What warrants an ejection?

[jlutgen0]

I have lurked around this forum for quite some time and have a question that I feel will help not only me, but many beginning or less experienced umpires.

 

I have heard that ejections usually come down to the 3 P's (Personal, Prolonged, Profane), but what are some examples of each. I have a pretty good understanding of prolonged (ignore, acknowledge, warn, eject) but what about the other two? Obviously screaming F bombs across the diamond will get someone, but what about other situations? 

 

I also have two situations that I'd like to share and receive any and all feedback on. The first of which I did not eject, but know that I should have. I had the bases for a 9 AA tournament game and one team was doing very poorly. After one particular play I hear the coach yell from the dugout, but I wasn't sure what he said. I believe it was "we need some more f*****g practice" but I wasn't paying attention to him and didn't say anything. Looking back at that point I probably should have warned since I didn't hear him and ejected if I heard him. Later in the game he is switching pitchers and as one player leaves that field and one comes on he goes "and stop f******g crying" under his breath (directed to his former pitcher), at that point I gave him a stern look and issued a warning. I didn't hear anything else the rest of the game. Looking back, considering the age of players, I feel like his comment on the mound should have been an ejection. 

 

My last situation did result in an ejection. 10AA ball and we had this team for back to back games. First game went relatively smoothly, heard little from coaches. At the conclusion of the plate meeting for the second game the coach made a snide comment about calls in the first game and I gave him a glare and told him that was enough. Three or four innings later, my partner calls his runner out to end the inning in front of their dugout. Between innings I am standing on the first base foul line and the coach (from the third base dugout) screams "that's three calls you've blown between the two games, what the hell." I then threw him out and an assistant came out to plead their case that they traveled all this way and he gets ejected for that. I chose to speak to the assistant because I felt that it was the best way to handle tempers, even though he was not the head coach. I didn't hear any more griping from the managers or fans. 

[HuskerUmp22]

After the snide comment from the coach you had in the first game, I would say something like: 

"Coach, the first game is over. If you choose to argue about calls this game, you will be ejected..."  You have warned him and then it is entirely up to him. 

As far as your first situation, while utterly ridiculous for 9u, I'm not sure you would eject in that situation. It sounds like he is addressing his kids, and that's not really your job. Unless you feel like he is disrupting the field of play, I would just ignore that. Others may disagree here. 

Examples of personal: "Blue, you f*****g suck!" Immediately eject if a coach says that or something F YOU that's personal. Also if a coach starts running towards you... you better tell him to slow down or he's gone. 

Balls/strikes: Something I used recently, took my mask off, and said "Coach, stop. If you continue to argue balls and strikes, you will be ejected." 

[NorthTexasUmp]

F-bombs on the field for 9U and 10U? Under the breath and not directed at me I would warn. If it's loud and I know who said it, they are gone. If I'm not sure it was said or who said it, I would still warn.

[ricka56]

19 hours ago, jlutgen0 said:

I have heard that ejections usually come down to the 3 P's (Personal, Prolonged, Profane), but what are some examples of each. I have a pretty good understanding of prolonged (ignore, acknowledge, warn, eject) but what about the other two? Obviously screaming F bombs across the diamond will get someone, but what about other situations? 

The profanity limit is dependent on the level that you are doing. The younger the player, the less tolerance, but F-bombs are EJs in everything that I do (up to HS).

The key to determining if a coach is getting personal, is his use of the pronoun you. You're horrible, you don't know what you're doing, you blew it, etc. I don't eject on the first occurance of "you blah blah blah" (unless it something like "you suck") but I will tell him to knock it off and may specify the warning, "if you don't knock it off and get back to the dugout, you will be ejected". Some coaches will try to bait you and accuse you of threatening him with ejection. "No, coach, I am letting you know what is going to happen if you continue to misbehave."

[Kevin_K]

@ricka56 I prefer to not use the "If you don't knock it off.." approach. "That's enough!" and/or the STFU stare are usually enough to get the squawking monkeys to settle down. If they choose to be ejected, it's all on them 'cause they continued to ask me to do it. I will always oblige their request. After all, it would be rude not to do so.

