Charged Conferences-FED
 

Situation is as follows. If a defensive coach requests time for a defensive conference, then starts to walk out to the mound or any fair territory, but before crossing the foul line decides he does not need this conference anymore, can this still be charged as a defensive conference? I am reading 3-4-1, and can't exactly find anything that states when a conference truly begins.

Thanks

Like you stated, I don't see anything that gives a clear ruling on when the conference started. Myself, I would use the foul line as my mark, unless he begins to speak to them from foul territory.

As long as the coach doesn't shout instructions to his players and does not cross the foul line, he can change his mind with no penalty.

The point is not covered in the FED rules or case book, but by official interpretation the umpire may charge a conference when the coach approaches the foul line and shouts instructions to the defense, trying to circumvent the charged conference rule.

The defensive coach requests time for a conference with his team. PU grants time, stops play. That's a CHARGED CONFERENCE. It's like requesting time in football or basketball. You can't 'unring the bell'.

Bob

Oh, so the official interpretation is wrong according to you. I'll make a note of that in my BRD.

My BRD (2008) has the second part of what you say: the umpire MAY charge a conference if he judges that the coach is conferring with his players, no matter where to coach is on the field (OFF INTERP, §148 Conferences).

The first part of what you say does not logically follow from the second part, nor do I see it in the BRD. Specifically, nothing permits the coach to "change his mind" after having asked for time. If you could point me to the relevant passage, I'd be interested to see it.

In the meantime, I'll enforce this as I was taught: if I call time at the D-coach's request for a conference, then he's charged with a conference whether or not he uses it.

This is what constitutes a conference by rule:

A charged conference is a meeting which involves the coach or his non-playing representative and a player or players of the team (2-10-1).

And, the wording of the interpretation in my outdated copy of the BRD (2005) leads me to believe that as long as the coach does not confer with his players, that he would not be charged with a conference if he changes his mind.

I sure wouldn't charge a conference without an actual conversation taking place. They only get 3 for a 7 inning game to start with, and I'm not going to rob the coach of one of these valuable commodities if he doesn't talk to anyone.

If the coach confers with a player in foul territory, it is a charged conference and the conference ends when the coach initially starts to return to the dugout (3-4-3). Following this logic, the conference cannot begin until he actually starts conferring with a player.

If the conversation took place in fair territory, the conference is concluded when the coach crosses the foul line (3-4-3). He can, before crossing the foul line, turn around and return to the mound without being charged with another conference. Following this logic, the conference cannot begin until the coach crosses the foul line.

If I have a coach request time and then changes his mind before actually making a trip, I am certainly not going to be a hard-a$$ jerk and charge a conference for no good reason, other than to be a prick. It most certainly is not a trip in OBR if the coach changes his mind, and I can't see any reason to be punitive in a FED game.

The bolded part above is pretty much the conclusion I've came to after thinking about it for a while. Not to get too off-topic, but is this a rule interpretation that could be protested by an opposing coach, for example if Coach A comes out, doesn't cross the line, doesn't confer with players and heads back to dugout? Coach B can argue that once I call time it should be a charged conference. I tell him that since Coach A didn't cross the line or confer with players, I will not charge him with a conference.

I would point out rule 2-10-1, which defines what a charged conference is. It is not a conference by definition without a conversation taking place.

I'm with Steve.

We grant time and then the coach decides not to talk; he gets no charged conference. I've even let a coach off the hook who crossed the line (literally), but hadn't begun to speak or communicate with anyone. He just turned and looked at me and said he changed his mind. No conference.

Had this same situation happen in a JR Legion game this summer played under FED rules. I was the PU. D-Coach asks for time and gets halfway out, may have said one or two words to defense, and goes back in dugout. It appeared to me he was caught up in the moment and really didn't know what he was doing.

My partner wanted me to charge a conference. I did not. Yes, I could have but in my opinion the crap storm to follow was not worth it. I have charged visits/conferences to coaches who have tried to circumvent the rule on several occasions. I deemed this one as a coach who was confused about what he wanted to do. Partner later said he could see my point but I think he still would have charged a conference. I like the foul line as a demarcation unless a player comes to the coach and talks with him. I agree this is not cut and dry and others may work their games differently.

Lawrence

Your partner was correct, there should have been a conference charged in this case. Also, since when is Jr. Legion played by FED rules? In my State (and I thought others), Jr. Legion is played by Legion rules (basically OBR).

Ozzy,

In NC (I beleive the whole state but at least in Area III), JR Legion is played by FED rules. SR Legion is modified OBR like everywhere else. Why the difference? I have no idea.

Like I said, I am not saying I was correct. I am saying that's how I read and reacted to the situation. Could I have gotten him for a conference? Yes..It was just the situation as I read it didn't clearly call for a charged conference. This particular coach has a history of attitude issues but we have always gotten along OK. At this point, the game was progressing smoothly and I didn't deem he had gained much of an advantage except for calling "time" and choosing not to do anything with it. I figure we lost about 30-45 seconds and that was it. Had he crossed the foul line or a player come towards him to meet him, you bet I would have charged him. I have charged coaches who stop at the foul line and have a player come towards them.

I can think of less than five times this has happened in over 15 years of umpiring so I don't think it happens that often.

PS- When I said "halfway out" in the above post, I meant half way between the dugout and the foul line. He never came with a few feet of the foul line. It may not change your opinion on the sitch but I just wanted to clairfy.

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?

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

Sharpen your pencil
 

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.

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.

1) Yes

2) No

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.

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.

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.

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 :o

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.

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.

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....

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