I do not mean to keep "stealing thunder" from other Boards, but this topic got plenty of play, so to keep the discussions going here goes.


Unlike football, there are not many situations in a baseball game where a coach has an option. One of those situations concerns catchers interference (or obstruction if you are working FED games).

Sitch: r3 1 out.
B1 grounds to F6 but B1 was interfered with by F2. F6 throws to F3 to get B1 and r3 scores.

Ok playing action over and since all runners have not advanced at least 1 base, we have some work to do. Also, a coach now has some options coming his way.

As PU do you?

A. Enforce catchers interference by sending r3 back to third
and putting B1 at first. At this point do you keep quiet and wait for the coach to actually say Hey Blue I want the play to stand - score the run. Will you instruct the coach in any manner?

If one uses this approach, basically you have r3 scoring, then you put him back at third and then score the run again upon the coaches actions.

IMO, this seems cumbersome; score it, no don't score it ok score it.

or do you?

B. After playing action has ended, call over both coaches and explain to them the situation. We have catchers interference. Do you say to the offensive coach - Coach do you want the play or the interference?

This is meaningful. If the offensive team is tied or trailing by a run, chances are they will take the merits of the play, however, if they are trailing by more than a run chances are they want to preserve those precious outs and take the penalty.


In Summary concerning Catchers interference (obstruction), what's your style? For those veteran umpires who want to respond - what is taught at the schools? I have been taught both.

Thanks guys

Pete Booth

Personaly I use the second approach you stated. When it is over call both coaches over and tell them what we have and that this is one of those rare instances that the offended team has a choice.

Unfortunately, you usually have to teach the coaches the rule while you are doing it, but that I think comes with the territory when you decide to umpire.

Blanco7

Enforce Int, then inform, 1 coach
 

----------------

On this play.. I have decided to (when appropriate). Call Time, and enforce the INT. Put runners where they should be.. then inform OFF coach of his option. I question involving BOTH coaches... DEF coach has nothing to do with it. Of course, in Kid baseball, when coach decides to have R3 score, DEF coach will bellow... such is life.

6.08c
 

My friend,

6.08c is what is taught at the "schools"

I look forward to seeing you there......go to
http://www.umpireacademy.com for more information on
education which will offer you a way to make
great calls the rest of your umpiring life !

Pete,

I would call the catcher's obstruction verbably and(this is a Fed mechanic, but it comes out in OBR games) then give a delayed dead ball signal. After the play concludes, I call time and move to the area between home and the mound, and inform the offensive coach (usually in the 3rd base coach's box) of the obstruction and ask if he wants the play or penalty. This is done with enough volume so that the defensive coach will hear. Usually he has come out of his dugout at the call of time and is listening, and the fans tend to go quite so that they can hear also.

This way the decision is made without placing runners, and then after being approached and questioned by a coach, giving the appearance that he has caused you to change your original call. (This is what all the fans and some of the players, will think if you return runners, and then after talking with the coach move them back up)

If offensive coach questions the placement of the runners on the penalty I inform him. If defense asks for an explanation I give it. This has worked well for me, and causes the least disruption to the flow of the game.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

I have been taught and told to give the offensive team the best advantage when it is defensive interference. Then let the coach decide (without saying anything, because that is his job) if he wants to or not.

For this particular play, I would call Batter out and score R3. Let the coach then decide if he would rather have R1 and R3.

Pete:

Naturally, this has been debated "furiously" on the URC. Briefly:

R3 not moving on the pitch. Catcher interferes, but B1 rolls to the second baseman and is thrown out.

Professional position:

The J/R and JEA both say the umpire should enforce the interference when it occurs -- period. Send B1 to first, send R3 back to third. And then wait. (A poster overshot himself by saying that the NAPBL <b>also</b> supports the "no option until asked" position.)

One amateur position:

When the coach has an option, explain it to him.

My position:

Call <b>both</b> coaches out and explain what you are doing: "Coach, your catcher interfered, so your opponent gets to choose: Play (1 in, 1 out) or penalty (runners on the corner)."

