Restriction

[Tborze]

Under FED Rules, is there a “restriction” option for players? 
 

 

[The Man in Blue]

There is not.  Restriction and ejection are essentially the same for players anyway, as we cannot require them to leave without adult supervision.  The only reason to need a player restriction is because you don't want to do the paperwork and trigger a suspension.  That's not a good reason.

Restriction for a coach is really "ejection light."  It allows them to still be on hand in case of emergency, not because we are nice.  😉

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

There is not.  Restriction and ejection are essentially the same for players anyway, as we cannot require them to leave without adult supervision.  The only reason to need a player restriction is because you don't want to do the paperwork and trigger a suspension.  That's not a good reason.

Restriction for a coach is really "ejection light."  It allows them to still be on hand in case of emergency, not because we are nice.  😉

Minor exception. Illegal player is restricted first time.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Yes...with @Jimurray's exception, the player is "restricted" to the entire planet EXCEPT for sight and sound from the field from which they were "restricted" from...

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Minor exception. Illegal player is restricted first time.

 

I didn't think about that -- great point.  I was immediately thinking behavior-based. 

You wouldn't want that to be considered an ejection, but it does bar them from the rest of the game.

[Tborze]

The reason asked was, at our local meeting, I made the comment that there is only one option to restrict under NFHS, otherwise ejection was our only option.
Several argued that the penalty for players was the same for coaches under rule 3.  Before we could discuss further the meeting time had expired. 
For years now PIAA had a non unsportsmanlike penalty clause that didn’t require an ejection report for players who were ejected for acts such as throwing a helmet/bat, fake tag etc.  

Well, I just found out that 2 years ago, PIAA went further and adopted a restriction policy for non unsportsmanlike behavior. 
 

I must have missed that meeting lol

 

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, Tborze said:

The reason asked was, at our local meeting, I made the comment that there is only one option to restrict under NFHS, otherwise ejection was our only option.
Several argued that the penalty for players was the same for coaches under rule 3.  Before we could discuss further the meeting time had expired. 
For years now PIAA had a non unsportsmanlike penalty clause that didn’t require an ejection report for players who were ejected for acts such as throwing a helmet/bat, fake tag etc.  

Well, I just found out that 2 years ago, PIAA went further and adopted a restriction policy for non unsportsmanlike behavior. 
 

I must have missed that meeting lol

 

What’s the difference? Restricted or ejected they remain in the dugout. 
Restricted or ejected they are out of the game. 
Restricted or ejected you have to write a report?

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, Tborze said:

Well, I just found out that 2 years ago, PIAA went further and adopted a restriction policy for non unsportsmanlike behavior. 

To @Jimurray’s point… how do you make this stick?? 🤔 

Players who are in the game (ie. in the lineup) kinda have to come out of the dugout to play, do they not? If we were to Restrict them, that’d be as effective as Dean Wormer’s Double-Super-Secret-Probation. And do we really want to expend our energy policing every player’s whereabouts between innings? 

I get it – an illegal player can neither be entered into the game, and therefore, cannot be (technically) ejected. Thus, he needs to be Restricted, so that he’s still ensconced in the HC’s responsibilities for him (ie. “the dugout”). Thus (x2), he can’t go elsewhere in the ballpark (eg. the bullpen, or behind the PU at the backstop)… 

… which, I continually re-iterate is at odds with the ability / latitude of a HC to add players to his lineup at any time. There could be a clutch of five JV players, in uniform, from the prior contest, behind the backstop, just casually watching, or even running a camera for their Varsity teammates, and the HC can, again, add any or all of them to the lineup at any (further) point in the game underway! 

My point is not that he (HC) shouldn’t be able to; to the contrary, I want the burden to police all of that removed from the umpire(s)!!! Leave us out of it, and let us focus (solely) on what occurs inside the fence! And that includes dugouts and (secluded) bullpens!! 

 

[Tborze]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

What’s the difference? Restricted or ejected they remain in the dugout. 
Restricted or ejected they are out of the game. 
Restricted or ejected you have to write a report?

Ejection requires a report and a one game suspension!  

[MadMax]

11 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Ejection requires a report and a one game suspension!  

And this is why guys in your association / meeting group voice that such an option exists. They want to (or believe they can) penalize players (show ‘em who’s in charge) without Ejecting them, coming off as the “bad cop”, having to file a report, and having to “burden the conscience with suspending an amateur player”… 

… cuz you know, that weighs on you. 🙄 

I can almost assure you – the guys that have suspect “game management skills” correlates to those that believe that Restrictions (of players) exist as an option. 

[The Man in Blue]

9 hours ago, Tborze said:

The reason asked was, at our local meeting, I made the comment that there is only one option to restrict under NFHS, otherwise ejection was our only option.
Several argued that the penalty for players was the same for coaches under rule 3.  Before we could discuss further the meeting time had expired. 
For years now PIAA had a non unsportsmanlike penalty clause that didn’t require an ejection report for players who were ejected for acts such as throwing a helmet/bat, fake tag etc.  

Well, I just found out that 2 years ago, PIAA went further and adopted a restriction policy for non unsportsmanlike behavior. 
 

I must have missed that meeting lol
 

 

Can you please explain to me how those are NOT unsportsmanlike behavior?

[Tborze]

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Can you please explain to me how those are NOT unsportsmanlike behavior?

I wish I could!  The only reason I can think of is that some association/s were handing out ejections like candy. An example is our local association had 4 ejections last year, another south of us had 126. 

[The Man in Blue]

7 hours ago, Tborze said:

I wish I could!  The only reason I can think of is that some association/s were handing out ejections like candy. An example is our local association had 4 ejections last year, another south of us had 126. 

So … your area wasn’t doing their job?  😉