Jump to content

NFHS Ejections and Subsequent Suspensions


Recommended Posts

My state athletic association and my local association have established the following game management discipline:

1) Verbal warning

2) Written warning

3) Dugout Restriction

4) Ejection

We (the umpires) also know that there are several FED rules that provide for the umpires to make an assessment of the egregiousness of the situation and may issue an ejection without the proceeding steps.

Locally, we had a coach ejection that was indeed deemed egregious enough to warrant an immediate ejection (sorry, no details...). The school appealed the suspension stating that a dugout restriction had not first been issued and the suspension was overturned and the coach returned for their next game.

I am merely curious about what you guys are seeing out there in your games, states and localities and specifically if you are seeing this type of situation that I have described above? When coaches are ejected, if your state requires a suspension are those suspensions being enforced or overturned?

~Dawg

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're like you in that we're supposed to follow those guidelines (Verbal, Written with Restriction to Dugout, Ejection).  There are situations though where we may proceed straight to an ejection if it's egregious enough in our minds.  Normally, a verbal warning and/or restriction is enough - but we all know that there are times when you have to "shoot one monkey so the rest will fall in line".

While I've never had anyone overturn an ejection of mine, I have been kept from working that team's games the following year by the assignor.  In his mind it's 'preventative assigning', in my mind it's 'passing the buck' and 'babying the coach'.

YMMV

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dog,

 

So let me get this straight.

 

An Umpire had something happen they deemed bad enough to go straight to EJ 

This was then appealed latter by a school?  and overturned due to structure which allows what happened to happen but then they deem themselves who most likely were not AT the game to say nah it was not that bad lets undercut the umpire and allow the coach back out there.

 

So um, no one take another game with that coach.  As umpires we should all stand together and let that school know we do not feel safe around that school or their coach.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel you, @ArchAngel72. I do. Without details it's hard to fully assess the situation I mentioned. And lacking those details, we could gin up many, many scenarios. I see scenarios where not suspending the coach was the right thing given what occurred. I could also see scenarios where yeah, that coach should have been suspended based on what predicated the ejection. And so on...

I don't want to speculate any further. I really just want to know what others in other jurisdictions are seeing and experiencing in this area. I hope for all of us everywhere, this is an exceptional circumstance and not a usual circumstance.

~Dawg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2024 at 11:19 AM, SeeingEyeDog said:

Locally, we had a coach ejection that was indeed deemed egregious enough to warrant an immediate ejection (sorry, no details...). The school appealed the suspension stating that a dugout restriction had not first been issued and the suspension was overturned and the coach returned for their next game.

I can appreciate the state's desire to have an orderly plan in place for an ejection.  However, the state is leaving out a very important aspect: In normal situations. (umpire judgment) If a coach bumps an umpire, does the state expect a warning first? Hope not!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigBlue4u said:

I can appreciate the state's desire to have an orderly plan in place for an ejection.  However, the state is leaving out a very important aspect: In normal situations. (umpire judgment) If a coach bumps an umpire, does the state expect a warning first? Hope not!  

Well said...it's hard to judge their judgement but, that would seem to be a no-brainer.

~Dawg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant really worry about what the state will do on appeals. We can only do what we think is right at the time of ejection and hold ourselves to our own convictions.

But, my board's leadership has told us to forget about restricting to the bench. Warn and eject. I straddle the line here as sometimes you need to send a message but not take the coach out for 10% of the season (if the state upholds the ejections). But that causes more issues if some are following the 'restrict' doctrine while others are not.

In real life, i actually had the state call me about an ejection and asked if I would support a reduction of the suspension. I told them that if I am a stickler of all of the rules of the game, then I could only support the full suspension as they wrote it. They didnt reduce the suspension so maybe they agreed.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...