Unsportsmanlike spectrum: you decide

[radness]

I don't think you are going to be right with your point/comment/discussion/opinion here.

If the ball is coming to the base, it very most likely not a fake tag. If for no other reason, if the player drops the ball near the base, the runner can, most likely, see it and know that it isn't in the glove.

LOL of course if the ball is on the ground and the runner can see it the trickery would take no effect.
____________________________

It is naive to think all defensive players on the field don't know what they're doing when they have their glove tagging a player without a ball in it.
( to be clear I'm not talking about a ball being in a glove and being knocked out upon the tag)

Rather this example
a runner getting to a base and a defensive player would hold their glove on them. (no ball) so that the runner would not round the base considering the next base.

This is why I put in my original comment
'To fake tag or not to fake tag
that is the question.'
Proposed that question to everyone,

Do you want your defensive players at the bases holding their glove on a runner if they don't have the ball?

Super glad to have brought up this perspective, obviously it's needed.

 

[marriard]

Has any umpire here ejected a coach or player for unsporting conduct? Or has anyone here seen it happen? In my ten years of coaching/watching/u mpiring, I've never seen it happen.

Yes I have ejected coaches and players for unsporting conduct in a variety of sports.

Removing anything that involves fighting, malicious contact, swearing, threats, etc. Some that come to mind.

- Ball tampering in a couple of sports. Not softball, but only because I couldn't 100% prove it was intentional when a coach has put a 'mush' ball into play instead of the foul ball being returned a few times that I caught.
- Simulating contact - you would think soccer but I don't umpire that sport because I couldn't be treated that way - in this case basketball. Total repeat offender. Player already has a technical foul, 3rd time in the game he (dramatically) pretended there was contact even though no one was within 3ft of them. He had lots of warnings, but he couldn't help himself.
- Time wasting in sports where there is specific rules (so not softball)
- Illegal substitution/player; which is normally something that you can't prove was intentional, however in this case coach had identical twins on the team and had them switch uniforms so they could get the 'better' twin back into a game. However identical doesn't mean exact so a cut on one twins hand gave them away. To be fair we had prior warning that the coach had been suspected of doing this, so we were on the lookout.

Been some other BS I have seen over the years. We once caught a college changing the height on a hoop in basketball at half time. And another tightening the give on the basket. So yeah...

 

[The Man In Blue]

Nope. Unless we count yelling at umps "unsporting conduct," but I assume you don't mean the obvious.

I hate that language because it's too vague. It shouldn't be in the rules. I don't want umpires to have that power to just kind of guess about something like that. And my guess is most umpires don't either.

If something is bad enough to warrant an ejection, you should be able to specifically name it in the rules, no?

No. I would much rather have the vagueness and the authority to handle an unprecedented situation than have to stand there and shrug while a coach carries on about destroying the integrity of the game with whatever loophole he thinks he found.

There is no specific rule against shooting opposing team's players.

 

[MoJo]

Running on a D3K? That's good hustle...the catcher needs to know the situation.

Nope, only when the rules say you become a BR. It is on the offensive player to know the situation. Hopefully the catcher throws down to 1st and gets the base runner when this deception is tried.

 

[MoJo]

No. I would much rather have the vagueness and the authority to handle an unprecedented situation than have to stand there and shrug while a coach carries on about destroying the integrity of the game with whatever loophole he thinks he found.

There is no specific rule against shooting opposing team's players.

LOL, I spit out my coffee.
MIB has been saying the opposite all week. Must be over 20 times now that you can quote "I am not 100% sure" or "not covered by a rule".

 

[CoachJD]

No. I would much rather have the vagueness and the authority to handle an unprecedented situation than have to stand there and shrug while a coach carries on about destroying the integrity of the game with whatever loophole he thinks he found.

There is no specific rule against shooting opposing team's players.

If someone shoots the opposing team's players, I'm guessing we're not concerned about the umpire ejecting that person.

I wasn't talking about the umpire's authority to eject a coach for arguing. I'm talking about how people want to cover some of these unique situations with the "unsporting conduct" or "spirit of the game" rules. I don't want an umpire to have to judge whether something was in violation of the "spirit of the game" because, as is clear by these discussions, everyone has a different opinion on that sort of thing.

Going back to that play where the coach taught his players to cut the corner by a good 10 feet, if we all think that type of move is so wrong that umpires should have the power to act on it, then make a rule that says runners can never deviate from a path that is x feet from a straight line between two bases. Don't assume (or hope?) that umpires think a play like that is unsporting conduct.

 

[radness]

No. I would much rather have the vagueness and the authority to handle an unprecedented situation than have to stand there and shrug while a coach carries on about destroying the integrity of the game with whatever loophole he thinks he found.

There is no specific rule against shooting opposing team's players.

LOL, I spit out my coffee.
MIB has been saying the opposite all week. Must be over 20 times now that you can quote "I am not 100% sure" or "not covered by a rule".

some GOOD conversation with some GUTS in it!

Way to BRING IT !

 

[CoachJD]

Yes I have ejected coaches and players for unsporting conduct in a variety of sports.

Removing anything that involves fighting, malicious contact, swearing, threats, etc. Some that come to mind.

- Ball tampering in a couple of sports. Not softball, but only because I couldn't 100% prove it was intentional when a coach has put a 'mush' ball into play instead of the foul ball being returned a few times that I caught.
- Simulating contact - you would think soccer but I don't umpire that sport because I couldn't be treated that way - in this case basketball. Total repeat offender. Player already has a technical foul, 3rd time in the game he (dramatically) pretended there was contact even though no one was within 3ft of them. He had lots of warnings, but he couldn't help himself.
- Time wasting in sports where there is specific rules (so not softball)
- Illegal substitution/player; which is normally something that you can't prove was intentional, however in this case coach had identical twins on the team and had them switch uniforms so they could get the 'better' twin back into a game. However identical doesn't mean exact so a cut on one twins hand gave them away. To be fair we had prior warning that the coach had been suspected of doing this, so we were on the lookout.

Been some other BS I have seen over the years. We once caught a college changing the height on a hoop in basketball at half time. And another tightening the give on the basket. So yeah...

All of these examples are covered by explicit rules though, right? I guess they might fall under a category of "unsporting conduct" (which they are), but I thought flash was referring to the catch-all part of the rules where it basically says "anything not covered by the rules." I know the softball examples at least are covered in the rules.

 

[radness]

What % of the rule book is explicit?

What % of the game is explicit?


* leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

 

[_MIA_]

LOL, I spit out my coffee.
MIB has been saying the opposite all week. Must be over 20 times now that you can quote "I am not 100% sure" or "not covered by a rule".

He has been saying the opposite actually (eg missing a bag IS covered by a rule hence he cannot call her out without the opposing team adhering to that rule).

Seriously though, your kid is in what,12u? How can you be so scarred by umpires already that at least 1/4 of your posts on DFP bitch about them?