Coach's Visit

[3appleshigh]

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.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

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

[3appleshigh]

fair enough

[Peruvian]

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.

[Rcichon]

I don't think I'd say anything.

[Dave Hensley]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

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.

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

Bob

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

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.

[3appleshigh]

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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

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

Bob

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

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.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

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.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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".

JM