The following incident occurred in my twin sons' ballgame yesterday afternoon. (11-yrs-old) I'd be interested in some opinions.

Visitors at bat in final inning, down by a run. R3 with 2 outs. Batter hits a foul ball. Count 1-1. New ball is thrown out to pitcher.

Umpire puts mask back on. Pitcher has ball on the mound and is on the pitching rubber. Batter is in batter's box. R3 darts home and is safe by a whisker. PU signals him safe. Game is now tied.

Defensive manager suggests to PU that the run can *not* score since the ball was still dead after the foul ball. He emphasized to the PU that the ball was never declared live. PU conferences with BU. The run was nullified and the runner was sent back to 3rd.

It is true that the PU never pointed at the pitcher and it is also true that the PU never said "Play." Unfortunately, this particular umpire was not very diligent on this matter and usually did *not* do this throughout the game. The resumption of action was usually inferred - never explicitly declared.

Jaksa/Roder says the following: "When he (the PU) is in position, preparing to rule on a pitch to a batter, he may point to emphasize his discontinuation of time. This point does not in itself create a live ball, nor is it required of the umpire, but is often useful, especially with runners on base."

Does the umpire have the latitude to allow the play to stand on the basis that there was a strong inference that the ball *was* live and that both teams seemed to acknowledge that fact by their actions?

Our coach made an excellent rhetorical point to the umpire by asking, "In that exact instance, would you have called my runner out had the pitcher picked him off 3rd?" The umpire didn't answer.

I don't want this discussion to focus on the value of an umpire being diligent in making it clear that the ball is live or dead. That is a given and this particular umpire was remiss in that area. What I'm more interested in knowing, is if the ball can become legally LIVE by inference.

What if the umpire failed to overtly declare play resumed after a foul ball and the pitcher was allowed to pitch the ball with the batter getting a hit? Could the defense then object that the pitch should not count since the pitcher delivered it without the umpire declaring the resumption of play? That would seem absurd! So, I think there *is* an argument that can be made that the ball *does* eventually become live without the umpire necessarily having to declare it so.

Opinions?

David,
Every level that I work, I infer a live ball for the pitcher to pitch. Before the first pitch of an inning I most often say, "Play". After calls of "Time", I most often say, "Play". When I clean the plate, I infer, "Time" about 1/2 the time.
Yet, before I infer "Play" with a point, I survey the field, particularly my partners to assure myself that everything is copasetic.
I would have sent the runner back.
mick

<i> Originally posted by David Emerling </i>


David if we go by the strict rule, the ball is not live until Plate umpire says Play.

<i> OBR 5.11 After the ball is dead, play shall be resumed when the pitcher takes his place on the pitcher's plate with a new ball or the same ball in his possession and the <b> plate umpire calls "Play." </b> The plate umpire shall call "Play" as soon as the pitcher takes his place on his plate with the ball in his possession. </i>

This is similar to when PU puts his hands up, technically ball is dead until PU points to F1.

You said 11 yr. olds. In LL, the PU will not call Play until F1 has ball on mound, F2 is ready to receive and B1 is in the box.

Sounds like the offensive coach tried to pull a fast one.

Your thread is why it is a MUST for PU no matter how monotonous it might be to signal Play after a Time Out to avoid this.

Pete Booth

***********

Well, yes, the offensive coach *was* trying to pull a "fast one." Isn't the stealing of home always a "fast one" of sorts?

Actually, he just wanted to do you classic steal of home. The fact that his batter hit a foul ball on the pitch prior muddied the water because the PU was not very good at putting the ball in play.

But, if you were there, you would have never got the impression that the runner scampered home by taking advantage of the defense's perception that the play was dead.

Everything was set for the pitcher to deliver the next pitch. Everybody was ready. In fact, by his very action, it seemed that even the PITCHER thought the play was live. Why else did he make the throw to the plate? It even seems the PU thought the play was live. Why else did the PU remove his mask, step to the side, and signal the runner safe? Only after reflection and some compelling negotiating on the part of the defensive coach was the PU convinced that he had failed to properly put the ball in play ... completely ignoring the fact that he almost NEVER properly puts the ball in play.

Oh well. It was a difficult situation. The head coach came to me for some technical advice and all I could tell him was that the ball is LIVE or DEAD at the whim of the PU. If he wants to retroactively declare the ball dead - as painful as it may be - he is completely within his rights to do so. Although objectionable ... it is completely unprotestable.

