Coach's Visit
 

Ok I'm of the belief that between innings a coach can talk to his pitcher as long as it doesn't delay the game and occurs within the time provided. I see this as the same as the coach holding the pitcher back in the duggout and talking to him. I had an opposition coach ask me if it was a visit, I said no and stated these reasons, he of course has been charged with one in the past for similar circumstances. What is correct?

I'll describe the play in question in case it matters. Coach walks out with the pitcher to the mound talks then leaves and pitcher warms up. no delay whatsoever. In fact more delay came from discussing the question than from the talk. Pls help. Thanks.

No time out has been requested. No time out has been granted. There is no delay, and the coach leaves the field on time. NOTHING has happened to charge a visit.

And don't waste time trying to explain.

Bob

fair enough

I had this happen last weekend in the Babe Ruth state tournament. The coach hung around for the first few warmup pitches but left after the 3rd pitch or so. The other coach complained, but when I told him he's not delaying the game and he would be allowed the same courtesy (as long as he did not delay the game,) he was fine with it.

I don't think I'd say anything.

I agree that this is no charged trip as long as he doesn't delay the progress of the between inning activity. If an opposing coach questions you with the line that he's been charged for doing that in the past, I would simply reply that since it's not specifically covered in the rules, it doesn't surprise you that different umpires might rule differently, but you're confident that your interpretation is correct.

The official interpretation is the same in OBR as the FED interp:

FED: (Edited) The coach may stand with his pitcher at the mound between half innings. If his presence creates a delay: PENALTY: The umpire "may" charge a conference. (3.4.1h and 6-2-2c Exception)

OBR Penalty: (Deary) If such a "conference" delays the game: Following the first delay, the umpire should warn the coach that on the next delay he will be charged with a trip to the mound. A team must be warned one per game before the penalty is invoked.

So, it seems to me that in FED, it isn't a mandatory trip for delay, but is optional, while in OBR, a warning has to be given first.

Ah, but it IS covered in the rules. See San Diego Steve's post.

Bob

No it's not. Dreary's statement is not in the rules. Most likely it was taken from the BRD.

well to be honest the only reason I even cared what the "previous ump" did was that this coach said My Mentor had done it, I'm not 100% sure I believe mr rat, but I will talk to my mentor about it.

Thanks for setting my mind at ease. Oh and I did give the not directly covered bit. Also later as we were joking after the game, i was done for the weekend, I said It matters on the coach and situation as well, I said it would certainly explain why he had it called against him. He laughed.

What Garth said.

It's in the FED casebook and an OBR interpretation, but that's not exactly "covered in the rules." Certainly not when you're explaining it to a coach. Most of them don't even know casebooks and interpretive manuals even exist, beyond the official rulebook.

But you still use the interp to rule on the play, don't you? I have no problem telling a coach that it is an official interpretation. They are usually quite impressed by that, and they buy it.:)

Most coaches (present company excluded, JM) don't even know whether or not a given situation is in the rulebook, and when confronted by an "Official Interpretation" are quite satisfied with the explanation.

Sure, I have no problem conveying interpretations to coaches when necessary, but my initial response in this thread was a suggestion as to how to respond to a coach who was complaining that the last umpire called it differently. My answer doesn't throw the last guy under the bus, it just acknowledges that since it's not explicitly covered in the rules, it's not surprising he would encounter different rulings from different umpires.

I don't have a problem with telling the coach that the last guy's interpretion is innaccurate, according to my understanding.

Steve,

I think it was about two years after I started reading the actual rules that I acquired a J/R. Prior to that I had accepted "on faith" the advice of a number of learned umpires NOT to ever bring a rulebook onto the field when I had an issue with an umpire's call. After reading the J/R (and, subsequently, other interpretations manuals) I understood WHY that was such good advice.

