Someone wrote that he wouldn't explain an option to a coach in a game using the OBR.

I suppose in Pony division game of Pony League, Inc., with volunteer coaches, that umpire would simply pretend he was in a game with professional players.

I repeat an earlier statement:

Can anyone give me <b>one good reason</b> why he should not explain the catcher's interference option to an amateur coach?

The "option" is not a secret, but my mailman (who coaches my grandson's team) might not know about it.

We're not professional umpires. Harry and Jim notwithstanding, we're no longer their students after we fail to get a contract. We must modify our behavior to suit the conditions of our games.

(a) You send the runner back and the batter to first.

(b) The offensive coach comes out and talks.

(c) He leaves.

(d) You bring the runner back to the plate and remove the batter from first.

Can you imagine the furor on the field? In the stands?

One note rings true: I am happy to read that those who want to adopt the professional practice admit they haven't had to enforce the rule where an option was available. I hope they modify their opinions before they ever have to do it.

Lah, me (as I am wont to say).

As others have, let's be sure we accept that OBR does not equate with advanced level or player age. Meaning plenty of 13-15 year old games are played essentially under OBR, with safety modifications of course, slide or avoid, et al.

Point is that plenty of coaches are the equivalent of baby sitters, and I don't blame them or think poorly of them (yet) simply because they don't understand one of the most confusing documents in human history.. The Official Rules Of Baseball.

Heck, perhaps in this game you have the 3rd Assistant as Coach because Mngr, and 1st and 2nd Coach are off hunting. When the play happens.. TELL HIM HIS OPTIONS. Other that pompacity (did I make that up?) there is no good reason not to. [/B][/QUOTE]


In our area, ALL leagues above LL play OBR with various modifications (DH for any player is common, force-play slide rule, collision rule, re-entry rule, etc.) We have an agreement on our board: Unless there is a modification that takes precedence over OBR, we will use OBR and current interpretations of OBR. That means using NAPBL and/or J/R, when needed, as authoritative. (We would use JEA, but we haven't been able to get a copy. Anyone know how we can?) Now if we added to our modifications that the umpire should alert the offensive coach of an option after catcher's interference and if coaches (and umpires) were aware of the change, then we would do it. But we don't believe it is our job to change OBR interpretations depending on the level of play.

Recently, I was able to convince our board that the OBR interpretation of overrunning first base did not protect BR running past first on a walk. Now it doesn't really make much difference whether the runner can be put out or not. What matters is that there is an interpretation in OBR and we have (as a board) agreed to use OBR interpretations.

It seems to me that modifying current OBR interpretations, without prior notification to the participants, is a path to chaos.

Alan G asked, "We would use JEA, but we haven't been able to get a copy. Anyone know how we can?"

There's only one way at the moment. Attend Jim's Academy. Otherwise you've got to wait until it comes out on CD-ROM and is released to the public. That was supposed to happen last year. Now, no one knows if it will happen at all.

Ray Leuty, who is Executive Director of the Academy, tells me Jim is "very involved in the former Major League Baseball
Umpires Union on-going arbitration case."

My guess is that the labor dispute might have ruined it for all of us.

In a post above, Carl Childress tells us that enforcing the penalty for interference and then changing the penalty when the coach chooses the play could create havoc on the field and in the stands.

I think that could easily be prevented. If the coach of the offense chooses the play, then the umpire should go to the defensive coach and tell him what has happened, explaining the rule, if necessary. If the defensive coach is satisfied, there is unlikely to be any reaction from his players or his fans. If the defensive coach disagrees, he could be reminded that he has the option of protesting the game.

Jim Mills..Touche' You are of course correct. Take the 2 on and zero outs
 

I was wrong, and since I have over 11 years umping but less than 2 coaching, I should have known better than to make a coaches' challenge.

As blue, I still stand by advising the coach(es) of their options, PARTICULARLY in LL or Jr level ball.

--Mario Fiermonte

Re: Not completely odd
 

Whew! I was beginning to think I really WAS on another planet altogether! (grin)

I agree with you, too, Jim, FWIW. I'd prefer that the guys running each team sorted it out for themselves, without my intervention. For me, again using the rider concerning the level of play that I regularly call, there is MUCH more to a great baseball game than hit the ball, catch the ball, throw the ball.

One of the BEST games I've witnessed was a District League 1st Div Final that included one fundamental error by one of the head coaches (manager in your pro leagues, head coach in ours) which changed the whole complexion of the game. It came down to using up a visit to talk to his pitcher when that visit was clearly going to be more valuable to his team later in the inning. He wasted it. When he really needed the visit 2 hits later, he didn't have one! (His pitcher was a great batter too, and because he had no visits left the coach was forced to remove him from the game rather than being able to simply move him to another defensive position).