Several people pooh-poohed that, particularly some college umpires. I was happy when both Jon Bible and Ken Allen agreed with me, pointing out that in unusual plays, both coaches should <b>always</b> be apprised of what was going on.

My point: If you try the professional approach in an amateur game, when you send R3 back to third and the offensive coach comes calling to ask for the play option, you will have a lot of explaining to do when you bring R3 back to the plate.

Beat him to the punch. After all, a baseball game isn't run by the CIA.

Finally: No one has ever advanced any REASON not to explain the coach's options.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Nov 3rd, 2000 at 03:07 AM]

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

6.08(c) ....the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the interference penalty and accept the play. ....If catcher's interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play.

Seems pretty simple Pete. Nothing says we can't use our better judgement and bring both coaches together to avoid embarrasment. I'm with Carl on this about bringing the coaches together and explaining things.

--Mario

Odd man out again!
 

*Sigh* It looks like I'm gonna play the harda$$ed Aussie again (grin).

At the levels I call (District League A-AA standard; State League AA standard) we really have to go with the Pro approach and enforce the interference (R3 back to 3rd, BR awarded 1st) and WAIT. The alternative is unacceptable. The "option" here is for the <u>Coach to decline</u> the penalty NOT the <u>umpire to offer</u> him an option. In these particular leagues (and I stress I am NOT speaking for all leagues or all levels), if we were to approach the offensive coach and offer the option two things might happen:

1. The defensive coach would 'spit the dummy', suggesting we were interferring in the course of the game to his detriment by offering an option to the offensive coach, and/or

2. The offensive coach would 'spit the dummy' suggesting we should mind our own business and shouldn't try to teach someone how to "suck eggs", only with much less carefully chosen language.

But that's in OUR leagues and at OUR particular level of play. I can easily accept what Carl and others have offered for general amateur play. The only question I have is why you would <i>actively</i> offer the coach his options here [OBR 6.08(c)] and not do the same for batting out of turn [OBR 6.07(a)], or ball tampering [OBR 8.02(a)Penalty(c)]? These plays also have either an actual or an implied option for one or other coach, don't they? (grin) And before anyone starts spouting OBR 6.07(d)Comment at me, I already KNOW that the umpire can't draw anyone's attention to an improper batter. What I'm suggesting comes AFTER the defensive coach say's he's noticed a batting out of turn but hasn't specifically used the word APPEAL yet.

MY answer to this question, BTW, is that it isn't my job as the umpire to coach the coach or otherwise inject myself into the game action. Our rule book costs $AUD12.95 (about $US7.00) to buy and every one of these "options" is properly and adequately explained in there. If a coach takes on a District League or State League 1st Division side (sorry, Carl, 'team') without even reading the rules of the game, he deserves what he does or doesn't get. And that's not just my opinion but as far as I can tell it is also that of his competing fellow coaches too! Mind you, most of them gave up reading the rules 20 years ago, believing they have them all down pat, but they won't admit to that in public. If a coach says "I know I have an option here, Blue. What is it?" I'll tell him. Otherwise he's on his own.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Warren,

Maybe all that sun south of the equator is making your "sides" coaches to confrontational. (g)

I'm probably not calling at the levels you describe. I haven't made this call in a MSBL game, but have never had a problem with my method up to the varsity high school level play.

I can never recall making a 8.02 call in which the option applied, but I would probably treat it in a like manner, offering the coach the chance to elect before I place any runners.

I have had to make a similar call on an illegal pitch in fastpitch softball on multiple occasions, and always ask the offensive coach immediately after the play "do you want the play or the penalty?" I've never had any problems from the defense.(again up to varsity high school level)

BOO is a different animinal, it seems to me.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

One more....
 

In football, certain penalties can be declined by a team who will benefit from the declination...right?

I wonder if this is because, early on in the game's development, ref's recognized that removing the option to decline a penalty against the opposition might result in a painful death for them(the refs).