Dave, what do you think the odds awould be that if the kid were thrown out at home plate that the offensive coach would be out on the field arguing that the ball was still dead?



Just my opinion,

Freix

Was this game played under LL rules? If it was, it would seem to me that the runner left early since the pitcher had the ball on the rubber.

The kid's safe; end of story. Nothing requires the PU to announce "Play" after every dead ball. Likewise, nothing requires him to call "Time" for every dead ball.

Under OBR 5.09(e), "The ball becomes dead . . . when a foul ball is not caught; runners return. THE UMPIRE SHALL NOT PUT THE BALL IN PLAY UNTIL ALL RUNNERS HAVE RETOUCHED THEIR BASES."

Simply stated, by allowing the pitcher to attempt a play and making a decision at the play at the plate, the umpire had already "put the ball in play". If it were not in play, the umpire would have (or should have) prevented the pitcher from either pitching or making the attempted play.

By usage, custom, interpretation and probably somewhere in the PBUC Manual, it states that the ball becomes live after a foul ball when the umpire determines that everyone is ready to play. (i.e. the runners have retouched their bases, the pitcher is on the rubber ready to pitch and the batter is in the box, the umps are ready, etc.). No verbalization of "Play" is required.

Jerry

<i> Originally posted by Jerry </i>

<b> The kid's safe; end of story. Nothing requires the PU to announce "Play" after every dead ball. Likewise, nothing requires him to call "Time" for every dead ball.


By usage, custom, interpretation and probably somewhere in the PBUC Manual, it states that the ball becomes live after a foul ball when the umpire determines that everyone is ready to play. (i.e. the runners have retouched their bases, the pitcher is on the rubber ready to pitch and the batter is in the box, the umps are ready, etc.). No verbalization of "Play" is required. </b>

Jerry, the original scenario was: 11 yr. old kids, meaning kids who do not shave. The PBUC manual interps are for <b> the big boys </b> so IMO one has to take the age of the player into account. Also, 60 ft. bases not 90ft. - BIG difference.

In the youth levels of baseball an umpire SHOULD do a lot more verbalization than umpiring kids who shave.

Also, you quoted 5.09(e) what about 5.11 where the rule EXPLICITLY states after ball is dead in order for ball to be live <b> and the plate umpire calls "Play." </b>

Pete Booth

Peter:
5.11 is ONE way for the ball to become live, but certainly not the ONLY way. You certainly aren't suggesting that EVERY time there's a stoppage of play, (e.g. when a coach, spectator or on-deck batter tosses an out-of-play ball back to PU while the pitcher already has one) we're gonna yell "Time" and "Play"????? For Pete's sake (pun intended), the game drags on long enough already!

Whether kids can shave or not doesn't even enter into the equation. If some idiot of a coach is telling his hairless youngster to bowl over the umpire while he's brushing the plate off . . . but didn't verbalize "TIME" so everyone in the city of Seattle can hear him, following a foul ball, I'd be doin' a whole lot more verbalizing to the coach than just "Time".

Jerry

P.S. You were kidding, weren't you?

THe game situation, the distance between the coach / spectator / on-deck batter and the umpire, and whether I catch the ball will dictate whether I call, "Time".

If the ball is dead, I always (try to) call, "play", if runners are on.

It's not seen much at the youth levels because you can't hear the umpires do it at the ML level. Plus, when you call it at the yout level, F2 and the batter willoften turn around and say, "what?"

But, at the NCAA level and in minor league baseball, the call is verbalized.

I'm with you all the way, Bob. I try to point and call "Play" after every dead ball. At the "little shavers'" level, as you pointed out, that's not always possible.

BTW . . . I went to a Toledo Mud Hens game recently and of course watched the umpires. They pointed at EVERY foul ball, no matter how far or obvious it was, they hustled into every single play and they verbalized and pointed every "Play" after every dead ball. There was no doubt whatsoever if the ball was live or not.

As amateur umps, we should probably get in the practice of doing the same thing. It brings much more professionalism and enthusiasm to the game.

Jerry

They way I see This and IMO.

Batter hits Foul Ball..Ball dead 5.09 (e) I would not throw ball to pitcher until all runners are back touching bases. And this is when I see 5.11 kick in And then I call "play" and point to pitcher. If not called and runners go I will put them back at proper base. If called and pitcher on rubber..runner steals home...being 11 I assume this is little League play made on runner he is safe...still send him back for leaving base to soon. Moral of the story seems Ump was not on his game.

I should have mentioned this at the beginning. This game was played under USSSA rules, which emulates OBR with a few minor modifications.

