Thoughts on Ejections

[BigBlue4u]

Check this link.  Some very good ideas on ejections.

Snyder's Soapbox: Five suggestions for MLB umpires before ejecting players, from gongs to automatic strikes (msn.com)

 

[834k3r]

A few thoughts (not necessarily limited to MLB ejections):

- I could support intermediate measures (like FED's bench restriction) as suggested by the article's author, but how different would they be in reality? In the case of bench restriction, the author says kids are there to see the stars (like Harper) but they wouldn't see the star anyway if the player's restricted to the bench. Devil's in the details, they say.

- For FED umpires (myself included, but especially me) I believe our threshold for ejections is too high. I think we are far too patient and should use the restriction/ejection tools more often. I think that is because we (I) see it as the "last resort" or the "final measure" and treat it as the "break glass in emergency" tool. I think that's the wrong attitude, and many times the game has already started getting away from the umpires when ejections are called.

- Part of our (my) reluctance to use the EJ tool is inexperience. Outside of clinics schools (which I've never been to) practicing ejections isn't done as far as I can tell. That makes it nearly impossible to use correctly until we (I) have a couple under our belt.

YMMV, but those are my thoughts.

Edited June 5, 2024 by 834k3r
Clarification

[Mudisfun]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

 

- Part of our (my) reluctance to use the EJ tool is inexperience. Outside of clinics (which I've never been to) practicing ejections isn't done as far as I can tell. That makes it nearly impossible to use correctly until we (I) have a couple under our belt.

YMMV, but those are my thoughts.

When I went to the LL Western Region week long, during one of the night exercises, Doug Perret (RIP) would start barking at the umpire, and depending on the response, or lack of response from the umpire, he would escalate until FINALLY someone would pull the trigger...

After the initial EJ, then people would start to stop the madness, but it opened the eyes of many umpires that they were waiting way too long to address the behavior. When the umpire addressed it early, Doug would either say ok, good job, or he would continue on, but this was one of the only times I have been to a clinic which addressed this aspect of the game for officials.

I recall watching a training video, I think it may have been Perfect Game Umpire training where they also had one of the instructors barking at the students in the role of a coach. Again, most the people took the abuse versus addressing it until it became so over the top they had to do something about it.

 

 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

When I went to the LL Western Region week long, during one of the night exercises, Doug Perret (RIP) would start barking at the umpire, and depending on the response, or lack of response from the umpire, he would escalate until FINALLY someone would pull the trigger...

Same here. Last fall it was both Doug and Mike Debelak as two opposing coaches going at it. It was very real (scathing even) and hilarious - when it wasn't happening to you.

 

2 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

Doug Perret (RIP)

Wait, what? I hadn't heard that.

[BigBlue4u]

28 minutes ago, Velho said:

Same here. Last fall it was both Doug and Mike Debelak as two opposing coaches going at it. It was very real (scathing even) and hilarious - when it wasn't happening to you.

Doug RIP.

Wait, what? I hadn't heard that.

Me neither.  I was an instructor for several years at the WRLLUS and Doug was one of the better instructors.  Very patient with students and very knowledgeable about the game.

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

I recall watching a training video, I think it may have been Perfect Game Umpire training where they also had one of the instructors barking at the students in the role of a coach. Again, most the people took the abuse versus addressing it until it became so over the top they had to do something about it.

 

 

Maybe this one?

 

[BigBlue4u]

17 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Me neither.  I was an instructor for several years at the WRLLUS and Doug was one of the better instructors.  Very patient with students and very knowledgeable about the game.

Found out that, indeed, Doug passed away a few weeks ago.  Died in his chair at home....one day before a scheduled pacemaker installation.

[BigBlue4u]

20 hours ago, Mudisfun said:

Part of our (my) reluctance to use the EJ tool is inexperience. Outside of clinics (which I've never been to) practicing ejections isn't done as far as I can tell. That makes it nearly impossible to use correctly until we (I) have a couple under our belt.

You'll learn.  Just remember, use an ejection as a last resort and, if possible, after giving a warning.  Nothing looks better on an ejection report than the sentence, "I warned him."

[SeeingEyeDog]

23 hours ago, 834k3r said:

- For FED umpires (myself included, but especially me) I believe our threshold for ejections is too high. I think we are far too patient and should use the restriction/ejection tools more often. I think that is because we (I) see it as the "last resort" or the "final measure" and treat it as the "break glass in emergency" tool. I think that's the wrong attitude, and many times the game has already started getting away from the umpires when ejections are called.

Well said and I completely agree, Beaks...the messaging I get in my market is "umpires need to do everything they can to keep coaches and players in the game". So, we have the hand, verbal, written, restriction and ejection. We do have the authority to skip any of those steps if it's egregious enough. I personally have never done so. In fact, after the hand and before issuing a verbal warning, I will ask the offender, "What do I have to do to keep you in this game here today/tonight?"

The sad part is I have a handful of coaches who have been in the market for 20+ years and they know there are multiple steps on the FED ejection ladder and they will deliberately commit violations knowing that they are minor enough not to warrant an immediate ejection.

