When is a conference charged?
 

A game I was at, the defense called time, came out and made a pitching change. No charged conference for changing the pitcher. The coach then walked over to the dugout, then turned and went out to second base to confer with his infielders. As the coach crossed back into foul territory, the umpire informed the coach that because he had crossed the foul line in going to the dugout after the pitching change, then turned and went back out to the field to talk with his defense, he would be charged with a conference. The coach replied that it was a dead ball situation while the pitcher was warming up and that he is allowed to come back onto the field during a dead ball situation.

The umpire stood by his guns and charged the coach with a conference. Was that the right call??

Yes, by rule (3-4-3) and by case book (3.4.3). Crossing the foul line ends the conference.

I would have informed him he was taking another conference before he crossed the line again to go to F4 so he can decide if he really wanted to do this.

IMO, charging a conference in this situation is being OOO. In fact the case play 3.4.3 specifically refers to a coach who did not replace the pitcher returning "to the mound" . The point of this rule is to avoid delaying the game, and in the OP situation it isn't (so far) being delayed, because the new pitcher is warming up.

So, is he allowed a free trip after a foul ball? How about when a batter gets hit by pitch? Runner's interference? Heck, those are all dead ball situations.

If he got back to the dugout and then went out again....charge him. Nothing OOO about it.

The coach was wrong about the above, but I agree with Dave on the OOO. Those other examples of dead ball situations are different and the game could be delayed.
What if, while near the mound, the coach sees that the new pitcher has an illegal glove, and while F1 warms up, the coach walks to the dugout and grabs a different glove. I cant believe a charged conf is warranted.....

Is that what happened? Gee, my mistake.

I thought the OP said he concluded his visit as indicated by entering the dugout and then went back on the field to conference with his defense.

I better check my reading glasses.:rolleyes:

You guys can "what if" a thread to death! Sooner or later, "what if'ing" a situation will reverse the consequences. :mad:

In the original post, the coach crossed the foul line (FED) there-by ending the visit. He cannot return to the field on a free ride - period No "what-if's" The umpire was correct in charging a visit in this case.

Furthermore, had this been OBR, when the coach leaves the dirt of the mound, he has to keep walking to the dugout. If he tries to return, he gets warned that he will be ejected and if he ignores the warning, he's done.

I would say this is definitley a bit of OOO, but our OOO is also wrong with his interpretation.

FED 3-1-2: If a pitcher is replaced while his team is on defense, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat or any substitute for that batter until such batter is put out or reaches base or until a third out is made. To ensure that the requirements of this article be fulfilled, the umpire will deny any coach-defensive player conference that will violate the rule.

A conference should not have been charged. Using the correct interpretation, our OOO should have disallowed the coach back onto the field during warmups.

Wrong interpretation. That rule is specifically designed to prevent a coach from replacing, or causing to be replaced, a pitcher prior to his fulfilling the requirements.

Example: Coach has used all three freebies and has put in a new pitcher. Offense counters with a pinch batter. Def. HC decided he wants a different pitcher and tries to get one by going for another trip thinking the umpire will make him pull his pitcher.

In the OP situation, it is not OOO to charge a coach trying to gain an unfair advantage.

I disagree. It is in black and white: You cannot allow a conference to any defensive player after a pitching change until the pitcher has fulfilled his requirements.

The OOO, in "sticking with his guns" should have stopped the coach and informed him that he was not allowed back onto the field until the pitcher's requirements had been fulfilled.

A black and white umpire, eh?

You may disagree all you want, but the intent of the rule is as I stated. Bolding "any defensive player" doesn't matter, the effect is the same. The rule is in place to prevent a coach from trying to "force himself" to replace a pitcher who has not fulfilled his requirement.

This is tactic used by seasoned coaches on umpires who do not understand the intent of the rule.

So you agree with the OOO that a conference should be charged?

Here is an ambiguity in the OBR rules. A mound visit starts when the manager crosses the foul line. If a manager leaves the dirt circle but doesn't cross the foul line, he can't satisfy the requirement for starting a mound visit. So we have to assume that the act of leaving the dirt circle overrides the significance of crossing the foul line. The rules could do a better job of explaining mound visits in general.

You seem to be confused about the two rules.

FED - the conference ends when the coach leaves the mound and crosses the foul line (going back to the dugout). The coach can leave the mound, head to the foul line, turn and meet with F3, just as long as he does not cross the foul line.

OBR - the visit ends the moment the manager's feet touch the infield grass (leaves the dirt of the mound). He cannot meet with anyone else once he leaves the dirt of the mound for any reason. He must continue into the dugout. The foul line does not come into play for ending the visit as it does in FED.

A question
 

So my good man,

How long do you allow the defense to freeze the offense in the middle of a rally by allowing free conferences with his infielders? If you don't charge him a conference, he can talk all day or as many times as he wants to people if he makes a pitching change. Makes no sense to me.

By the bye, you are misreading the rule, IMO. If the defense has conferences left, then talking to another defense player is not illegal. But it is going to cost him a conference to do so. So it is not OOO to charge him with a conference. It is not illegal for him to go back to the field after he crosses the foul line if he has conferences left to use. Now, if there was an equipment problem, or a possible injury, and the HC needs to go back out, and he tells me why he is going back out, okay, no conference as long as no coaching is done.

