Why does a player or manger get ejected in baseball?
The main reason is for arguing with, or simply disagreeing with, the home plate umpire.
Athletes spend most of their lives training.
Referees, I'm certain, spend far less time learning the rules or training in all aspects to be the best referee they can be.
Players have more invested and at stake, yet a significant portion of their game outcomes is tied to and controlled by those who have no skin in the game. Yet, on the other hand, those with no skin in the game have too much power over the game and too much leeway and forgiveness to abuse that power. That leeway and abuse culminates in the power to penalize players, coaches and teams, not based on an infraction against another player, but for hurting the feelings of the referee.
If referees consistently applied the rules and consistently did not apply the rules, then players could adjust and know what is what. However, game in and game out, and often within the same game, various referees judge things differently. Good grief, of course this is frustrating! Of course they disagree.To make matters worse, referees get all the escape routes for being inconsistent and making mistakes. We are told referees are only human, yet players get no such consideration, not even from the supposedly human referees. Referees want to be treated as humans, yet, far too many of them, treat players and coaches as robots, thus giving them no leeway, especially at critical moments in games to be emotionally human. Not all referees are this way, but too many of them are prone to eject people or give them technical fouls for simply disagreeing with the referees.
It really shouldn't matter how animated or boisterous the outburst is from players or coaches. Give them 15 seconds to voice their opinion as long as there is no physical contact and ad-hominem name-calling is not involved. No harm should result in no foul. A referee not liking a player or coach response, is not a reasonable basis for a penalty. It is unreasonable for players, who have the most invested, to just suck it up, keep their mouths shut and contain their emotions in all their body parts so that they can't even make any arm, leg or other body movement. That has got to be unhealthy.
Consider this unreasonable expectation placed on players, then consider how referees, are supposed to be neutral and even keeled. Yet referees can go from neutral to offended in a second and then immediately eject players and coaches or give them technical fouls. All of this is simply the owners of these sports continuing to say, through the referees, we control the game and you will not show your disagreement or speak about it to the media, because we'll take back your money and your ability to win.
We all know referees are the unaccounted for factor and the unadmitted cause of losing and winning in far too many games, especially when competitors are closely matched and/or contests go down to the wire. Referees, as a collective, should be invisible by being consistent from game to game. It shouldn't matter who the referees are in any contest. The administration of the rules should be the same. Sports announcers are partly to blame because they notice how referees change how closely they abide by the rules during certain contests, I.e,, the playoffs. This is not okay. It's confusing, unfair, and only sets the stage for inconsistencies to rear its head in critical moments. Of course, tennis is another sport where referees have far too much leeway to influence the game, when they too, should simply, let disagreements roll of their backs, and stand down from issuing penalties just because the rules say they can. The rules do not say they must penalize. The rules say it's their discretion. Clearly, far too many referees, in far too many sports, have the discretion and control of a two-year old, and it is the referees themselves who need anger management and thought process counseling. I'm also certain that players or coaches who disagree with referees are not disagreeing with the person, but rather with the administration of the rule. Most players are not making it personal, yet, most referees, who issue penalties because of disagreements, those refs are taking it personal and making it personal, not just against those specific players, but against the whole team and even against the sensibilities of humanity. This goes against making the world a better place by making sports a place where player-team performance matters more than allowing that to be interfered with simply because someone voices disagreement with the “sport's authorities.” To repeat: The only time disagreement occurs is when players are expected to deal with multiple different applications of the same rule, and that variance works against them. Sports announcers advocate, “let them play,” as their way of asking or acknowledging referees staying out of the way, except for the most obvious of infractions. Announcers acknowledge referees don't call “pitty-pat” fouls sometimes. Announcers should also speak up more when referees, who wear their self-esteem on their shoulders, get personally upset, when someone questions their all-powerful authority and persona. Bottom Line: No job or salary can make us a better person or worse person. And neither can a job make us right by default, i.e., police officers.
But every job can, and does, expose what type of person we are. Not the type of job, but how we carry out the functions of that job. Do we do hide behind job rules, laws, policies and procedures, or do we infuse the person we are, into the job? All of us infuse the person we are into the job. No person performs a job objectively, such that all instances, encounters and persons are given consideration in accordance with need.
Instead, we all make subjective judgments constantly and allowances for certain people or under certain circumstances. We all make judgment calls, first based on who we are and then secondly based on who we think the other person is.
1. If we judge ourselves better, we will give others, less consideration.
2. If we judge ourselves less, we will give others, too much consideration.
3. If we judge ourselves as equals, we will give others equal consideration. Most of us hide behind jobs as justification for doing jobs that do not give each other equal consideration.
Referees, like employees, are proxy agent representatives for their employers.
We can all do our jobs to the letter of the law or we can allow for some leeway, flexibility, overlooking of some things and make adjustments within our range of job power and within our range of human power. To repeat: Athletes spend most of their lives training to be the best.
It is unfair for their best to be impacted by non-players. Athletes deserve better, Humans deserve better. Humans deserve better consideration from other humans.
The same one-sided leeway given to referees, is symptomatic of leeway given to other “authorities” throughout society. Until sports rules are changed or the performance of referees improve, then at least referees in all sports should call timeout and give at least two warnings to each team before ejecting or otherwise penalizing players for simply disagreeing with a refereeing decision or non-decision. Referees, and those who empower them, should check themselves and stop themselves from adding to the delay of humans self-correcting their humanity. All of this imbalance circulates, accumulates and manifests in other ways in those sports and in other ways in life. The normalization and acceptance of imbalance is technically foul and needs to be ejected from human logic. Case In Point: “This verdict challenges not only No More Deaths volunteers, but people of conscience throughout the country. If giving water to someone dying of thirst is illegal, what humanity is left in the law of this country?” Who are the people involved in creating these types of idiotic laws, carrying out these laws, adjudicating these laws, supporting these laws, remaining silent about these laws, doing jobs that facilitate these laws, doing jobs that carry out these laws....? Clearly these people are deeply flawed in their humanity. Thus, so also is their knowledge of self and knowledge of all else. These people are severely limited in cognition, emotion, spirit and body. Thus their worldview context is based on limiting others from being their optimal best. They are indeed the walking dead filled with death logic that dominates their disgusting thinking and disgusting behavior. Who are these people? Same ones who create unconscionable rules in companies, business, governments, schools, sports.