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

@ricka56 I prefer to not use the "If you don't knock it off.." approach. "That's enough!" and/or the STFU stare are usually enough to get the squawking monkeys to settle down. If they choose to be ejected, it's all on them 'cause they continued to ask me to do it. I will always oblige their request. After all, it would be rude not to do so.

How successful do you feel the stare is? At the acknowledge stage I usually say "coach we're not going to discuss blah blah blah" (if it's judgement) or "coach we're done talking about it."

[ricka56]

6 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

@ricka56 I prefer to not use the "If you don't knock it off.." approach. "That's enough!" and/or the STFU stare are usually enough to get the squawking monkeys to settle down. If they choose to be ejected, it's all on them 'cause they continued to ask me to do it. I will always oblige their request. After all, it would be rude not to do so.

Fair enough. "That's enough" is sufficient warning. But some coaches are (or act) flabbergasted when they are ejected after getting personal (or too persistent). They complain, "why was I ejected". They are clueless. If I tell them what's going to happen if they don't stop their misbehavior, I've already answered the why question. Then the decision whether he stays or goes is all his. 

I don't always handle the problem child in this manner. It's just one of my game management tools.

[Welpe]

How successful do you feel the stare is? At the acknowledge stage I usually say "coach we're not going to discuss blah blah blah" (if it's judgement) or "coach we're done talking about it."

The stare aka burning the dugout can be a very effective tool. It lets them know you have heard them and they have your attention. Coaches usually are smart enough at that point to get the message that anything further is going to get dealt with.

[ricka56]

7 hours ago, Stk004 said:

How successful do you feel the stare is? At the acknowledge stage I usually say "coach we're not going to discuss blah blah blah" (if it's judgement) or "coach we're done talking about it."

If you are dealing with daddy coaches, many don't understand the message that burning the dugout is suppose to send. So it might not have much effect. If it has no effect, then it is your job to learn them by forcefully/unequivocally warning them and ejecting them if they continue to be an arse.

[Kevin_K]

The stare is one tool in the tool box.

Heh heh..... I just realized that I have tools to deal with tools.

If I need to address a HC I do. Usually by name. If the wannabes are chirpy I may indicate my displeasure through their HC with something like, "Hey John.... I've heard enough from him" or whatever the situation warrants. I have preferred methods, but sometimes I employ others. 

I don't like the "we're not going to discuss......" I don't like trips to the dentist either. That does not mean I will not do either, just that I don't like them. 

[bam]

10 hours ago, Welpe said:

The stare aka burning the dugout can be a very effective tool. It lets them know you have heard them and they have your attention. Coaches usually are smart enough at that point to get the message that anything further is going to get dealt with.

No.  They're not

[kylejt]

I like "That's enough" with the palm to the offender, like a STOP sign. I leave it up just long enough to give them a chance to either STFU, or eject themselves. For me, about three seconds is about the right amount of time.

 

I did the "death ray" last night, at some Mom in the stands who thought it was fine to yell at the pitcher during his delivery every time her son came up to bat. A quick mask off, stare, and mouthed out "really?" was enough to embarrass the hell out of her. Yeah, I rarely address stuff from outside the fence, but she was special case.

[rpumpire]

I ejected a head coach this year in a HS game after giving a "that's enough".  His team was losing in the 5th inning and he started chirping numerous times on balls/strikes.  After the third such instance of chirping in the half inning, I called time, stepped out from behind the plate, put up my "stop" sign and told him emphatically, "That's enough."

His response was a very loud, "No, that's not enough!" 

That loud and overt defiance of my warning to him earned him his ejection.  He then came running out and told me I couldn't eject him without a warning!

[RichMSN]

24 minutes ago, rpumpire said:

I ejected a head coach this year in a HS game after giving a "that's enough".  His team was losing in the 5th inning and he started chirping numerous times on balls/strikes.  After the third such instance of chirping in the half inning, I called time, stepped out from behind the plate, put up my "stop" sign and told him emphatically, "That's enough."

