Granting time to walk the ball to the pitcher

[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.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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.

I believe you're all alone on this one. Pace of play is frequently a point of emphasis for all levels high school and above. NCAA and FED have repeatedly maintained that delays in game action are distractions from what is an enjoyable and exciting game to watch. Professional baseball is no different.

We are constantly directed to improve pace of play by enforcing rules already in the books regarding time limits on delivering a pitch, not allowing a batter to repeatedly step out of the box, managing offensive and defensive conferences, reducing the time taken for pitching changes and the BS between innings.

Those "precious seconds" add up. Not only do they detract from the enjoyment of the game, they can adversely affect the outcome. How many times have you terminated a close game due to darkness before playing the full number of innings?

Improving pace of play has nothing to do with getting out of there as quickly as possible. It has everything to do with replacing BS with baseball, and I'm all for that.

[cviverito]

Harrumpff!

[GA Umpire]

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.

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.

[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

[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.

[Skarecrow]

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.

Another reason why we don't kill it for defense, is that we are thus killing it for the offense...we have all seen the VERY aggressive runner or team, with a runner at third, that loves to time their run to take advantage of a lazy or unaware team that is slow bringing the ball in....they often bolt for home....keep the ball alive for the offense, it's their game too......

[MrUmpire]

A related issue:

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

[GA Umpire]

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?

They are of no concern as long as PU feels sufficient amount of time has passed to warrant "Time" being called for the batter.

If it takes that long for a play to develop, then F6 or F4 need to learn to work quicker. This is the opposite. Still don't want to be the 10th defensive person on the field.

Also, that is a completely different issue. Now, we are talking about a safety issue. Especially, if the pitcher decides to deliver the ball with an unsuspecting batter or catcher. Not even close to a related issue.

One involves safety and the other involves not gaining an unfair advantage.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

They are of no concern as long as PU feels sufficient amount of time has passed to warrant "Time" being called for the batter.

If it takes that long for a play to develop, then F6 or F4 need to learn to work quicker. This is the opposite. Still don't want to be the 10th defensive person on the field.

Also, that is a completely different issue. Now, we are talking about a safety issue. Especially, if the pitcher decides to deliver the ball with an unsuspecting batter or catcher. Not even close to a related issue.

One involves safety and the other involves not gaining an unfair advantage.

I have had college batters step out suddenly and call for time just as F1 begins his move to second.

Just as I am not the 10th defensive player, neither am I there to assist the offense. If I believe F1 has begun a play, I will not kill it.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I have had college batters step out suddenly and call for time just as F1 begins his move to second.

Just as I am not the 10th defensive player, neither am I there to assist the offense. If I believe F1 has begun a play, I will not kill it.

There is a fine line to walk on that type of issue. Just as the umpire doesn't want to be the 10th defensive player. He also doesn't want to be the 10th offensive player.

If F1 initiates a play or pitch before "Time" is granted, then I have no problem with not calling it. Let the play go.

It is more of a timing issue. If the play takes long enough for the PU to grant "Time", then the play doesn't happen if PU grants it. I don't care if it did happen at the same time. Generally, that will take only about 4 to 5 seconds to occur. The batter can wait that long or suffer the consequences.

I don't look at F6 or F4. I key off of F1. He is my only concern at that point since he is the one with the ball. And, many times, the PU can see if something is developing before granting "Time".

[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 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?"

[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.

[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.