Absolutely. Of course. But since sj was unclear of the details, several of us rushed to judgment in thinking F3 had the ball when play resumed. I guess I'll have to read an article on the game to find out what happened.

What you were observing was the LL tournament version of resolving a formal protest. The protesting manager basically has an expedited escalation process all the way through (1) the umpires on the field, (2) the tournament director, (3) the regional director, and (4) the Tournament Committee in Williamsport. As long as the protesting manager refuses to accept the decision of a lower level, he has the 100% right to escalate to the next level.

During the early part of the tournament, it can result in lots and lots of calls going to Williamsport, and sometimes delays of an hour or more before a final resolution.

This is not a hidden ball trick after a 25 minute dead ball delay. This is a hidden ball trick after a ball made live and a throwover, which if this happened was not well explained.

No need for pitch if this is what happened.

It IS impossible to have a hidden ball trick immediately after a dead ball. A hidden ball trick after a legal throwover is not immediately after a dead ball.

Well up until now everyone was talking about a hidden ball play before a pitch was thrown, not immediately after a dead ball.

If you read the original post, it clearly says "before a pitch is thrown."

Reading is fundamental.

Ok. I found out how it happened. Venezuala lost the appeal after hearing from the home office. The whole thing caused about a thirty minute delay in the game. It was planned in the dugout during the delay the coaches thinking that they might be asleep when the game started again. When play resumed Venuzuela had a runner on first. The pitcher had the ball and the ump said to play. The pitcher put his foot on the rubber and then ended up throwing to first to keep the runner close. The first baseman walked toward the pitcher with the ball and the pitcher walked toward the first baseman. He pretended to hand him the ball but obviously the first baseman kept it and went back to first. The runner and the first base coach were asleep and when the runner led off he got him. So no pitch was thrown.

The way the original post was worded, the ball was put in play (illegally) with F3 holding the ball. No one said there had to be a pitch. If all elements are present, and the PU says, "Play ball", the ball becomes live. If F1 is on the mound when he ties his shoe, "BALK".

Bob

Here is the original post: "When they resumed Venuzuela had a runner on first. Tulsa pulled a hidden ball trick and tagged the runner out at first before any pitches were thrown."

So by reading that you decided that the pitcher did not have the ball when the umpire said play...that is a pretty big assumption.

SJ said "Tulsa pulled a hidden ball trick and tagged the runner out at first before any pitches were thrown." You replied " In two words, IM POSSIBLE"

So if you say that it is "IM POSSIBLE" before any pitches were thrown, then that is the same as saying that has to be a pitch.

This wasn't an NCAA game. Get the rules straight.

Yes, unless he's tying his shoes on or astride the rubber, he's okay in OBR and JR/SR league.

SJ, in original post said play was stopped to discuss the subject. I assume time was called. Shortly after that SJ said after a 25 minute delay a ruling was made. I assume time was still in effect. So before a pitch was thrown the ball was dead.

Reading is fundamental. Try to read more than one post to get more information.

Play was stopped to discuss a substitution issue.

Then, "When they resumed Venuzuela had a runner on first. Tulsa pulled a hidden ball trick and tagged the runner out at first before any pitches were thrown."

Nothing said about the ball being dead for the hidden ball, is there?

And you'll notice, sj has followed up with another post. I was right.

Here was the problem and why the rule books were out. The Venezuelan manager had a Spanish rule book. The rule book (English) came out so that the tournament director could read the rule. Unhappy that the tournament directors ruling (the pitcher can return to the mound after being pinch hit for) he requested a phone call be placed to Williamsport and it was. Williamsport said the same thing as the tournament director only in Spanish.

It seems that in the regional tournament Venezuela lost a game 2-0 after they pinch hit for the pitcher and was told he could not return to the mound.

If I was in the same situation I’d most likely do the same.

There was a throw over prior to the hidden ball trick. The first basemen walked over to the pitcher as if to say a word or two to the pitcher the first basemen simply placed his glove inside the pitchers and walked back to first base. The pitcher never stepped on the dirt of the mound. The runner was tagged by the first basemen that still had the ball.

The umpires and tournament director did everything correctly in both situations.

There's a way around this, and I have used it.

Mgr. "We want to protest."

Me, "Please specify."

[Substiute your own here]: "That's an illegal pitch."

"No it isn't. This is a judgment call, ergo, no protest will be heard. Play on, MacDuff."

"But the rule book says ..."

"No protest shall be considered on a decision involving an umpire's judgment."

"I'm not happy with that."

"And I'm not happy that this taking so long. Find a seat and resume coahing."

Since the protest is not considered in the first place, there's no need to go through the LL food chain and hold up the game. We have used this standard in our area, and it has cut protests by about 80%.

IMHO, too many LL umps (and admins) panic when they hear the p-word and get on the phone right away.

It gets silly. In a state game (which I did not work or witness), a protest went to Bristol. It was over a--don't gag now--batter who swung and missed at a pitch that hit him. PU didn't know what to do. Neither did his pards. Brain-addled site director had to get on the phone.

I have only (personally) seen two valid protests. One was over an illgeal pitcher (and was upheld). The other was over a misinterpretation of a rule (by me; I kicked it). I lucked out. Back in those days, there was not "protest must be heard before game continues" rule. The protesting team won the game, so there was no need to progress further.

Ace

It may be effective in cutting down on frivolous protests, but it is not within the umpires' domain to make that call. You cannot be the judge when the rule is set up for you to be the defendant, regardless of your innocence.

Whether or not the issue being protested is a judgment or a rule interpretation is, itself, sometimes open to debate, and therefore the consistent instruction, from Little League all the way through professional baseball, is to accept the protest and follow the protest rules, even if you, the umpire, think it is a frivolous or "illegal" protest.

I don't totally agree with that - it has to be a protestable situation. If it's a judgement call, it is NOT a protestable situation - period. Illegal pitcher, not meeting MPR are protestable situations . . .