|
The charged conference rule was explained to me a few years ago as such:
1. defensive coach asks for time to talk to his struggling pitcher and returns to the dugout. [first CC]
2. defensive coach asks for time to huddle w/ his infield to discuss strategy in a first & third, 1 out situation and returns to the dugout. [second CC]
3. defensive coach asks for time and approaches HP umpire and indicates that he is making a pitching change, F1 to F3, and F3 to F1. He then proceeds to talk to the new F1 as she is taking her 5 warm-up pitches and then returns to the dugout. [no CC]
4. after F1 takes a line drive off the shin, and the umpire calls time, he requests and is granted permission to check on his player, and then returns to the dugout. [no CC]
5. defensive coach asks for time to talk to his pitcher and catcher on pitching strategy to the next batter and then returns to the dugout. [third CC]
6. defensive coach asks for time and approaches HP umpire and indicates that he is making a pitching change, F3 to F1, and F1 to F3. If this happens in the same inning as #3 above, no warm-up pitches are allowed. [re-entry stuff, whatever, all OK] If not, warm-ups are allowed and coach talks to his pitcher while she's warming up and then goes back to the dugout. [no CC]
At this point the defensive coach has used his allotted 3 charged conferences and another charged conference would result in the pitcher being removed from the pitcher's position for the remainder of the game. It was explained to me that if the coach came out and announced the pitching change before conversing w/ players, we would not charge him with a conference [allowing for the availability of that pitcher to return later in the game]. Theoretically, he could change F1 w/ F3 every other batter [no warm-ups after each F1's first appearance in the inning] if he so wished. [NFHS has a limit here that ASA does not.]
Now if it was bottom of the 7th and he absolutely had to huddle w/ his infielders and called time to do so and just marched out there before talking with the umpire, this would result in his fourth CC and would result in the removal of the current F1 from the pitcher's position for the remainder of the game. And if he walked off without realizing that, the umpire would have to inform him that the pitcher needed to be changed.
So I think the intent of the rule that was amended was to clarify the point that if the coach indicated to the umpire that s/he was making a pitching change before going out there, a conference would not be charged.
It appears as though ASA's wording to clarify this situation was to simply add "unless the pitcher is removed for [sic; should probably be "from"] the pitching position" to the existing definition of a charged conference. [It should be noted that this would be a charged defensive conference as opposed to simply a charged conference.]
At least the Rules Supplement distinguishes between the offensive and defensive conferences. Additional wording in the RS #9 states simply that: "It is not a charged conference if the pitcher is removed."
In my scenarios #3 and #6 above, prior to the "re-defining of the rule" we'd have no CC. And, obviously w/ the re-defined rule, no CC either.
I thought that if a coach called time, went to the player and talked, and THEN decided to remove the pitcher, that this would be a CC. Reading the re-defined rule, I'd say this wouldn't be a CC. Because he removed the pitcher, it satisfied the new definition and a conference cannot be charged. Following the wording in RS #9 and the definition of a CC, it simply says that if the pitcher is removed, it is not a charged conference.
I think this is Dakota's interpretation of the words as written, if not intent. I agree with him, for all the grief that will get me! Maybe the veteran umpires know what is meant by this rule, but I'd guess we'd have a few different interpretations.
Personally, now, I'm not so sure that if the coach calls time, talks to F1, and then changes pitchers, is that a CC or not? I thought I used to know, now I'm a little iffy.
Dakota, I don't know what lable to put on this. I'm no philosopher or logician. Give a multiple-choice ASA exam question as to what type of fallacy this might be, I'd guess "circular". Maybe one of you programmer types can develop a flow diagram w/ those activity boxes and Y/N decision points and figure this out. Stay out of the endless loops!
Ted
|