The bases were 70-feet apart.

As far as I know, Little League is not played in our area in any capacity. I do not know of a single Little League team or organization in the Memphis area. If it exists, it is not very popular.

Baseball is taken very serious in these parts and Little League rules would be scoffed at mostly due to the highly restrictive baserunning rules. The notion that a runner can not take a lead off is considered babyish by many.

"Baseball is taken very serious in these parts and Little League rules would be scoffed at mostly due to the highly restrictive baserunning rules."

Now lets say this in english.

Baseball is way over done by the parents in this area who think their young professional ball players are too grown up at the old age of 11 to play the childish games that Little League supports. How dare anyone ask my son to not start working towards his athletic college schloraship before he reaches puberty. And puberty will only be allowed if it happens, AFTER a ball game.

***********

Don't get so defensive. I'm just expressing the local sentiment. I'm not so sure the Memphis area has a corner on the market with regards to your above assertion. There are many people who believe that Little League baserunning restrictions are too restrictive and that 12-yr-old baserrunner are old enough to take leadoffs ... that 12-yr-old pitchers are good enough to hold the runners ... and that 12-yr-old catchers should be able to throw runners out even if they *do* take a leadoff.

I'm not so sure it's so much about "athletic college scholarships" as much as it is a desire for the kids who are serious about baseball to play SERIOUS baseball instead of some kind of watered down version.

Little League is really recreational ball. I completely understand why they have the rules they do. But at higher levels, those restrictions are unnecessary. Besides, it's more fun for the kids! Ask *any* Little League ball player if he would prefer to take a leadoff, and I can guarantee you the answer would be a resounding, "Yes!"

Im not being defensive, I just stated the facts and you replied!!!!

"Ask *any* Little League ball player if he would prefer to take a leadoff, and I can guarantee you the answer would be a resounding, "Yes!""


Ask them if they would like to go to Micky D's and I bet you will get a bigger yes too?????????????

"Little League is really recreational ball"

Tell this to the kids that are trying to get into the Little League World Series. And if you ask me its the only TRUE World Series. So it being "RECREATIONAL" sadly mistaken

Perception is reality
 

In some regions Little League ball is perceived as "inferior" to Babe Ruth or USSSA and vice versa. Neither one is right or wrong it is just a belief.

I guarantee that if Gerry Davis showed up at a local American Legion game wearing shorts, a ragged hat on backwards and dirty gear, he would be perceived as being a "dud". I think we can agree that this is not the case.

We teach rookies the importance of looking the part, not because it makes them "better" umpires, but rather it creates a professional appearance and perception.

David is not trying to say that LL is worse than USSSA, just relaying the "fact" that parents perceive LL as an inferior form of baseball.

We all have a job to do.
 

Why do we do what we do?

I've had the little guys (8-9 YEAR OLDS) say, "WOW!" when I show up with my polished shoes, numbered shirt, and clean hat. Kids deserve that. You've gotta love the game!
Jerry

With A passion :)

I loves it , I loves , I loves it.

*******

Somebody is going to be the BEST recreational team. And that's what the Little League World Series determines. Put the BEST competitive team up against the BEST recreational team and I think the difference would be startling. This is especially true if the Little League team is forced to make the myriad of *additional* considerations that they have been protected from making by the very nature of their system of rules.

Hey, I'm not trying to put down the Little League. I think it's a great program! I love baseball and I think anytime kids are out there playing this great game ... it's GREAT!

Kids play T-ball because they really don't have the skills to hit a pitched ball.

Kids play Coach Pitch because the players don't have the skills to pitch, nor do they have the batting skills to hit anything particularly challenging.

I can only imagine WHY leadoffs are not allowed in Little League. Is it because of a similar notion that the pitchers, catchers, and fielders will be overtaxed? The players' baseball skills and instincts have not matured to the point where the game can not be played the way it was intended? That's fine. I accept that.

As long as there is acceptance to the notion that there ARE kids out there who CAN play baseball the way it was intended.

From my personal observations, at 11-yrs-old, it is *NOT* true that a batter walks ... steals 2nd without a play ... steals 3rd standing up ... and then scores on a passed ball.

The Little League World Series has always been rather boring for me. I still watch it ... only because I love to watch ANY kind of baseball. I find myself mostly watching the umpires, though. It's the same thing every year. A few teams happen to be blessed with a dominating pitcher who mows down the opponents because he can throw the ball 70mph. He may even have a curve. They're in the World Series largely on the coat tails of their superstar pitcher, not necessarily because they have a super team in all other respects.

