What warrants an ejection?

[RichMSN]

31 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

 

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

I know that here any ejection of an assistant is going to include restriction of the head coach.  I can't remember a single assistant coach ejection that didn't include "leaving his position" either pre-ejection or post-ejection and that nit isn't one I'm willing to pick.  Assistant coach gets run, the head coach is getting zookeepered.

[ALStripes17]

I know that here any ejection of an assistant is going to include restriction of the head coach.  I can't remember a single assistant coach ejection that didn't include "leaving his position" either pre-ejection or post-ejection and that nit isn't one I'm willing to pick.  Assistant coach gets run, the head coach is getting zookeepered.

I read it again. AC and HC are both restricted if the AC leaves dugout or position to dispute a call but then the penalty also goes on to say if the offense is severe enough then the umpire may eject the offender AND restrict or eject the HC. That all seems to follow the f(6) penalty so don't know how that is interpreted with the actual black and white.

I don't think youd be wrong in making sure HC plays rodeo clown

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[RichMSN]

I would've had an assistant coach ejection this year if not for the new emphasis on the written warning / restriction.  In the end, things quieted down immediately after I warned / restricted and the head coach came out cause he (genuinely) wanted to know what his assistant did -- he was addressing a player at the time.

I used to eject by the bushel basket years ago, but I've gotten to the point where I'm most interested in what's going to make things better for that game, for that moment.  There's a line and we still have a reputation of umpires who aren't going to take crap (which I think helps), but ejections are rare here and part of the reason is that I think this area's not a baseball hotbed -- coaches genuinely don't get as heated here as they have other places I've lived.

[umpire_scott]

The three P's only pertain to interactions between umpire and coach/player, not in general.  Show don't apply that when dealing with how to handle coaches interacting with their players.  Personally unless it's causing a disruption on my field I leave it alone.

[udbrky]

Well, apparently falling asleep will do the trick.

 

https://calltothepen.com/2016/06/08/cincinnati-reds-edd-roush-thrown-out-of-game-for-sleeping/

[VolUmp]

On 6/6/2016 at 10:54 AM, rpumpire said:

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.

"No, that's NOT enough!" Is 100% defiant, disrespectful, contradictory to any kind of controlled and sportsmanlike reply. 

Send him out.