maybe a stupid question(s) re: (FED) written warning

[pl8ump1012]

I'm getting back into umpiring after about 12 years away from the game. I'll do mostly high school ball. As I am relearning the rules, I've come across something new (to me): the written warning/restriction to the bench for the manager.

Question 1: Am I actually handing the manager a written warning? Does that mean I need to carry something to have available in case I need it (and is it an official form/document/something?) That seems impractical. Or, and I'm guessing this is it, is the "written" part just on my game card - a record for me - and I verbally tell the manager it's a "written" warning?

Question 2: If manager is restricted to the bench and has a legitimate question for me, what's he to do? Do I stand outside the dugout and talk (seems like something I don't want to do)? Can he leave the dugout to come talk with my permission? Does he lose the right to ask (even legitimate) questions if he's restricted? Does an assistant coach take over his role as the one who can talk to me?

Thanks!

[Senor Azul]

2016 NFHS Baseball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 7: What is a head coach who is restricted to the bench allowed to do? RULING: Even though the head coach is restricted to the bench and may not occupy a coaching box, he is still the head coach. He still represents the team in communications with umpires and may address and coach base runners, the batter, defensive players and other coaches. He may hold team conferences at the dugout or bench area. He may leave the bench/dugout area to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured and may request to talk to an umpire concerning a rule or rule enforcement. However, he shall be ejected for any further misconduct. (3-2-1, 3-3-1f Penalty)

[maven]

Regarding question 1, your guess is correct. Record the (half) inning, outs, and situation on your game card and notify the coach that he's received his written warning and that he's restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game.

The rule evolved to include this step in order to differentiate between a verbal warning that has no penalty, and a more serious warning that requires restriction to the dugout. 

Too often, umpires give verbal warning after verbal warning before (arbitrarily, as it seemed to many coaches) ejecting the coach. The written warning allows coaches to recognize that they've received their last warning.

Note that the written warning is NOT a step in a required progression. Coaches who commit an ejectable offense should be ejected immediately, not warned. IIRC, the list of ejectable offenses can be found in rule 3–3–1, toward the end. And my instruction has always been for our umpires to give at most one verbal warning.

[Senor Azul]

I am not sure how much evolving took place with this rule. It entered the rule book in 2016. And issuing a warning has always been a part of the options an umpire had in his quiver. The penalty of restricting the coach to the dugout has been around since circa 1990. When the NFHS added the rule to the book in 2016 they also made the rule a Point of Emphasis in which they never said anything about coaches recognizing that they have received their final warning. Here is the Point of Emphasis that appeared in the 2016 rule book--

INTERMEDIATE PENALTIES/RESTRICTION TO THE BENCH/DUGOUT      

The basic premise for education-based athletics is education. The adult coach and game official work collaboratively to teach, train, oversee, model positive behavior and arbitrate the students under their charge. As part of these “teachable moments” the game official is responsible to maintain order and control the contest so both teams have a fair opportunity to do their best and perform to their highest level.      

That responsibility is detailed in NFHS Rule 3, Section 3, Article 1, Bench and Field Conduct and Rule 10, Umpiring. We all should promote preventative officiating. While not listed in the NFHS Rules Book, preventative officiating is practiced by the more successful and experienced umpires. Verbal and non-verbal tactics are practiced to let a coach know that you are aware and understand his concern, acknowledge that you are doing your best to officiate the game and that his behavior if negative, is not helpful, in fact it is contributing to the detriment of all that are involved. These are a few key factors in de-escalating a possible contentious exchange.      

Under NFHS Rule 3-3-1 and Rule 10, we are provided tools to issue a written warning, then restriction to the bench/dugout and ultimately ejection from the game. Unless the situation calls for such a drastic response, ejections should not be an official’s first option (emphasis added). The lessons best learned by a young person in this environment are by his coach(es). It does not benefit the student if the coach has done something that warrants his removal from the field. Ejections may be avoided by listening to the coach and attempting to understand his perspective prior to responding. A restricted coach may continue to teach, guide and control his team while an ejected coach places this same responsibility upon someone who may not be as prepared for it. Developing preventative officiating skills and using the penalty structure that is in place should make for a healthy and safe environment for all the participants.

 

[lawump]

It evolved significantly between 2016 and 2017 (which was my first year on the rules committee).

The implementation of this rule in 2016 was highly unsuccessful.  That was not only my opinion, but the opinion of the vast majority of state high school athletic association officials that I spoke with at that time.  When this rule came out in 2016, some states took the position that a coach could not be ejected unless he had been previously warned/restricted.  Other states did not.  Some states said that something "written" had to be given to the coach when he received a written warning...other states did not.  In other words, some of the questions that were asked in the OP to this thread were being asked by state officials!  Its one thing for an umpire new to FED baseball to be confused; its quite another thing if a Commissioner in charge of high school baseball for an entire state is confused!  

