Charged Conferences-FED

[SAump]

Originally Posted by David B

that's another tough one not specifically covered, but as they say "I know a conference when I see one"

It really all comes down to my judgement (and that goes for offensive or defensive)

We have guidelines which help, but ...

thanks
David

You'll know a conference when you see one. You'll be reaching for your paperwork to record it. If you record it on the lineup card, then its a conference.

[DG]

Having my own opinion after reading the first post, and after reviewing all the posts thereafter I still have the opinion that a defensive conference, or offensive for that matter, has occured when coach actually confers. Calling time and changing mind is a brain fart, not a conference.

Thinking back I can never recall this happening, but I can count many occassions where coaches have conferences at the foul line and somehow thinks the foul line makes them immune to counting a conference.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

Steve,

Are you going to apply the same logic for an offensive conference? If the batter requests time, leaves the batter's box and changes his mind, would that constitute a charged offensive conference?

1) Yes

2) No

[mbyron]

If the point is that, by rule, a coach, who changes his mind after interrupting the game and coming out on the field, is not to be charged with a conference, then I disagree. An earlier post suggested that this is an official interpretation, but nothing so far in this thread substantiates this point.

The point of limiting defensive conferences is to limit interruptions to the game. If he's asked me to stop the game, then I'm within the letter and spirit of the rule to charge him with a conference, no matter how many words he has with his defense.

On the other hand, if the point is that it's within my discretion to choose not to charge a conference, given that the coach does not in fact confer with his players, then I'd agree with that.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If the point is that, by rule, a coach, who changes his mind after interrupting the game and coming out on the field, is not to be charged with a conference, then I disagree. An earlier post suggested that this is an official interpretation, but nothing so far in this thread substantiates this point.

The point of limiting defensive conferences is to limit interruptions to the game. If he's asked me to stop the game, then I'm within the letter and spirit of the rule to charge him with a conference, no matter how many words he has with his defense.

On the other hand, if the point is that it's within my discretion to choose not to charge a conference, given that the coach does not in fact confer with his players, then I'd agree with that.

It's a judgment call and is based on fairness, like all rulings are supposed to be. If one operates with that brand of rigidity, things get unneccessarily contentious.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If the point is that, by rule, a coach, who changes his mind after interrupting the game and coming out on the field, is not to be charged with a conference, then I disagree. An earlier post suggested that this is an official interpretation, but nothing so far in this thread substantiates this point.

The point of limiting defensive conferences is to limit interruptions to the game. If he's asked me to stop the game, then I'm within the letter and spirit of the rule to charge him with a conference, no matter how many words he has with his defense.

On the other hand, if the point is that it's within my discretion to choose not to charge a conference, given that the coach does not in fact confer with his players, then I'd agree with that.

If a coach is walking out of his dugout and says, "Time, Blue" and you say "Time" and he walks 20 feet, and still has not entered fair territory, then says, "never mind, Blue," a whole maybe 5 to 10 seconds has expired. Wow, he's really interrupting the game! What, you gotta hot date? It is so NOT within the letter or spirit of the rule to charge a "conference" for this. Do you charge a conference when a runner asks for time to tie his shoe, too?

Truthfully, I can't remember a coach asking for time to talk to his pitcher and then changing his mind. But if the situation came up, and the coach immediately changed his mind about going out to the mound, I would never dream of being labeled as the dork who charged the guy a conference when no conference took place.

Look, the real point is this: The rule states clearly that a charged conference is "a meeting which involves the coach or his non-playing representative and a player or players of the team." If this criteria is not met, it is not a charged conference, and how dare anyone call it one. It is not discretionary or subject to the umpire's whim. Notice it doesn't say, "requests time to meet with players," or something similar.

That is the real "letter" of the rule. The "spirit" of it says to follow that rule.

[aschramm]

I've only had this happen once, maybe twice to me. Granted I've only been doing this one year though. It happened during a U12 tournament game where a coach was about to head out to his defensive infielders, asked for time and was about to walk onto the field. He saw that his players were in position that he wanted, and basically said 'nevermind, we're good'. I didn't charge a conference, since like SDS said it wasn't an interruption to the game. Maybe 5-10 seconds at most.

Now to take this thread in another direction. I was reading through the casebook last night and it says that (not exact wording, doing my best to paraphrase) "If defensive coach A is attending to an injured player in the field, another coach from A can go out and have a conference with his fielders or pitcher, and there is no charged conference since it is taking place at the same time as the injury conference. However if the second coach is taking too long to leave the field, or if it is obvious that the injury was faked, a conference can be charged". I am not really sure why you shouldn't charge a conference to the second coach, since it is a meeting between coach and player.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by aschramm

I am not really sure why you shouldn't charge a conference to the second coach, since it is a meeting between coach and player.

Because it doesn't delay the game. Think of the rule as the equivalent of the time-out rule in basketball or football.

[aschramm]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because it doesn't delay the game. Think of the rule as the equivalent of the time-out rule in basketball or football.

I understand the equivalent of basketball or football. And now that I'm thinking of it, it makes more sense. In football with an injury timeout, the players can still go to their sideline as long as all the coaches stay on the out-of-bounds side of the sideline. OK, nevermind...I get it

Edit: And from a time perspective, it makes more sense for a single coach to go out, rather than 8 fielders come toward the dugout.

[Emperor Ump]

In aschramm's new situation wouldn't this be the same as a coach using an injury to discuss strategy with his players? As umpires we're supposed to monitor the situation to make sure no instruction is given, if it is we are supposed to charge a conference. If we would charge a conference when we hear the coach giving instruction to his players during an injury (real or fake) wouldn't we charge a conference for an assistant coach discussing strategy?

Without having any books to reference at hand, I would probably charge a conference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ump

In aschramm's new situation wouldn't this be the same as a coach using an injury to discuss strategy with his players? As umpires we're supposed to monitor the situation to make sure no instruction is given, if it is we are supposed to charge a conference. If we would charge a conference when we hear the coach giving instruction to his players during an injury (real or fake) wouldn't we charge a conference for an assistant coach discussing strategy?

Without having any books to reference at hand, I would probably charge a conference.

There's a specific case play where this is NOT a conference.

[aschramm]

Originally Posted by Emperor Ump

In aschramm's new situation wouldn't this be the same as a coach using an injury to discuss strategy with his players? As umpires we're supposed to monitor the situation to make sure no instruction is given, if it is we are supposed to charge a conference. If we would charge a conference when we hear the coach giving instruction to his players during an injury (real or fake) wouldn't we charge a conference for an assistant coach discussing strategy?

Without having any books to reference at hand, I would probably charge a conference.

Bob is correct, there is a specific case play that says this is not a conference. However, it does go on to say that if the second coach takes more than a reasonable time to break the conference and head to the dugout, then you can charge them a defensive conference. It also says that if it is determined that the injury was faked, you can also charge a conference.

[Emperor Ump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's a specific case play where this is NOT a conference.

Originally Posted by aschramm

Bob is correct, there is a specific case play that says this is not a conference. However, it does go on to say that if the second coach takes more than a reasonable time to break the conference and head to the dugout, then you can charge them a defensive conference. It also says that if it is determined that the injury was faked, you can also charge a conference.

Good to know....

[yawetag]

This would be 3.4.1 SITUATION F (2008 edition). If anyone needs it quoted, I'll be happy to do so.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's a specific case play where this is NOT a conference.