Can you imagine the conversation "Hi coach....oh, you did NOT want to take the 5 yard off-sides penalty and take the the down over? You wanted the touchdown to count instead???, Oh gee!..No...PLEASE DON"T HURT ME!!!"
(Can you tell I've never officiated football?)


I really hate explaining things to a coach who should know better. For the most part, I agree with Warren's thinking, and as a rule, I don't do it. However this situation really is different. I challenge anyone to explain what possible scenario a coach would elect to keep his player on first, and disallow the run in the situation described.

Maybe Warren's take on this has something to do with how water drains counter clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
;-)

--Mario Fiermonte

I would not offer the coach the option in a league playing OBR. So now there are three of us.

But I am prepared to inform the coach of the option if he gives me ANY reason to believe he questions the penalty.

In the example that began this, I'm sending the runner back to third with BR to first. If the coach comes out and says anything that questions why the run doesn't score, I would let him know that he has an option. Even if he begins by saying, "Are you sure that's the rule?" and even though I am sure, I would then explain the option. (I have plenty of brother umpires who would reply, "Yes, I'm sure," and leave it at that. It seems to me that would be taking the view that "the coach has to know the rules" a little too far.)

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.

Vote me with Alan G. I would NOT offer the option until (or unless) it was brought to MY attention by the offensive coach.

When I went to Wendelstedt's school (1985), we were instructed specifically to enforce the interference and NOT MENTION the option - that had to be initiated by the offensive coach. Of course, that was years ago...

cmcallm,

Pro schools are a terrific opportunity for umpires, there's no doubt about that. Jim Evans' Academy and Harry and Hunter's school are the best money can buy. The rewards from such high level learning will last an umpire a lifetime.

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.

But in the amateur world, some of what Jim, Harry, and Hunter instruct simply does not apply. Most does apply, but some things don't. I think this option business is one example of where professional policies don't apply in the amateur world.

For an amateur umpire to gain a well-rounded education in officiating baseball, it is important not only to attend a pro school, but also to attend a camp run by the top amateur instructors in the land. That will give a student the tools he needs to realize how different the game of baseball is at the amateur level.

So I don't doubt the accuracy of the information that you learned from Harry's school back in '85. But they were readying you for a career in professional baseball, and not preparing you to deal with coaches whose knowledge of the rules of the game is novice at best.

My vote goes to bringing the coaches together and explaining to them what's going on.

P.S. Thank you for posting your name. It was not necessary. Your web page provided enough proof, at least to me, that you were indeed a real person. Ranger was playing games with us. He was not genuine. Everyone should check out http://www.4umpires.com/ and offer cmcallm suggestions on making his page even better.

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

Re: Misconceptions
 

Roland, there's no misconception here. No one said that you <b>shouldn't</b> attend Jim's Academy, or Harry and Hunter's school. In fact, you should.

What I said was that, if you are an amateur umpire, your schooling should not end there. That's true for any clinic or camp taught by Pro instructors. Pro instructors are not in touch with the amateur game. That's not their fault - it's to their credit. They're Pro umpires - of course they can't teach you how to properly handle a Little League coach, or teach you the philosophies of mandatory play or maximum participation, which are issues for Little League umpires. They won't be talking about the 60' diamond.

But that's beside the point because I was talking about the Academy, and not about a one-week camp. The Academy <b>is</b> there to prepare umpires for Pro assignments. So is Harry and Hunter's school. That's their job. Ask them, they'll tell you. They told me.

Roland, c'mon now buddy. Pro umpires work Pro baseball. Amateur umpires work amateur baseball. It's been this way for generations.

Let's not play games with words. Unless you're working professional games you are an amateur umpire. It's that simple. Don't be put off by who you are. No one says you won't act professionally if you're an amateur umpire.

Ummm, Roland, Jim Evans' Baseball Rules Annotated is the most exhaustive reference for the rules of baseball. No other manual or book goes into the details of history, customs and usage, pro interpretations, or traditions as in-depth as JEA. That's a fact. So, until this book is available to the general public, I'm afraid it <b>is</b> a book that can only be obtained by attending Jim's Academy. Do you know of another way to obtain this book? If you don't then it is only for Jim's students.