My umpire mate and I watched in disbelief at the time, and we both wanted to scream out to this guy "Don't do it! You'll tip the balance", but we couldn't. It wasn't our place. That simple mistake by the coach cost his team 5 runs in one inning, and broke open the game when they had it by the short and curlies! They lost. End of story. All because of one visit taken inappropriately.

With great games turning on such minor issues, is it any wonder I don't want to see the umpire become a factor? Having said that, I repeat that I CAN see the sense in general amateur play, but I'd need to be convinced that there was no tipping of the balance first. If both coaches are ignorant of the rule, explaining it to both of them shouldn't be a problem. The balance is maintained. At the levels I officiate, though, that's seldom the case.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Removing a Pitcher
 

Did I learn something new here?
Am I the only one this sounded strange to?
Warren, Is it the case that after the second visit the pitcher must leave the game?
Not just be removed from the pitching position?

Re: Good question, I like heading off trouble before it starts...
 

Warren, you are dead on. The skipper must know the rules and have constant attention on the game. I had the dish yesterday, top division over 30 game, winner takes top seed for playoffs. No out, no on. Br clips F2's glove, but wacks a shot to rf gap, ball could drop in or get by F8/9. I signal DDB. BR is screaming "interference" as he trots down to first, looking back at me. Ball was caught, I called time and awarded 1st. Stupid chirping from offense, "you called it too late"???
I believe the problem is that a lot of folks do not understand delayed dead ball situations. Look at the balk in OBR, same game as above. LH F1, R1 , r1 breaks too early, pitcher has his bottom end fried. Just step and throw to either base, no, this guy comes set. Then some kinda dance step that my partner calls a balk on before F1 steps off and throws the ball into CF, r1 is now at 3rd.
When working instructional type games, I will help. Those youth coaches tend to "move up" along with thier kids, gotta teach em while they are young. Break the bad habits before they start .......chris

Chris.

Since there is no mention of a "Delayed Dead Ball" in OBR, but we know that there a few instances that act like one (balk, catcher's interference, umpire interference, batter's interference, type B obstruction) I think it is important for us to do what we can to indicate to the coaches, players and crowd that we did see the event. This will minimize the complaints that we are "making a late call."

I see that you used (FED?) signal for DDB. Many "OBR only" coaches don't have a clue as to what that signal is and may miss it. I would suggest that you also point to the incident, or remnant of it, as you signal DDB. (Catcher, catcher's box if catcher has moved down the line, whatever)

Some instructors also teach making a verbal, however many feel that you risk confusing the players by saying "dead ball", even with the qualifier "dead".

GarthB

Re: Removing a Pitcher
 

NAPBL 6.9: "A second trip to the mound to the same pitcher in the same inning by a manager or coach will cause that pitcher's removal <b>from the game</b>."

Most youth leagues allow the pitcher to remain as a player at another position.

<b>Never</b> call an OBR game without covering this at the pregame conference until you know every coach you call for is familiar with the rules of <b>your</b> league.

Re: Re: Removing a Pitcher
 

Casselli,

Carl's citation and advice are 100% correct, as usual. One interesting point that Carl could not possibly have known:

OBR 8.06(b) is one of only two (2) cases where the <i>Official Australian Baseball Rules</i> (OABR) differ from OBR in any significant way, other than revisions for political correctness. The writers of the OABR thought the point important enough to include it in the actual rule instead of relying on interpreters having the NAPBL for support. As a consequence OABR 8.06(b) reads:

<i>"A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher's automatic removal <u>from the game</u>."</i> {my underline - italicised in original text}

Just a piece of trivia for you. BTW, the <i>other</i> instance of OABR departure from straight OBR is the inclusion of an explanatory note following OBR 7.09(a) which says:

<i>"PLAY: Check swing and the catcher throws to second and hits the bat. This is a judgement decision. The hitter cannot be called out for an infraction if doing what a batter is supposed to do. It is only when the batter does something other than normal play that you read interference into it. The offensive team has to vacate whatever space is needed if they possibly can. A batter cannot just disappear and must have an opportunity to get out of the way."</i>

I can't find any reference to this particular play in NAPBL, JEA or J/R so I can only assume that our ABF UDP, who prepared the rule book for Baseball Australia to publish, decided to draft and add the play on their own. Interesting, don't you think?

BTW, thanks for responding early to Caselli on my behalf Carl.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Re: Re: Good question, I like heading off trouble before it starts...
 