Last year, when my boys were 10-yr-olds, they played in a tournament played under USSSA rules where a few hot shot Dizzy Dean League teams entered the fray. Apparently, there are not leadoffs until the ball crosses the plate, in Dizzy Dean. These kids had to make the adjustment.

Although these little guys were not half bad ball players, it was clear they were completely overwhelmed by the dramatic increase in the complexity of the game. Their pitchers were balking ... their runners were getting picked off and thrown out stealing ... they were falling prey to some of the most basic defensive schemes imagineable (i.e. Fake to third and throw to first) ... and then it all came crumbling down on them. Their pitchers, who I'm sure could normally throw strikes, were so off balance and distracted, could hardly hit the side of a barn. The opposing runners wore their team out. In short, they were a little fish in a big pond.

It was evident their coaches tried to give them a crash course in what to expect ... but it was not enough. You can draw it up on a chalkboard but you still have to EXPERIENCE it. You should have seen what lefthanded pitchers were doing to their runners at first. It was ugly. They'd never seen anything like it unless they've seen it on TV.

One common mistake I noticed they continued to make that I directly attribute to the "Little League" system is that their infielders seemed hell bent on retiring the lead runner on all ground balls. Many of their throws were late causing EVERYBODY to be safe. They were not used to runners getting such a jump on the ball making force plays much more difficult. They were not good at deciding whether it was worth the risk of retiring the lead runner on a close play or going the more sure route of retiring the batter. In their world, retiring the lead runner was fairly simple and routine, considering he basically started ON the base when the ball was hit. They were not used to runners on base getting huge running starts.

Given the opportunity, I'm sure these guys could play great baseball. But they've never had the opportunity ... and it showed. That's when they found out the harsh reality: Up 'til now, they've only been playing pseudo-baseball.

Why do you say this? Because it has teams from around the world? So do most other youth organization's world series.

"Put the BEST competitive team up against the BEST recreational team and I think the difference would be startling."

Why dont you just build yourself 9 robots that can play this game PERFECTLY, the way you evidently want it to be played at 11 years old. Did you son start walking when he was born?

I have seen this over and over, its called the perfection sickness. These same kids that you have drilled to your perfect ideal ball player mentaliity, will be burnt out by the time they are 15. Why? Because they will know everthing about the game that is possible and it will be boring. Plus you have occupied so much of their time playing ball, they will sooner or latter want to make some time to do nothing.

Not my Kid! The Little League system is by far not the best thing around, and it really does care more about their corporate sponsorships than the kids that play, however for the majority of the kids, it is a good system to develope ball players.

Mabey it does'nt allow the kids to develope as fast as your "All Stars" but it least gives the kids an opppurtunity to be kids and not being drilled like boot camp at their young ages. Now tell me your not really interested in your son getting that big college scholorship and I will sell you some land in Florida.

Remember this day. You will burn them out!!!!

*******

Believe me, the points you raise regarding burning kids out are not lost upon most of the coaches and parents that live in the world of competitive ball.

You have to be sensitive to the temperment of the player. If the player only has a casual interest in baseball (regardless of his talent), forcing him to "waste" his entire summer playing 60+ ballgames is certainly the path to burnout, I'll agree.

But, in many cases, the players on the team are his FRIENDS! Being with his friends is what the player WANTS to do! Besides playing baseball, they swim together ... spend the night at each other's house ... ride bikes ... and go to movies.

Would you say that a child who is extremely active in Boy Scouts and goes to every meeting ... attends all their activities ... is in risk of "burnout"?

It is only burnout if it is burning them out. If the child rolls his eyes when Mom and Dad say, "Put on your cleats, you have practice in 15 minutes," then perhaps that child is showing signs of burnout.

Believe it or not ... there kids out there who LOVE to play baseball. These kids thrive in the competitive environment. Playing only 15-20 baseball games in the 3 months they have off from school would be an outrage to many of these kids. It's what they LOVE to do!

Admitedly, it's not for everyone. Do some kids not belong in the competitive environment? Certainly!

It is such a trite criticism that "all" these kids are going to be burnt out by high school. And yet, *ALL* the truly great high school players come from the world of competitive baseball. No - that's not even true. Whether great or not, in this area, *ALL* the high school players come from the world of competitive baseball. I can not think of a single recreational walk-on. It just doesn't happen.

