Seems as if Cohen to be suspended a game for being ejected AFTER the game Sunday. What is the world coming to? Somewhere along the way, the world has been pussified.
Cohen taking a vacation.
- Thread starter GrumpyDawg
- Start date
Seems as if Cohen to be suspended a game for being ejected AFTER the game Sunday. What is the world coming to? Somewhere along the way, the world has been pussified.
were the lousy umps reprimanded?
Slive you do just a wonderful job**********************************************************
Slive you do just a wonderful job**********************************************************
So in a sense, umpires have been given the right to suspend coaches if they disagree with them AFTER a game?
You can't "eject" someone from a game that is over. So does this mean now, that if a coach has a problem with a call on Sunday, then on Tuesday he's quoted in the paper as saying something like "There's no way that was a strike on that final out". So the Umpire gets wind of it and calls up the SEC office "Hey, um... I saw where Coach X was arguing a call in the paper...he's totally ejected from that game now." Is the umpire gonna' follow him into a press interview? "THAT'S IT COACH! I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF IT! YOU'RE GONE!" Of course those are extreme stretches, but damn. The game's over. You effed up. Take it like a man. Or run away with police protection when the final out is made like EVERY other game that's ever been played.
You can't "eject" someone from a game that is over. So does this mean now, that if a coach has a problem with a call on Sunday, then on Tuesday he's quoted in the paper as saying something like "There's no way that was a strike on that final out". So the Umpire gets wind of it and calls up the SEC office "Hey, um... I saw where Coach X was arguing a call in the paper...he's totally ejected from that game now." Is the umpire gonna' follow him into a press interview? "THAT'S IT COACH! I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF IT! YOU'RE GONE!" Of course those are extreme stretches, but damn. The game's over. You effed up. Take it like a man. Or run away with police protection when the final out is made like EVERY other game that's ever been played.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree... the game is over. They're not disrupting the game at that point. After the final out the umpires all head directly to their locker room... if you don't want to discuss it with the coach, then don't. Head to your locker room and be a big boy about it.
If the SEC doesn't want their officials called out, hire officials that will make the right call.
And if you are an umpire and you don't want to get called out, make the right call.
Heck, if some coaches call more of them out in public, maybe they'll actually get their *** in gear.
I think Randy Watkins and his crew should be scrutinized for screwing this up.
And if you are an umpire and you don't want to get called out, make the right call.
Heck, if some coaches call more of them out in public, maybe they'll actually get their *** in gear.
I think Randy Watkins and his crew should be scrutinized for screwing this up.
To be honest, at this point, I really couldn't care less if the call was right or not.
My point is: In general, what is the intended result of having a coach ejected from a game? I would argue the desired outcome is to stop that coach from disrupting the game any further. I have no problem with that. If he keeps disrupting play, send his *** to the showers. But in this case, the game is over. The only thing a coach is hurting at that point is the umpire's feelings. When you allow an umpire to "eject" a coach after a game, you're essentially giving the umpire the right to impose a 1 game suspension on a coach. A game that may have absolutely nothing to do with that umpire. That's ridiculous.
My point is: In general, what is the intended result of having a coach ejected from a game? I would argue the desired outcome is to stop that coach from disrupting the game any further. I have no problem with that. If he keeps disrupting play, send his *** to the showers. But in this case, the game is over. The only thing a coach is hurting at that point is the umpire's feelings. When you allow an umpire to "eject" a coach after a game, you're essentially giving the umpire the right to impose a 1 game suspension on a coach. A game that may have absolutely nothing to do with that umpire. That's ridiculous.
then they're right to throw the coach out of the game. It's not even a gray area. I realize he didn't follow them to the locker room since they had to go through our dugout to get there, but there's just not any grounds at all for bitching about him being ejected. I doubt there's a league in the country in any sport that allows the umpires to become fair game for coaches once the game is complete.
As an umpire, your options should be limited as soon as the final out of the game is called. If you want to report it to the league, be my guest. If you want to file assault charges, hey go right ahead if you think it warrants that. But with ejecting a coach after the last out, what you're doing at that point, as I said, is essentially suspending the coach for 1 game.