In FED ball, if you have conferences, you can meet.

(FED) Is it a charged conference if the coach talk to his pitcher at the mound during warm up pitches in between innings (not for injury)?

No, as long as the pitcher completes his warmups in a timely manner as required.

I have never seen a coach come out of the dugout to talk to a pitcher while warming up. I have seen a coach pass by the mound on his way back to the dugout to say a few words to the pitcher while he warms up.

As DG stated, it is not a charged conference in FED, nor is it a visit in NCAA or OBR (just as long as the coach or manager is not delaying the game as DG described).

Fully aware of both rules. That is not the argument here.

Refer to the original post: Manager makes pitching change, walks back to the dugout, then walks back onto the field to second baseman. Umpire informs manager that he was charged a conference as he is walking back to the dugout.

You can't charge a conference because the umpire should have disallowed the meeting between the manager and second baseman to happen.

I really want to see the rule you are trying to apply that allows an umpire to charge a conference after a pitching change but before the pitcher has faced a batter or a third out is made.

Two bits, with respect, you are wrong
 

1. HC has conference with pitcher, and replaces him. No conference charged.
2. Sometime during the conference he heads to the dugout. By rule, conference is over, correct?
3. He then goes out to talk with infielders. HOW is that not another conference?
4. If he has conferences left, how is it illegal to use one?
5. Your rule does not apply here, if he had no conferences left, then he could not cross the foul line and have another conference. There is nothing in the rules that say he cannot use two or three conferences during one AB if he wants to, as long as the number of conferences used in the game do not add up to more than three.
6. If he goes into the dugout for a reason, say, equipment needed changed, and he goes out to an infielder, and tells the PU why, that's another story.
He had every chance to talk to the infielders while he was on the mound making a pitching change. In the OC he gave that right up when he went past the foul line.

Please show me where this is wrong.

The pitching change was not a conference. The return to talk to F4 after crossing the foul line was. He is not disallowed this meeting, unless it would have been the one that caused a pitching change requirement (ie the 4th one in the game). If it were the 4th then it is not allowed to happen.

Ta-Daaaaaaa!

Right -- and even under OBR the coach is allowed to use his first visit to the pitcher during the first batter the pitcher has faced.

1) We agree here
2) Still agree
3) This is where we disagree. Last time I'm going to explain it:
FED 3-1-2: If a pitcher is replaced while his team is on defense, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat or any substitute for that batter until such batter is put out or reaches base or until a third out is made. To ensure that the requirements of this article be fulfilled, the umpire will deny any coach-defensive player conference that will violate the rule.

Read it again:

the umpire will deny any coach-defensive player conference that will violate the rule.[/

The coach makes the change, goes back to dugout, decides he wants to come back out. Umpire should say, "No, coach, you can not come back out for a conference until the pitcher has faced a batter or recorded a third out."

The part you seem to be missing is "THE RULE" -- and "THE RULE" is that a pitcher must face one batter (or have the side retired) before he's replaced.

So, we all agree -- if the conference would require the pitcher to be removed, then the conference should not be allowed.

But, if the conference would NOT require the pitcher to be removed, then the conference is allowed.

Good luck with the rest of the season.

I'm done here. All out of troll food.

Two bits, get a clue
 

The guys talking to you, including me are anything but Trolls. That last post is really discouraging. You are intentionally misreading our posts, then hitting us because you don't like the answer. Man up.

I don't understand what you mean by troll. It looked like people here were having a good discussion, then you made that unnecessary comment.

TwoBits: This is a rare instance where the written rule also sets forth the purpose (spirit) of the rule: "To ensure that the requirements of this article [3-1-2] be fulfilled..." 3-1-2 is in the "Substituting" section, and requires a substitute pitcher to face one batter (unless he is injured or dumped). It has nothing to do with defining or limiting charged conferences. They are covered in 2-10-1 and 3-4.

DG, JK and Bob Jenkins are trolls? In Bizarro World, maybe.

Reasonable and knowlegeable people corrected you. Accept it, learn from it and move on; or take your ball and go home. Your choice.

I'll respectfully apologize, guys. In my haste to reply, I neglected to read Mr. Jenkins's response clearly. In re-reading Mr. Jenkins's response, it is clear that I was wrong in my interpretation.

As for the troll comment, I was so sure that I was right that others were disputing me just to be disruptive. Sorry guys, my fault, my mistake. Don't hate me for it.

Good man.

Others were on the same track as Bob, but none were as clear.

I'm the "rules guy" in my association, the one the other umpires turn to for interpretations. About once a year, I learn something I didn't already know. It may be twice this year as the season is still pretty young!

Two Bits
 

All is forgiven :), we all have our blind spots, and I as a local umpires association rules interpreter have the same experiences with you on a regular basis.

Sorry my posts were not clear, at least to someone, I was trying to explain the rules point in a different than Bob did. My apologies for my inadequate writing.

Keep posting my man.

