Every. Single. Time.
This is actually a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I have worked with a few officials over the years that believe that calling infractions that "don't impact the game" is a waste of time and signals, and it "draws unnecessary attention to us umpires". These umpires typically draw enough attention to themselves simply because they are usually honestly not very good umpires. (Offtopic: These are frequently the same officials who consistently refuse to enforce the pitching rule(s).)
I 100% disagree with their philosophy, because (1) we have no way of knowing in advance which infractions "impact" the future, and (2) the book gives us no rule support for *not* calling things that the book says to call. What is the point of a ruleset and organized leagues if we're just going to "not call that?"
What we permit, we promote. If we want the fielders to move to a legal position without the ball, call them for obstructing. If we want the pitchers to pitch legally, call them for an IP when they don't. Want NCAA coaches to stop halting the game to argue judgment calls? Warn them when they come out with the first silly request, and toss them after the second (per the new rule).
The officials who keep the tough, but good calls in their pockets to avoid dealing with controversy/conflict are the same officials that breed controversy for those of us with the
guts pride of professionalism to make them. End mini-rant.
