Post by stockley on Jul 26, 2011 13:04:21 GMT 10
Having heard of / seen a couple of instances of ejections and the related repercussions this year, I wanted to ask a fairly simple couple of questions.
1. What is the general opinion of the zero tolerance rule as it stands?
2. Do you think we would be better served by having umpires having the ability to eject a player for a relatively minor offence, without having to send the player to tribunal.
My opinions:
Zero tolerance, as I understand it, was brought into effect to combat the issues related to keeping umpires, whilst in the midst of trying to recruit and train new umpires. It was a protection mechanism for new umpires.
At this point, the current set of umpires who are currently running games are well trained enough to handle the situations of baseball games being brought to them, and the need for such a rule is now outdated. As we gain/recruit new umpires, there is certainly a need to protect them, but I believe that zero tolerance is not the right method. Have rules in place that states that coaches can't approach a training umpire, and need to approach the umpire-in-charge for the argument. Let the training umpire see/hear the argument, listen to what is said, learn to have his say, and deal with it that way. The umpires we end up with will be better prepared for the future.
Thoughts?
With the ejections, I think the league need to be more lenient in some sentencing. I've heard of at least 2 ejections this year, that IMO should have resulted in the ejection being served (even then they were tentative), and that being the end of the matter. i.e. the player has served his time by missing the last part of the game, and has cost his team as it is. To have to go to tribunal, or even except an automatic 1 week / 2 suspended ban is over the top for these cases.
With the current crop of umpires, do you think it would empower the umpires to take charge of the game by allowing them to eject a player (with reasonable cause obviously), with having to worry about the repercussion of going to tribunal? Would we see more abuse of power instead?
1. What is the general opinion of the zero tolerance rule as it stands?
2. Do you think we would be better served by having umpires having the ability to eject a player for a relatively minor offence, without having to send the player to tribunal.
My opinions:
Zero tolerance, as I understand it, was brought into effect to combat the issues related to keeping umpires, whilst in the midst of trying to recruit and train new umpires. It was a protection mechanism for new umpires.
At this point, the current set of umpires who are currently running games are well trained enough to handle the situations of baseball games being brought to them, and the need for such a rule is now outdated. As we gain/recruit new umpires, there is certainly a need to protect them, but I believe that zero tolerance is not the right method. Have rules in place that states that coaches can't approach a training umpire, and need to approach the umpire-in-charge for the argument. Let the training umpire see/hear the argument, listen to what is said, learn to have his say, and deal with it that way. The umpires we end up with will be better prepared for the future.
Thoughts?
With the ejections, I think the league need to be more lenient in some sentencing. I've heard of at least 2 ejections this year, that IMO should have resulted in the ejection being served (even then they were tentative), and that being the end of the matter. i.e. the player has served his time by missing the last part of the game, and has cost his team as it is. To have to go to tribunal, or even except an automatic 1 week / 2 suspended ban is over the top for these cases.
With the current crop of umpires, do you think it would empower the umpires to take charge of the game by allowing them to eject a player (with reasonable cause obviously), with having to worry about the repercussion of going to tribunal? Would we see more abuse of power instead?