I'd like to politely disagree
 

"The pitching change was not a conference."
Here is another one.
"1. HC has conference with pitcher, and replaces him. No conference charged."

I am missing something here. I read it several times in this thread posted by several very knowledgable individuals. What am I missing?

New inning, new pitcher, no conference. Same inning, conference w/ pitcher and catcher, pitcher replaced w/a new pitcher, conference with pitcher and catcher, resume game. This pitching change is not a conference?

Hang around and you will learn more than one thing a year here. But you must be willing to listen.

No, it's not.

Spend some time in the rules book instead of searching for rising fastballs.

Hey guys, I thank all of you for your posts. I do admit that I left out one bit of info in the original post; the umpire did indeed inform the coach that his return visit would be his 2nd official charged conference. (The first had occurred an inning earlier). Coach was not charged for making the P.C., just his return visit. The PU told the coach he had 1 remaining conference after the coach started to return after confering with the defense out by 2nd base.

Gee the heavy-handed mod is now making the same cheeky remarks he would delete if they came from his less-favorite posters.

We all have our limits when it comes to serial stupidity. :shrug:

And some posters still can't distinguish between comments that advance the thread and those that constitute pointless personal attacks.

Here is a idea...

READ THE FRICKIN RULE BOOK FOR A CHANGE

Ozzy just told you the rule...In all 3 the coach is done with and needs to leave the FIELD of play as soon as his new pitcher starts to warm up.

In the NCAA when the new pitchers starts his warm ups the Conference is over, the coach is NOT allowed to talk to any other players.

5.. you are really wrong...

NCAA Rule 9-4 try to read this one....

b. If a coach or his nonplaying representative goes to the mound a second
time in the inning to talk to the same pitcher, the pitcher must be
removed from the pitcher’s position for the remainder of the game. The
coach is to indicate the relief pitcher to an umpire immediately after
crossing the foul line (see 7-2-c-[5]-[b]-[4]);
A.R. 1—If, after one trip to the same pitcher in the same inning, or three free trips in a
game, the coach goes to the plate umpire to announce a pitching change (does not go to
the mound), a second trip shall be charged (when the change is recorded on the official
lineup card). If moved to a defensive position, the pitcher shall not return to pitch.
A.R. 2—The relief pitcher, when called from the bullpen by the umpire, must proceed
immediately to the mound. Any additional pitches thrown in the bullpen will be subtracted
from the eight preparatory pitches permitted on the mound. In the case of an injury to
114 RULE 9 / PITCHING
the current pitcher, the substitute pitcher shall take all warm-up pitches from the game
mound.
c. A coach may not make a second trip to the mound in the same inning
with the same batter at bat. However, if a pinch-hitter is substituted, the
coach may make a second trip but must remove the pitcher;
(1) In this pinch-hitter situation, a relief pitcher, having just been brought
in to pitch, may not be removed from the game before pitching
completely to one batter or the side has been retired (see 5-5-b).
(2) If the coach previously has used the allowed free trips and mistakenly
is allowed to go to the mound for a conference, the pitcher shall be
removed from the position after the batter completes the turn at bat.
The pitcher may not re-enter the game as a pitcher.
(3) If the coach starts to the mound for a second trip with the same batter
at bat in the same inning, the umpire shall warn that this act is not
permitted. If the coach continues to the mound, the coach shall be
ejected and the pitcher must complete pitching to the batter; when
the batter’s turn is completed, the pitcher shall be removed from the
game. The coach should be warned of the impending removal so that
another pitcher can start warming up. The substitute pitcher shall be
permitted the eight preparatory pitches unless circumstances justify
additional pitches.

Not my proudest post, I agree.

But, if you want to push the issue, I'd be glad to be ... more straightforward when dealing with your posts and less "heavy handed" when deleteing post of those like boxstance and flowerchild.

I'm not sure I understand. How would you be more straightforward when dealing with my posts?

It is commendable to admit when a post isn't your favorite one.

Of course you don't.


Is what I'd say if I was being more straightforward.

But that still is not a straightforward answer. Of course I don't understand because you weren't clear, or of course I don't understand because I am incompetent?

He deletes a broad range of posts that are well within the codes and standards and relevant to topics, etc. He also never, ever accounts for himself. I am a truthful person and sometimes the truth is something that is unpalatable. But it's still the truth. Many posts disappear out of sheer favoritism, just like the man said.

Saying that only stupid peoples' posts are censored constitutes a pointless personal attack.

Censorship is the natural enemy of the truth.

In all fairness, that fitump56/boxstance/flowerpower character that mbyron was referring to is a real head case. He/she is either an alcoholic or mentally ill. Maybe both.

My good man, please read the first posd in the thread.
 

Translation: Some of my posts were deleted, and they were really good posts, honest.

translation: The truth is what I say it is.


Translation: Wahhhhhhhhhh.


Tranlation: i resemble that remark!

Translation: I read that somewhere and I think saying it makes me look smart.

You're a poor translator.

You're also rather poor at basic human relations--especially in a public setting.

You are excellent at chiding and insulting and showing prejudiced and myopic viewpoints, however.