I've seen football coaches do the exact same thing on game ending plays...should they be flagged 15 yards at the start of the next game? I mean, after all the refs can't become fair game at the final whistle.
I've seen football coaches do the exact same thing on game ending plays...should they be flagged 15 yards at the start of the next game? I mean, after all the refs can't become fair game at the final whistle.
And it totally makes sense. To be honest, I think it's more of an administrative thing. Think of it as documentation of behavior. The umpire probably just ejected him as a CYA thing in case a coach/manager (of any school) complains to the conference about what happened after the game.
Also, did Cohen get suspended simply because he was ejected? Is that a rule? If so, I was unaware of it. If that was a MLB rule, Bobby Cox would have been screwed.
(Please note, this is all speculation based on what I've read on this thread.)
Also, did Cohen get suspended simply because he was ejected? Is that a rule? If so, I was unaware of it. If that was a MLB rule, Bobby Cox would have been screwed.
(Please note, this is all speculation based on what I've read on this thread.)
An umpire has complete jurisdiction over the game being played and that jurisdiction ends when he is out of sight of the field itself. An umpire's job is to completely administer the game, so he was completely within his jurisdiction to toss a coach after a game if he's being an ***. In high school, an umpire even has jurisdiction in the parking lot and can "eject" a coach or player getting on the bus if the situation demands (it better be a good reason... being threatened or whatever). <div>
</div><div>Personally, if a coach was just jawing, I wouldn't say a word, but unless he approaches me in a way that seems threatening, I'd let it go because the game is over. Like I said, it better be a damn good reason for me to toss a coach after a game. </div>
</div><div>Personally, if a coach was just jawing, I wouldn't say a word, but unless he approaches me in a way that seems threatening, I'd let it go because the game is over. Like I said, it better be a damn good reason for me to toss a coach after a game. </div>
I think you are arguing that the umpire has the power to eject someone after the game - that very well may be, I've never been an ump. I have no idea.
My argument is that it is impossible to retroactively eject someone from a game. Everything they did in that game still counts. In doing so, what purpose does it serve other than making a point or being a dick...or,as i said, having an "I'll show you" attitude and ensuring that the ejected coach has to sit out the next game? It's silly. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of tools available to the umpire to allow them to keep order, but "ejecting" someone from a game that's already been played is just absurd.
My argument is that it is impossible to retroactively eject someone from a game. Everything they did in that game still counts. In doing so, what purpose does it serve other than making a point or being a dick...or,as i said, having an "I'll show you" attitude and ensuring that the ejected coach has to sit out the next game? It's silly. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of tools available to the umpire to allow them to keep order, but "ejecting" someone from a game that's already been played is just absurd.
A coach can't say a damn thing about the refs, even after the game is over. They get reprimanded afterward.
I peronsally think that protects the refs too much.
I peronsally think that protects the refs too much.
Umps certainly hold the ability to eject you once the game is over for actions taken after it.<div>
</div><div>How you act before and after a game are parts of the game. There's going to be a lot of people that are going to disagree, but I see its place. You have to respect the game- and baseball is a sport heavily rooted in tradition and respect. You don't get to just be a jackass once the game is over. There's no place for it and it's honestly just not safe.</div><div>
</div><div>If none of that mattered, coaches wouldn't get fined for what they said about umps after games. The Nats GM today doesn't get fined for his comments on Cole Hamels' comments. A brawl after a game wouldn't carry any infractions.</div><div>
</div><div>Not saying Cohen was wrong- I don't blame him for arguing it if it looked like a bad call. I support it, even.</div>
</div><div>How you act before and after a game are parts of the game. There's going to be a lot of people that are going to disagree, but I see its place. You have to respect the game- and baseball is a sport heavily rooted in tradition and respect. You don't get to just be a jackass once the game is over. There's no place for it and it's honestly just not safe.</div><div>
</div><div>If none of that mattered, coaches wouldn't get fined for what they said about umps after games. The Nats GM today doesn't get fined for his comments on Cole Hamels' comments. A brawl after a game wouldn't carry any infractions.</div><div>
</div><div>Not saying Cohen was wrong- I don't blame him for arguing it if it looked like a bad call. I support it, even.</div>