Chris,

I take your point and I'd like to expand on Garth's advice. We don't have Fed. down here, so there is <i>no</i> DDB signal to use anyway. Our guys are taught instead to point at the site of the infraction, as Garth suggested, but they are also taught to use a variation of the spectator interference signal. This involves holding the left arm up above the head (for visibility) and making a chopping motion with the right hand on the back of the left wrist.

The signal immediately follows the point. Everyone can see it and the chopping action is a fair approximation of what the bat did to the catcher's glove so most people can work out what it means. Even if your batter turns around he's going to see you signalling something that looks like what actually happened and continue with the play.

Some guys also use the "That's Interference!" verbal call, but I find too many players will stop dead in their tracks when they hear that, even if you haven't called "Time". I prefer instead to be Marcelle Marseau on this play, and go with mime only. (grin) Nevertheless, you are correct when you suggest that delayed dead ball situations are always going to incite comments from an uneducated audience.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Misconceptions
 

I do not speak for Jim Evans or for anyone but myself.....I learned that principle at JEAPU............

There are several misconceptions running free in this thread, I think.

The first is:
"But there are some things that an amateur umpire needs to remember about those schools to keep it all in perspective. The jobs of those schools are to prepare a student for the professional world of umpiring. Their focus is on getting as many of their students as they can professional assignments. It certainly isn't a bad thing. I would be disappointed to learn that they were teaching their students anything but the best professional-level policies."

The misconception is that the schools are only for the umpire interested in a pro education. At JEAPU, however, two one week clinics are held just for amateurs. Repeatedly
the phrase is uttered...........when you get back to your local association, find out what is the local policy. JEAPU does not teach with an 'X marks the spot' philosophy. He teaches the basics!

The second is:
We're not professional umpires. Harry and Jim notwithstanding, we're no longer their students after we fail to get a contract. We must modify our behavior to suit the conditions of our games.

The misconception is that we are often treated as though we are not profesional. I would suggest that a professional is anyone who get $ for his services, who constantly seeks to improve himself, and who deal with game situations in a competent [professional, nicht vahr?] manner. While I am not a JEAPU clone, I am a professional. Papa C is also a professional, and I study his teaching/publications, but neither do I wish to be his clone.

The third is:
We would use JEA, but we haven't been able to get a copy.

The misconception is that special "insider" information is taught at the schools. And that information is good for application in ALL situations nation wide.

There is nothing secret about the Customs and Usage for applying 6.08c:

The umpire should signal interference by pointing to the infraction and verbally recognizing "Interference." The ball remains alive and in play until all play ceases. At that time, the proper award is made.

Should all runners, including the batter-runner, advance at least one base, the interference is ignored.

In the event that the ball is batted and a play follows in which all offensive players do not advance at least one base, the umpire shall invoke the penalty implicit in 6.08c. It is then the offensive manager's responsibility to inform the umpire that he opts to take the results of the play rather than the interference penalty.
End quote.

Re: Misconceptions
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roland Wiederaenders
[B]I do not speak for Jim Evans or for anyone but myself.....I learned that principle at JEAPU............

There are several misconceptions running free in this thread, I think.

I do not think there are misconceptions running free here. Everyone who has responded knows the rules. The point is Professional Baseball vs. Amateur Baseball.

Joe Torre gets paid a tremendous amount of money to coach the Yanks, therefore, it is expected that he know the rules.

First off in PRO ball, you can bet your bottom dollar that if R3's run were the winning run - the coach would be screaming SCORE THE RUN SCORE THE RUN!

Also, I find it real interesting that Baseball Umpires do not like to give options as they do in football. I just do not get it. We are not "tipping" the balance of power all we are doing is asking a coach what he wants to do.

I believe this thread is about "style" and not about misconception. Some do not have a problem with giving a coach an option while others have difficulty with this.
No-one is right or wrong here it's what works for you and how you are rated in a paticular area in which you work.

In my experience (from the coaches in my specific area where I work), the more information you give them the better.

Pete Booth

Carl, here is the one good reason, we are told by PONY NOT to.At tournament level of play, the umpires are NOT to give options unless asked. I am not sure if you are aware of the re-entry rules PONY allows, but we had a case last season where a coach had played all subs and re-entered starters, thus no available subs. Player gets hurt and coach comes up to us with line-up card in hand asking who can go in.The "player last removed from lineup" is the player who is legally allowed to enter back in. If coach screw up, it is up to the opposing coach to pick it up.Umpires are to call the game, not give assistance.
This policy was spelled out quite clearly before tournament action began by the PONY field directors, thus an OBR type setting, which is what PONY wants.
In a regular season game, I do not have a problem offering the option without it being asked, but tourneys or travel team action, coaches better know.......at least where I am at, that is the policy.........chris