I agree. There's nothing secret about the Pro interpretation of the customs and usage of this rule. It's been brought up many times in this thread. If you're a professional umpire working in a professional game, by all means interpret this rules as the Pros do. A Pro coach is paid to know these sorts of things.

But in the amateur world there is no convincing argument why we shouldn't bring the coaches together and explain to them what's going on. Carl Childress agrees and Jon Bible agrees. It is just plain wrong for an amateur umpire to act like a pro umpire and treat everyone on the field as if they're pros too. That, to me, is just plain silly, and a bit arrogant on the umpire's part. <B>You're not a pro! It's not a pro game. The coach ain't a pro coach. The fans aren't pro fans. It is a different animal.</B>

Re: Re: Misconceptions
 

Pete,

I agree with most of what you said here about "style" except that I would say that it is really "style" <a><i>as applied to the level of play</b></i> that dictates the difference.

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 <u>manager may elect</u> to take the play". It does NOT say "the <u>umpire shall offer</u> 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 <b><i>manager's responsibility</i></b> to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" <u>unsolicited</u>, then he has effectively relieved that manager of this responsibility.

There is absolutely no doubt that when it comes to OBR there are a number of rules that expect, even <i>require</i>, vigilance on the part of the aggrieved party in order to draw any benefit; Batting out of Turn [OBR 6.07], Ball Tampering [OBR 8.02(a)Penalty] AND Catcher's Interference [OBR 6.08(c)] are the three most familiar rules in this category, but there are a number of others including some you would use <i>every</i> game!

Now in general amateur play, where it is clear that NEITHER manager knows that such options exist, let alone what they are, I agree that advising BOTH managers when the need arises still maintains the game balance. What a number of us have said is that in higher level play, where the manager or coach could reasonably be expected to already KNOW these options, offering the option to a particular manager or coach <u>unsolicited</u> could conceivably "tip the balance" in a tight game.

Maybe this manager or coach had <i>forgotten</i> he had an option on the play. Maybe he <i>wasn't paying attention</i> to the game action. Either way, the umpire who gives this manager or coach his options <u>unsolicited</u> has just alerted him to the situation AND effectively prevented the defense from profiting from his <i>poor memory</i> or <i>inattention</i> to the game. At these upper levels, that can be the difference between winning and losing a close game. That was the point. I hope I haven't belaboured it too much.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions
 

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 <u>manager may elect</u> to take the play". It does NOT say "the <u>umpire shall offer</u> 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 <b><i>manager's responsibility</i></b> to know what his options are AND exercise them OR NOT as he chooses. If the umpire advises such a manager of his "options" <u>unsolicited</u>, 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

Re: Re: Re: Misconceptions
 

Warren:

Oop! I think you guys are focusing on the wrong word in the rule. The operative word is "<b>elect</b>." An "election" implies at least TWO possibilities. In this case it's "play" or "penalty." I don't believe the manager is required to vote until he has been informed who the candidates are.

I am researching the issue, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts this mechanics "suggestion" by Evans is a recent change, made simply to get the major league umpires away from the manager and the dugout.

You can argue all you want about the manager's responsibility. But where the rules makers want him or his representative to take full responsibility, they say so:

Check out --
3.06: The manager <b>shall</b>....
3.10: The manager <b>shall</b>....
6.07 CMT 1: The umpire shall not....
8.02(c): The manager of the offense <b>may advise</b>....

In 8.02(c), if you are right, why didn't the language read: "The manager of the offense may elect the..."?

Sorry: There's just not enough "language" in the book to decide what the proper course is. Further, it's not a RULE; it's a mechanics suggestion. Look it: If any major league umpire called catcher's interference, you and I both know he would immediately be surrounded by both managers, and the blue <b>would explain</b> what could happen.

Q.E.D.