I've said this many times to the state athletic association but, there's been no response. Hands, verbals, writtens and restrictions ALL need to be recorded with the athletic association not just the ejections. One, if players and coaches know the authority is further reviewing this information it could lead to more compliance. Second, you are establishing a baseline. If your average for the state or county for the season is 15 hands, 5 verbals, 3 writtens, 1 restriction and 1 ejection and you have someone out there who went 30/10/6/3? Well, the athletic association can then counsel that coach to help them understand that what they are doing is wrong.

Everyone involved with high school sports agrees that the atmosphere on and around the fields is sub-optimal but, nobody (other than the umpires and officials) really wants to make a substantive change or engage themselves to make it so.

~Dawg

[JonnyCat]

9 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

Nothing looks better on an ejection report than the sentence, "I warned him."

Not when you should have dumped him instead of warn him.

Too many umpires warn too much, and don't take care of business.

[SJA]

If you don’t let it start, you don’t have to stop it. (Umpire game control / management).

[The Man in Blue]

Re: the video . . . 

I don't care for the "Huh? What did you say?" or "make them do it again" approach.

As I'm getting further into the video, the more he does it, the more it becomes baiting.

I also disagree with "stay away from the hand up."  As a teacher, I will say visual cues are some of your most valuable tools in curbing or rewarding behaviors, particularly when working across open space.  The look with the mask on can be missed.  I'm not a fan of "always leave the mask on" but I do get his notion that taking it off is stopping the game and calling attention to an issue.  Taking it off is also a visual cue, and one that is hard to miss.

Those visual cues are our intermediate steps.  Sadly, unlike most other sports, our intermediate steps are not punitive in baseball.  There is no free throw, penalty shot, penalty box, loss of yards, or awarding of points.  These are our yellow cards and red cards.  If people don't understand our visual cues, then maybe we need red cards and yellow cards which people do (somewhat) understand.  

Another tool from my teacher tool box I use is "The Option."  We try to say that we don't eject coaches, but that they eject themselves.  Put it on them to choose if they are staying or not.  For example, in the mound meeting portion of the video, I would take that to "Kurt, that's not what we are out here for.  We gotta' go play ball."  When it escalated, that becomes, "Kurt, gotta' go so we can play ball.  Are you going back to the dugout or the car?"

We should NOT do EVERYTHING we can to keep them in the game.  We should do what we can within reason while not letting it get unreasonable.  I have students who ask me why I don't throw students out of class when something happens, and explain that I look for two things when making that choice: "Can the behavior be stopped in another way?" and "Will we gain from kicking them out or lose from kicking them out?"  I take this same approach with ejections from a game.  If the behavior is going to continue to disrupt other people and there is no path to taming it, then it is time to go.  

 

 

 

[BigBlue4u]

22 hours ago, JonnyCat said:

Not when you should have dumped him instead of warn him.

Too many umpires warn too much, and don't take care of business.

J.C.  I think you missed my point.  I'm all for an ejection without a warning if it's something egregious.  However, most of the time (at least for me) a warning will suffice.  By warning, if appropriate, then ejecting, the coach has no comeback.

[Velho]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

would take that to "Kurt, that's not what we are out here for.  We gotta' go play ball."  When it escalated, that becomes, "Kurt, gotta' go so we can play ball.  Are you going back to the dugout or the car?"

100%, and be careful how you ask questions.

12U last week: pitch inside, batter opened up and got hit on shoulder and ball continued on to hit the bat. PU asked batter "did that hit the bat?" batter said "yes". PU said stay here. Postgaming we helped the PU realize he had set the kid up by not asking "did that hit you and then the bat?". Phrasing matters - especially with a stunned 12 yr old.

Likewise, I saw a PU do as MITB says trying to keep the chirpy coach in the game: "Do you want to go (as in ejected)? (or some tortured syntax I can't recall). Coach answered Yes (but really meant No) but he'd said yes when PU was looking for No so bye-bye.

I don't relate that to feel sympathy for the coach (zero issuing with him EJing him regardless) but that the phrasing matters. We're (hopefully) relatively calm when doing a game. We have nothing invested in the outcome. Contrast that to the coaches, especially daddy ball youth coaches in the postseason as the above was, are amped up (for various reasons).

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

Agree 1000% @Velho . . . 

absolutely matters.

 

NEVER ask open ended questions, but never ask "yes/no" questions, either.  NEVER ask questions that you don't really want answers to.  ALWAYS provide the specific options they have to answer with.

"Do you want to go?" is not a question to be answered, it is a threat.  (RHETORICAL QUESTION, Mr. TMIB! yells the freshmen student in the back row.)

"Kurt, gotta' go so we can play ball.  Are you going back to the dugout or the car?" firmly tells the coach where things stand and then provides him with a choice to make.  He might take it as humorous, he might take it seriously, or he might test you.  Whatever he chooses, he knows his options and the ball is in his court.

