it was that his partner restricted the coach and then let him rant about it for more than a minute without telling him he would be ejected if he did not comply. Then it was Fleas who had to get involved to get the coach to comply with the restriction, which eventually led to the ejection. If I was the PU and issued the restriction and the coach did not go to the bench in a timely manner, he would be warned and then ejected. I would not let him yell about the restriction for an entire minute.

This kind of team effort is probably new to many, but it's super effective, and very professional, and actually eliminates the 'nose to nose' jawing and screaming that brings our trade down in the eyes of the baseball community. To be sure, the NCAA just put out a video called 'Walk away' that instructs the ejecting umpire to walk away and stay away immediately after an ejection, and allow his partner(s) to handle the ejected person. 

Granted, this is a restriction, but I like this tactic even for that. 

The days of showing everyone how brave, tough, or smart we are (handling our business) by having a shouting match with coaches and players is quickly coming to an end at the higher levels of our game.