[PeteBooth]

You say you "just don't get it" when it comes to umpires not wanting to offer options. Perhaps in all of the verbage of this thread you missed the basic point about "tipping the balance". The rule concerned says that "the manager may elect to take the play". It does NOT say "the umpire shall offer the manager an option to take the play". Do you see the subtle difference here, Pete? For professional leagues at least, the wording of the rule makes it the manager's responsibility to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" unsolicited, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.

Warren thanks for your comments, but unlike football, one doesn't see catcher's interference very often. In watching Pro Baseball personally, I have never seen this called.

Since this penalty isn't your everyday "run of the mill" play, that's why I think an umpire should give a coach his options.

IMO, the reason OBR has not changed it's wording is that this point has not become an issue yet so why bother. You can bet that if a team lost the World Series because an umpire did not explain an option to a coach, the rule WOULD BE changed immediately, especially if the players union had any say in the matter.

Most of us at least in my circumstance do not umpire at the professional level, therefore, giving a coach an option is accepted (again in my area that I umpire in).

In reality, this is really a non-issue anyway, becasue as soon as a run is scored, a manager will inevitably say Hey Blue does it count? At that point aren't we obliged to explain the situation?

Pete Booth