This tactic should not only be used with coaches and players, but with your partner as well.  Don't call him to a meeting and then ask, "What do you have?"  Tell him, "This is what I have."  Then either ask your specific question, "Did you see the ball hit him before it hit the bat?" or provide the question the coach is asking, "From my view, I didn't see it get him, but the coach is asking me to check to see if you might have."

 

[JonnyCat]

4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

J.C.  I think you missed my point.  I'm all for an ejection without a warning if it's something egregious.  However, most of the time (at least for me) a warning will suffice.  By warning, if appropriate, then ejecting, the coach has no comeback.

I got your point. I was commenting on your statement, "Nothing looks better on an ejection report than the sentence, "I warned him."

However, warning somebody 3 or more times, and then finally ejecting the offender (if ever at all), is what many umpires do. Saying you warned him, and then dumped him may not be all that it seems in an ejection report. Just because you warned someone, doesn't make the ejection was righteous.

If someone warned a coach when they should have dumped him, that's where I would have an issue. Doesn't matter if someone wrote in their ejection report, "I warned him." Warnings are not a get out of jail free card for umpires that don't know how to handle business on the field.

[johnnyg08]

On 6/5/2024 at 11:03 AM, 834k3r said:

- For FED umpires (myself included, but especially me) I believe our threshold for ejections is too high. I think we are far too patient and should use the restriction/ejection tools more often. I think that is because we (I) see it as the "last resort" or the "final measure" and treat it as the "break glass in emergency" tool. I think that's the wrong attitude, and many times the game has already started getting away from the umpires when ejections are called.

Agree. "Firm warnings" are a chicken's way of not taking care of business. Warnings do not work. 

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree. "Firm warnings" are a chicken's way of not taking care of business. Warnings do not work. 

The only time I will use "warnings" are team warnings (leaving the dugout, game getting chippy, etc.) or informal player warnings given to the coach (a head's up on behavior, not a line in the sand).

IMO, coaches do not get warnings because they see that as "I'm allowed to behave this way X number of times or until you say something."  They see it as a license to act a fool until told to knock it off.  Coaches get a reminder or an instruction ("we aren't doing that" or a stop sign).  Call that a warning if you want, but you will never hear me tell a coach "This is your warning."

[johnnyg08]

36 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

but you will never hear me tell a coach "This is your warning."

Agree. They're adults. They know. 

[MadMax]

4 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree. "Firm warnings" are a chicken's way of not taking care of business. Warnings do not work.

 

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Call that a warning if you want, but you will never hear me tell a coach "This is your warning."

NCAA (and by attachment, NJCAA and NAIA) requires an/the umpire to issue a formal warning to a coach prior to Ejection, short of physical contact (or other egregious acts; there’s a list somewhere). 

We must “get the warning in”, and it must be explicit (as opposed to implicit, or implied). If we have the opportunity or presence of mind to write it down / note it, we are to do so; else, since so many college games are streamed or video recorded, we are to express the warning in a manner that can be verified or confirmed on video. Barring (reliable) video, crew partners are encouraged to observe and note details of the interaction that can corroborate that a warning was issued, and what may have led to a subsequent ejection. 

Why? 

Because in NCAA, the coaches heavily influence the rules (making), and they don’t want to be ejected “willy-nilly”. They want to “argue their point”, with an established line that they can toe (and often, press right to the edge), but putting the onus on the umpire to establish that line. We’ve done that physically (interactions / challenges can only occur at the 45-ft mark on the foul line, or at the edge of the HP dirt circle; umpires will only discuss and render judgements once all coaches have returned to their dugouts or base-boxes; once “final judgement” has been rendered, any further protestation, challenge, or argument is grounds for ejection (the discussion is its own warning)), and by issuing a formal warning, we’ve done that verbally. 

Granted, this formal structure would never work (effectively) in tournament / travel baseball. It would be a strain for it to work in HS baseball, albeit most high-end HS programs are likely familiar with this protocol, since most of their coaches have collegiate and/or pro pedigree. 

[johnnyg08]

22 hours ago, MadMax said:

 

We must “get the warning in”, and it must be explicit (as opposed to implicit, or implied).

I know. And it's ridiculous. 

[noumpere]

I always found IAWE to work pretty well (recognizing that there are circumstances to skip a step or two).

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I always found IAWE to work pretty well (recognizing that there are circumstances to skip a step or two).

Ignore All Warnings (just) Eject?  😋

[Biscuit]

Eh, I think college warnings work pretty well. College dugouts/coaches (generally) know that a warning is really the end of the line and will usually shut up. In an ideal world, we'd all play nice and never get yelled at, but that's not the case. The NCAA has done a pretty good job making sure everyone knows that a warning means something, and the umpires by and large do a pretty good job of ejecting after warnings are issued. So, if there is unacceptable behavior, get the warning in quickly. It's only really a problem if you wait too long to get the warning in. And if they don't listen, well, shoot one monkey and all that.

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Biscuit said:

College dugouts/coaches (generally) know that a warning is really the end of the line and will usually shut up.

Unless you're a Clemson coach...