[Andy]

In reading the published info once again, I see that the subject is "game control" and it speaks about trying to prevent situations before they happen.

The example given is the one that is being discussed here. In the context of the entire article, I think I see the point.

If the batter is truly confused and takes off for first on ball 3, and the runners advance because they see the batter moving toward first, then the advice is to kill the play and reset. The issue I have with this is that it puts the umpire on the field back in the position of judging intent of the player as opposed to the actions of the player. If you have been around long enough, you will run into players and coaches that try this type of thing (intentionally running to first on ball 3) to create confusion and try to gain a "cheap" base.

Up until now, we have taken the position that the onus is on the game participants to know the situation and react accordingly and if a team can create confusion, yeah, it may be bush league, but it is within the rules and we rule on what happens on the field. How many times on this and other similar forums have we chastised some umpires for making up a ruling to "keep it fair" and stop what they considered to be a bush league type play?

I do like the topic of game control and game management and think it is something that all levels of umpires can benefit from. However, I don't think using this particular example fits with the topic.