BTW, I can assure you from personal experience that there are many umpires who don't know that there are such things as "interpretations manuals".:rolleyes:

JM

...many of them apparently frequent this forum :D

Defense's coach comes out while offense is still running the bases? He gets a quick stop sign, perhaps even a verbal stop sign if he doesn't hear me. He walks through that, he won't get charged a conference, but he will get to watch the rest of the game through binoculars.

PWL, if the catcher THEN talks with the pitcher I have a visit. Absent that, I don't have a chargable conference.

Under FED Rules, this is a defensive charged conference even if the catcher does not talk F1. Remember that FED does not have a "trip to the mound" rule but rather a Defensive conference rule. If the manager requests and is granted time, and then goes to the outfield to talk to his center fielder, this is a defensive conference.

FED Rule 3-4-3: ...If the conference was in foul territory, the conference concludes when the coach or non-playing representative initially starts to return to the dugout/bench area.

True, in FED play, that is a conference. I must have missed the FED part of the discussion, I guess it was further up in the thread.

Interesting takes on the pitcher/coach conference between innings. I discussed this with an umpire supervisor earlier this season and was advised to warn a coach that he could be charged a conference if he did it again in the future as most would not even consider this a trip.

The basis was that 1) by having the discussion, it took away from the time the pitcher had to throw his 5 or 8 warm-up pitches - thus delaying the start of the inning unless you subsequently reduced the number of warm-up pitches. And 2) it also was to be considered a conference because the next half inning officially starts as soon as the last out is recorded in the previous half inning.

This becomes a real issue if you are playing games under a time limit.

Unless the pitcher was out running the basepaths, the coach could have given his advice in the dugout (I do allow the 3rd base coach to walk across the diamond and give a brief word of encouragement or whatever as he passes the pitcher though).

Sounds like many of you disagree -

I don't think which set of rules was ever specified, but I do know that PWL usually cites FED rules, so I figured it out by that.

Dammit ... you guys are making me defend PWL. I hate you.

PWL SPECIFICALLY stated in his very first post here, that the sitch he described was in a FED game.

Gawd. That's like finding out your Sunday-school teacher is a pimp.


;)

Quick, go read a few pages out of the JEA. It'll help get that taste out of your mouth.

Bringing the Rule Book onto the field
 

I know this is off the topic of this thread, but I couldn't resist.

During a 10 year old tournament game when the batter was hit by a pitch that bounced in front of him the PU did not award him first base, saying the ball was dead when it hit the ground. No amount of logic based replies worked. In trotting out the rule book, he wouldn't even give ground when cited with 6.08(b). He did, however, change his ruling when shown 2.00 definition of a "BALL", even though this didn't address the exact situation, but rather a pitch that strikes the ground and moves through the strike zone. He said he needed to see the book explicitly state that a ball that hits the ground and then the batter meant the batter got first base.

During the same game, several times his pitch call could be heard before the "ping" of the bat hitting the ball. Now, I understand it's neither wise nor helpful to pull out the rule book with an experienced umpire at an upper level game, but it was clearly necessary to avoid a protest in this situation. BTW, this guy - who was good natured about his mistake - claimed that he almost never did LL games, but rather mostly did Junior College. Go figure.

Thanks,

Dennis

You are right. I was too lazy to go back one page and find his original post.

I sincerely doubt the truth of this umpire ever working anything above Little League, if he doesn't know the rules, and has that bad of timing on pitches.

When he said the rules weren't explicit in awarding him first, you could have countered that if the rules didn't state that the ball was dead when it hit the ground first, how can he assume that the ball was dead before hitting the batter? His logic made no sense.

Like I said, appealing to him with logic was something he didn't find appealing. I agree his claim to work higher levels was doubtful. The tournament director later told me that the ump's initial ruling was in line with their local LL's regular season practice, and that since they now realize it's wrong, they'll change it for next year.

It's also doubtful that spending any (more) time on this could possibly be worthwhile. Sorry to bring it up in the first place.

Thanks.