It's all about the temperment of the player. For anybody to prevent an outstanding recreational player from playing competitive ball because they are ostensibly doing the player a "favor" by not allowing him to be burned out - could actually be denying that player what could possibly be the greatest experience of his life. This is particularly true if it seems the boy has a true passion for the sport.

Can a player get burned out playing competitive baseball? Sure! But to pretend that it happens routinely is a gross overstatement. It happens, sure. But for every competitive ballplayer that is getting burned out ... there is a talented recreational player out there languishing in a sea mediocrity and being frustrated by his surroundings and who would <i>thrive</i> in another world.

I think baseball at ALL levels is good! I'm not trying to be critical of ANY of them. I think the most important thing to do is *match* the player to the level of play that best suits his temperment. Do some parents make bad choices? Yes! Are *all* competitive players on the path to burnout? No!

While that might be true, none of them come close to the numbers of countries participating, or the number of participants involved worldwide. Little League still dominates the world of youth baseball - none of their competitors even come close to their numbers on a global scale, a fact most competitive programs sweep under the rug.

*********

No, I think most people would readily admit that the number of young men playing at the recreational level far exceeds the number playing at the competitive level. And, as it should be. I would be surprised if it was any other way.

Why do you think there are more MINOR leaguers than BIG leaguers.

I never considered a competitive team an "all star" team. Rather, I just consider them a collection of young boys who have above average baseball skills who love the game enough to dedicate more than an average amount of time to the sport.

They are the type of kids who may take private batting or pitching lessons in the off season. They don't put their glove on the top shelf of their closet when baseball season is over, only to blow the dust off it when the weather breaks.

They're not *better* kids ... they're just more dedicated. They tend to be more intense. Baseball is *their* sport. It's usually their favorite sport. It's not just sport du jour for them.

Of course this is a generalization. But generalizations exist for a reason ... because, they are generally true!

Everybody has their niche in life. The world of baseball is no different. There is a level of baseball for everyone to enjoy!

The group of boys I know would be bored to the very core of their souls if they were not allowed to take leadoffs ... if they couldn't pick runners off ... if the catcher would seldom have an opportunity to throw out a stealing runner ... or they could never execute a suicide squeeze. It's fun! It's the spice of life! It's what they see on TV and it's what they want to emulate. And they can DO it!

All these kids that I know, at one time or another, have played a modified version of baseball. My boys played T-ball and LOVED it. But they were 5 and 6 years old at the time. My boys played coach pitch and LOVED it. But they were 7 and 8 years old at the time.

Many of the players on the competitive teams were extracted out of the local recreational league, where some of them have restrictions regarding leadoffs, much like Little League or Dizzy Dean. They adapt. But the adaptation is a process. The reason these kids survive the transition is because, fundamentally, they are very talented baseball players. They can field ground balls, they can throw accurately, they can hit.

I've seen the Little League World Series. Any competitive team would LOVE to have many of those pitchers. Those kids throw hard and they throw strikes. They would have to adapt to the complexity of holding runners ... but their level of talent would make that transition fairly easy.

There are always competitive-caliber players in recreational leagues. And those are the teams you see in the Little League World Series.

Your missing the point. To you, this is all about what the kids love. What about the responsibilty of the parents to offer the kids a varitiy of things to do, which helps in the development of life and not just sports. They play 60+ games in the summer, 25+ game in the fall, and three hitting and fielding camps or pitching camps in the winter. Do the kids love it? Sure, but if you are raising ballplayers then your on the right track. I thought you might be raising children. Sorry for the mix up.

***********

That is a tired and worn argument. I don't mean to be insulting, but that argument is generally the exclusive province of those who have no children, or children with little athletic ability or little drive to excel in sports.

There are 365 days in a year. Let's say they play 65 games and have 30 practices. Many of their games are played as doubleheaders. So, I think it's fair to say that roughly 80 days of the year involve the playing of a baseball game. And, baseball, in itself, is an experience that <i>deserves</i> some time! Apparently, you think it is <i>too</i> much time.

By the way, my twin sons play football during the football season and basketball during the basketball season. They play video games continously when they're not doing something on the computer. They swim ... ride bikes ... have friends spend the night ... and we go on family vacations.

It's a vacuous argument.

Because you asked.

Oldest son played Four years of HS Varsity, Thats F O U R YEARS. Three years of D1 Ball and decided to be a Engineer.

Daughter ran HS and College Track four years.

Youngest son now officiates Jr A and USHL Hockey and is up and coming for the pro's

Been There - Done That, Thank you

*************

Great! Then you should know better! :-)