If someone asks me today what my single proudest accomplishment as a member of the rules committee is, it is me re-writing this rule, defending my re-write to the full committee, and getting it overwhelmingly passed.  Why I am so proud of my re-write of this rule is that in the five years since my re-write was passed all of the upheaval, confusion, and issues that administrators, coaches, and umpires had about this rule have disappeared.  I understand some people may not like the rule (that's the case with almost any rule) but at least everyone (new FED umpires excepted) understands it.  Defining what constitutes a "written warning", making clear that a warning is not required before ejection for egregious conduct, and drafting numerous case plays to explain this rule's intent will probably stand as my lasting legacy from my four years on the committee.  (That and making coach's interference (assistance) a delayed dead ball like every other rule set.  LOL)

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

You were doing the Lord's work lawump. I would agree that it has gotten much better since the rule implementation, and when they first added it in all of the umpires in our association had questions too. But they've clarified it greatly.

I will say not enough guys are using the restriction + written warning option in their toolbelt enough, and it is something I plan to use more this year since I am guilty of that as well.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, lawump said:

  (That and making coach's interference (assistance) a delayed dead ball like every other rule set.  LOL)

 

Off topic but segueing on this, I'm confused. I thought FED and OBR immediately called out the assisted runner and there is no delayed dead ball. NCAA does have a delayed dead ball and doesn't call the runner out until the conclusion of the play which could lead to a play on an already out runner. But when I questioned this on an NCAA umpire facebook site they were adamant about it being delayed as explicit in the NCAA rule.

[maven]

11 hours ago, lawump said:

It evolved significantly between 2016 and 2017 (which was my first year on the rules committee).

The implementation of this rule in 2016 was highly unsuccessful.  That was not only my opinion, but the opinion of the vast majority of state high school athletic association officials that I spoke with at that time.  When this rule came out in 2016, some states took the position that a coach could not be ejected unless he had been previously warned/restricted.  Other states did not.  Some states said that something "written" had to be given to the coach when he received a written warning...other states did not.  In other words, some of the questions that were asked in the OP to this thread were being asked by state officials!  Its one thing for an umpire new to FED baseball to be confused; its quite another thing if a Commissioner in charge of high school baseball for an entire state is confused!  

If someone asks me today what my single proudest accomplishment as a member of the rules committee is, it is me re-writing this rule, defending my re-write to the full committee, and getting it overwhelmingly passed.  Why I am so proud of my re-write of this rule is that in the five years since my re-write was passed all of the upheaval, confusion, and issues that administrators, coaches, and umpires had about this rule have disappeared.  I understand some people may not like the rule (that's the case with almost any rule) but at least everyone (new FED umpires excepted) understands it.  Defining what constitutes a "written warning", making clear that a warning is not required before ejection for egregious conduct, and drafting numerous case plays to explain this rule's intent will probably stand as my lasting legacy from my four years on the committee.  (That and making coach's interference (assistance) a delayed dead ball like every other rule set.  LOL)

Great story, Steve. Thank you for your service.

[lawump]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Off topic but segueing on this, I'm confused. I thought FED and OBR immediately called out the assisted runner and there is no delayed dead ball. NCAA does have a delayed dead ball and doesn't call the runner out until the conclusion of the play which could lead to a play on an already out runner. But when I questioned this on an NCAA umpire facebook site they were adamant about it being delayed as explicit in the NCAA rule.

No, no...you are correct for FED.  Call the runner out immediately and let the play continue.  Call "time" at the end of the play only if runners/coaches are confused (which is, like, all time on this play) simply to explain/sell the call.  But there is no delayed dead ball by rule.  I stated it lousily as a result of me throwing it in as an aside to my last post.

[Jimurray]

28 minutes ago, lawump said:

No, no...you are correct for FED.  Call the runner out immediately and let the play continue.  Call "time" at the end of the play only if runners/coaches are confused (which is, like, all time on this play) simply to explain/sell the call.  But there is no delayed dead ball by rule.  I stated it lousily as a result of me throwing it in as an aside to my last post.

So, given you are NCAA also, does NCAA want the coach assist at 3B, eg: pushing him back to tag up, only pointed, while the defense throws home as he proceeds, leaving other runners unplayed upon, and then upon play completion calling R3 out for coach assist if perhaps R3 is safe at HP?