His response was a very loud, "No, that's not enough!" 

That loud and overt defiance of my warning to him earned him his ejection.  He then came running out and told me I couldn't eject him without a warning!

NFHS game, I'd agree with him.  Nothing flagrant enough there to eject without a formal, written, warning, which is what the NFHS rules added for this year.

[rpumpire]

It's Massachusetts, not under NHFS rules.  And, thankfully, I might add, because a coach, under these circumstanc4es, certainly doesn't deserve a warning.

 

[RichMSN]

10 minutes ago, rpumpire said:

It's Massachusetts, not under NHFS rules.  And, thankfully, I might add, because a coach, under these circumstanc4es, certainly doesn't deserve a warning.

 

You know what, I used to agree with you.  I don't anymore.

"That's a formal warning and you're restricted to the dugout."

Now, if this guy is as big of a jackass as he appears to be, he'll say something else and I eject him.  The report writes itself with multiple chances for the the clown to STFU.  If he doesn't say anything else, I win in 2 ways.  First, he's locked in his cage like a zoo animal and I don't have to write paperwork.  And to me, getting the guy to shut his yap is a bigger win than ejecting him, which means he'll come back out, "get his money's worth" and delay the game even more.

I got to this point after working with this mindset in college ball -- where formal warnings were expected years earlier.  At first I didn't like being told I had to warn, but I found that I really liked the structure -- when that formal warning comes out, the coach knows where it's heading.

[rpumpire]

Massachusetts has something similar that is called a "strike one warning" (why they would use a term like that is beyond me), but if warranted an ejection is an option right away.  Because of his tone and his defiance, I went with the ejection right away.

 

[rpumpire]

I surprised even myself when, after the coach shouted, "No, that's not enough", I actually answered with, "Oh, yes it is!' as I gave my ejection mechanic.

[pnewton]

@RichMSN The comment indicated this was in Massachusetts, no fed and so no restriction. We would be laughed at for trying to tell a coach they are restricted, they won't have heard of it. 

@rpumpire they do want you to give the strike as a warning, coaches don't always understand that "that's enough" is a warning, but I would still run him for that kind of defiance.

[RichMSN]

I did preface my comment with "NFHS game" cause there are a few places that don't play NFHS rules.

[kylehutson]

In FED, @rpumpire's conversation would be similar, but not identical:

"Coach, that's enough. This is your written warning."

"That's not enough"

"And now you've argued with me again." (ejection signal)

My only high school coach ejection was because he tried to argue about a warning.

[ALStripes17]

In FED, @rpumpire's conversation would be similar, but not identical:

"Coach, that's enough. This is your written warning."

"That's not enough"

"And now you've argued with me again." (ejection signal)

My only high school coach ejection was because he tried to argue about a warning.

Situation is HTBT but with my understanding I would still have 3 steps here.

The 'soft warning' that many people talk about is the same as 'acknowledge' in the steps to ejection success.

A 'thats enough' can and should be used (acknowledge), followed by a fornal warning/restriction after the next pop-off. An ejection will most assuredly follow anyway bc the pop-off says something about his personality (and most coaches don't like timeout) but in my ejection report I will most certainly have my acknowledge and warn/restrict steps in there.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Lindsay]

Glad you asked. Here's a video library of examples: http://www.closecallsports.com/2016/03/uefl-university-video-rulebook-ejections.html

[blue23ll]

As I understand it, we are supposed to say, "Coach, this is a written warning and you are restricted to the bench".  Right? Now, in NFHS, if we eject an assistant, the HC is automatically restricted to the bench, does that include a written warning as well? 

[ALStripes17]

As I understand it, we are supposed to say, "Coach, this is a written warning and you are restricted to the bench".  Right? Now, in NFHS, if we eject an assistant, the HC is automatically restricted to the bench, does that include a written warning as well? 

I may have misread this somewhere but ejecting the AC does not automatically restrict the HC. I believe that is only when the AC leaves his position to argue a call.

Yes the wording and directly telling a coach about his warning and subsequent restriction is how nearly all assigners want it done.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk