Visits Question

[His High Holiness]

All;

I am breaking with my tradition today and posing a rules question.

I was the BU in a fall game this week played by 16-18 year olds. (I know, that was a mistake but my assignor requires a few fall games from all of his umpires.) Anyway, OBR, bases loaded, two outs. I am in C.

The manager comes out of the first base dugout to talk (?) to his pitcher. He loudly berates him for a minute or so (even the fans could hear) and heads back to the dugout. Just as the manager is entering the dugout, the pitcher yells a politically incorrect insult at his manager. Well deserved I might add. The manager was wearing what looked like ladies lingerie (shiny purple baggy shorts with a white frilly fringe around the bottom. He looked ridiculous on a baseball field.)

The manager spins around and heads back to the mound. For some reason, my partner does not intercept him. Before he crosses the first base foul line, I jog over from C and yell at him to get back to the dugout. He says: "I am coming out to change my pitcher." (He also directed a couple of comments over my head at his pitcher.)

I said "No you're not. You cannot have two visits to the pitcher with the same batter at bat."

The manager proceeds to cross the foul line and says to me "I'll change him from the dugout then."

I said "You can't change pitchers until after this batter completes his time at bat. Go back to the dugout immediately or I am required to eject you."

The manager went back to the dugout and the pitcher thanked me for intervening. He then proceeded to strike out the batter and end the inning. Lo and behold, he was out on the mound the next inning. He and the manager made up during the half inning.

Question 1: Did the manager make what was an unauthorized second visit by crossing the foul after I warned him back to the dugout? (Side note for new umpires: The PU made a big mistake by not intercepting the manager and thus making me jog across the field to do the job. These kinds of things are what differentiate high school umpires from college umpires.)

Question 2. Could the other team have successfully protested the game when the pitcher took the mound in the next inning. Was I required to remove him? (For the record, the other team did not say anything.)

Peter

[Rich Ives]

My opinion:

Q1) Questionable because the start of the visit isn't defined, only the end (leaving the circle).

If one assumes the start is when the manager requests time, time was already called for the first visit and the ball hadn't been put in play yet, so there was no relevant "time" call to mark the start.

Also, 8.06(c) says "second visit to the mound" and he didn't make it to the mound.

(Place manager hat on) The manager had a player insult him. In that age group, I'd want to do something about it too - NOW. You can't let the "inmates" run the place. You don't know the personality of the player so you don't know the most effective way of dealing with him.

You found yourself in the middle of a dicipline problem. You viewed it as a rule problem and attempted to get the manager to understand the rule.

I think the other coach didn't say anything because he understood the dicipline problem and the need to deal with it.

Let it go at that. I think you should treat it as a meeting with the umpire.


Q2) If it is not considered a visit, there is nothing to protest. If it is considered a visit, it is probably protestable as the infraction didn't take place until he took the mound in the following inning.

[Tim C]

Peter:

This will probably fall into the two catagories of umpires we know so well:

1) The "by the book" umpires that feel if you don't call the letter of the rule EVERYTIME you are cheatin'. that group will tell you that they guy was "over the line" (in more ways than one) and the rule HAS to be followed.

2) The "intent of the rule" umpires will say, "Triple H you DONE good!, you stopped the visit and kept everyone in the game." The intent guys will say that by you interceding correctly and umpired by the spirit of the rule.

I believe that you could have circumvented a potential protest by simply saying that you were headed to talk to him (the coach) because you "thought" he was asking you a question OR that you were headed over to him to "explain" that he was not allowed to return to the mound. BTW, there is no definition as to "when" the manager has "returned" to the mound.

I think your actions were legal and just and your judgment was great.

[Bfair]

This is unlike you, Peter. Your question borders on booger pickin'.
You know you did the right thing in not allowing the pitcher's removal with the same batter at the plate. Did a 2nd trip occur by your details? You judged it did not. You judged the trip across the line was to you and not to the mound---the gray area of judgment.

Will a protest be upheld if filed?
That's up to the league to determine.
I've always felt most leagues attempt to support the official. IOW, in order to uphold a protest, the situation needed to be one where it was pretty evident the official blew an obvious interpretation, OR was in a situation of gray area interpretation but whereby the questioned decision had significant impact on the outcome of the game (i.e. reversal of the Brett incident). Leagues don't want protests, and upholding protests in gray areas is reinforcement to have more filed.

Now, with the Brett incident mentioned, I was quite surprised at its reversal.
The umpire (Tim McClelland) acted upon the defense's complaint, ruled the bat illegal by standards of that day, and imposed the appropriate penalty. I felt that to be a black/white issue at the time whereby the official was forced to rule based on the defense's complaint. The umpire didn't look to pick the booger. Although MacPhail's ruling reversed McClelland's ruling by stating the call was not in accordance with the intent and spirit of the rule-----the call on the field was still in accordance with the written rule. IMO, if the league felt it was a poor rule (or poorly written), then they should have upheld the call as being correct per the rule and changed the rule for the future.

Are umpires now to guess at the "intent and spirit" of a rule and decide accordingly, even when the situation obviously violates the written rule of the time? Apparently that would have been the correct choice for McClelland, but then the Yankees would have likely been filing the protest.

Applying CSFP works well in gray areas---such as your situation.
There are times when applying CSFP is very difficult---such as black/white issues exampled with McClelland's dilemma. Still, times will arise when we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, and we must decide whose target of damnation we will be.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[GarthB]

1. No.


2. No. (Provided the appeals committee has at least one brain amongst them)

GB

[Tim C]

I wonder why I liked Garth's answer much more than Bfair's?

[ozzy6900]

The visit is defined by the rules you are playing under. In OBR, the visit is over when the manager leaves the dirt portion of the mound. He has to keep walking and cannot return. In FED, the visit is over when the manager leaves the mound and crosses the foul line. In your case, the manager already was in the dugout so he looses. You did right by intercepting him and threatening him with ejection. Normaly the PU (2 man) or the umpire closest to the dugout (multiple umpires) should take care of the situation, someone has to have the guts to do it! Well done!