Granting time to walk the ball to the pitcher

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

A related issue:

How observant are you of F6 or F4 sneaking towards second with R2 when a batter requests time?

The batter is in peril and if he calls time, it should virtually always be granted immediately. Seldom is a batter's request of time an act of protection of a runner, whose chance of being picked off second is generally rather slim.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why would an infielder be scared to throw the ball back to the pitcher? They field it and throw to a base.

What's the difference if he throws the ball to the pitcher and then calls time and runs to the mound? Do you not grant time then?

It makes me wonder why a few seconds are so precious. Makes me think you don't want to be there in the first place. Games vary, so what. I'll bet some will crap their pants if the game goes extra innings.

I have never had a problem with excessive timeouts. When they start playing with a clock and giving each team a certain amount of timeouts, then I will worry more about it.

Why post still up? Me want know.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The batter is in peril and if he calls time, it should virtually always be granted immediately. Seldom is a batter's request of time an act of protection of a runner, whose chance of being picked off second is generally rather slim.

I must disagree here. It is usually a request made when the batter notices R2 a little too far off the base with F4 or F6 creeping in. The batter is indeed trying to con the umpire into granting Time in order to prevent F1 from picking off his boy.

Just how is the batter "in peril?" I don't understand this concept. The batter is standing in the box, waiting for the pitch, F1 has already set and is looking at the runner. How is the batter "in peril?"

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Why post still up? Me want know.

I didn't see the timing of it as coincidental either.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Why post still up? Me want know.

Double standard.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I must disagree here. It is usually a request made when the batter notices R2 a little too far off the base with F4 or F6 creeping in. The batter is indeed trying to con the umpire into granting Time in order to prevent F1 from picking off his boy.

Just how is the batter "in peril?" I don't understand this concept. The batter is standing in the box, waiting for the pitch, F1 has already set and is looking at the runner. How is the batter "in peril?"

I'm speaking to his needing to be ready to face the pitch, and if he's not ready to face a pitch he's in peril. I grant time virtually always. Seldom does the save-R2's-@ss scenario happen. It's worth watching for, however.

If a batter's not ready, I grant time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Double standard.

Not at all.

If the (edited) post had been written by anyone else, all of us would respond that we disagreed, but wouldn't take personal shots. The "you" in the sentence that Steve highlighted I take as a generic "you".

:shrug:

[PeteBooth]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

.

I am NOT speaking for Steve but IMO I think he was referring to the following:

F2 says "Pete can I have TIME"

Me ok TIME. F2 trots out to talk to F1. Perhaps he was "crossed-up" on a pitch etc.

Therefore, if we grant F2 TIME why not the "other fielders" I agree I will not call TIME so that the players can "freeze" the runners or throw the ball back to F1 BUT there are certain situations in which fielders need to talk to F1.

Here's an example: F4/F6 notices that R2 is "stealing" signs. F4/F6 requests TIME so that he can convey this to F1 and therefore, change pitching signals. Also, F4/F6 notices that R2 is taking a BIG lead and they want to put a play on.

In summary: I agree if the fielder simply wants to call TIME to "freeze' runners or simply throw the ball back to F1 I will NOT grant it, BUT if a fielder requests TIME to talk to F1 I will most likely grant it because I do NOT know what the fielder wants to talk about with F1.

Common guys remember when we played. I once requested TIME simply to tell my buddy who was pithcing " Hey Tim did you see the blond in the second row".

Pete Booth

[dannyboy]

Early on I got yelled at in a JV game, where runner on third, catcher not paying attention, trying to communicate with F1 just jogs out to him (didnt ask for time) about half way- kids steals home, defensive coach loses his mind on his player AND the other coach and finally on me-. My evaluator was watching and was quick to tell me in the future let catchers know if they want time, just ask- prevents lots of issues...run scored-bad on defense, and the whole thing took literally seconds to happen.

if they dont call time...oh well. I agree that catchers get latitude on stuff, long as they dont abuse it, and as a catcher, I worked officials every chance I had

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by dannyboy

Early on I got burned in a JV game, where runner on third, catcher not paying attention, trying to communicate with F1 just jogs out to him about half way- kids steals home, defensive coach loses his mind on his player AND the other coach and finally on me-. My evaluator was watching and was quick to tell me in the future let catchers know if they want time, just ask- prevents lots of issues...

if they dont...oh well. I agree that catchers get latitude on stuff, heck they are protecting us.

There's nothing wrong with calling time without a request if you deem it appropriate.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

There's nothing wrong with calling time without a request if you deem it appropriate.

Yeah, if you're dealing with an injury. I don't agree you should call time just because the catcher didn't give you a verbal request for a timeout. They could be pulling the old hidden ball trick if the infield decides to come. While the catcher would leave home plate uncovered in this situation is beyond me.

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Yeah, if you're dealing with an injury. I don't agree you should call time just because the catcher didn't give you a verbal request for a timeout. They could be pulling the old hidden ball trick if the infield decides to come. While the catcher would leave home plate uncovered in this situation is beyond me.

There was a similar discussion at school. Scenario: Any R, after being crossed up, catcher clears batter and heads for his pitcher. Not hearing a request for time, umpire says/does nothing. R advances on a close play at next bag. Manager comes out. Catcher claims he asked for time.

Question posed by instructors: Do you really want to have that argument?

When catcher heads for mound, call time. If you think he's abusing the practice, chat with him when he gets back.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

It has nothing to do with "not wanting to be there in the first place". However, it does have everything to do with not wanting a marathon when there is no time limit.

Also, the game's tempo is better if the game moves along. The defense makes more plays and the offense hits the ball more. If you ever move a game along instead of taking your marathons, you will notice the level of play is slightly better in many cases. Teams just play better when they keep their momentum going.

Being around a ballfield for almost fifty years, I have a pretty good clue how a ballgame is run. FYI, I don't have marathons, but I don't get my panties in a wad about the length or time of a game.

On the broad average, my typical game will run between 1:30 and 2:00 hours. What happens during the game for the most part dictates how long a game will take. An umpire can only do so much.

I'll tell you what I will do though. I have only broken up one mound meeting in the last five years. Haven't had a problem with coaches abusing their time on the mound. While I don't use the MLB rule of thumb here, I figure a few extra seconds to get his pitcher to possibly throw more strikes is a plus for me. Also, I always ask if the pitcher needs more than the allotted number of pitches on a cold day or night.

FWIW, I don't recall a time when an infielder asked for time to throw the ball back to the pitcher. I don't work Little League or adult ball. Don't even in all my years remember where an umpire has taken issue with timeouts.

Perhaps someone should get with the MLB umpires that work a Yankees-Red Sox game. Their games almost always go four hours.

[SanDiegoSteve]

He said:

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

A related issue:

How observant are you of F6 or F4 sneaking towards second with R2 when a batter requests time?

Then you said:

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

The batter is in peril and if he calls time, it should virtually always be granted immediately. Seldom is a batter's request of time an act of protection of a runner, whose chance of being picked off second is generally rather slim.

Oh, you mean if the batter is in peril. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

I'm speaking to his needing to be ready to face the pitch, and if he's not ready to face a pitch he's in peril. I grant time virtually always. Seldom does the save-R2's-@ss scenario happen. It's worth watching for, however.

If a batter's not ready, I grant time.

Well of course. I'm right there with you.

I don't allow the pitcher to begin his motion until the batter is set in the box. Once the pitcher comes set, and unless he is purposely delaying to freeze the batter, I allow for a possible play. Many batters, who are ready and just want to throw the pitcher's rhythm off, make him balk or throw the ball away. They are the ones who suddenly want Time just as there is about to be a play on a runner.

And many times, it's just too late to call Time, as the pitcher is kicking and dealing at this point. Why would you want to stop him unnecessarily? The rules also clearly state the umpire is not to fall for a bunch of excuses from the batter, such as "dust in the eye," or "banana in the tailpipe." We are instructed to not grant Time after the pitcher has come set or started his windup.

On the contrary though, if the pitcher is a human rain delay for the batter, the catcher, and especially the umpire, Time should be granted, even if it's just to send a message.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Semantics ...

Normally, I make proper use of the one language I know best.

So, if I was paying better attention to the wording of he message, I would have written something like this:

Often, when a batter calls time, he is not ready to face a pitch, which can put him in peril.