Charged Visit?

[Ed Austin]

I'm PU for a Babe Ruth game, so OBR. I take a hard foul ball off the arm. I announce that I need a couple of minutes to get the sting out, so I walk off to the side rubbing my arm not really aware of what else is going on.

After a few minutes, I say play ball and play resumes. Pitcher walks a couple of batters and coach comes out to talk with his pitcher (same inning). Offensive coach comes out and says second visit, therefore pitcher must leave the game as a pitcher under Babe Ruth rules (may remain in the game in some other position).

I was unaware that during my recovery time, the defensive coach came out and talked with his infield on the mound. I confirmed this with the PU. I said that his visit during my time out would not be a charged visit. Coach said OK and walked away. Should this have been a charged visit?

2) What if an offensive player gets injured, e.g., batter gets hit with a pitch and needs a few minutes to attend to his injury. If the defensive coach talks with his pitcher on the field during this injury time, is it a charged visit?

[Jim Porter]

Official Baseball Rules

The intent of the charged conference rule is to avoid delay in the game. The defense is charged with a conference when they stop play to meet with the pitcher.

Since you stopped play because of your injury, I would not charge that conference unless the conference somehow delayed the game. They would have to still be meeting when you are ready to resume play before you should charge the conference.

The same should apply in all other situations. If there's a time out initiated by someone other than the defense, the defense can conference during this time. They must be ready to resume play right away, though. Any delay for their conference whatsoever and you should charge that conference.

If the time out is initiated by the defense, then any meetings with the pitcher should be charged. Otherwise teams could be devious and circumvent the spirit of the rule by a faked injury.

A. Defense initiates time out - charge any pitcher conferences.
B. Someone else initiates time out - do not charge the conference unless such conference causes a further delay in the game.

This is my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree. There is no official interpretation in this area, except for Little League Baseball (all divisions.) Their interp is as I have stated above.

[Alan G]

You're right, Jim. I disagree.
The reason for limiting the number of trips to a pitcher in the same inning is to prevent delays that would occur if you could come out to talk to the pitcher after each batter. But that limitation must be adhered to, even if the offense calls time.

Your statement suggests that if the offense calls time (batter goes to third base coach to discuss signs, coach goes to bring helmet to runner, etc.) then the defensive manager can talk to the pitcher so long as he's done by the time the offense finishes. Maybe LL handles this differently, but OBR would call it a trip. The OBR rule regarding trips does not refer to any exceptions that I'm aware of.

(IMO, a trip should be charged in both examples raised in the original post.)

[Edited by Alan G on Sep 27th, 2000 at 04:06 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Alan G
You're right, Jim. I disagree.
The reason for limiting the number of trips to a pitcher in the same inning is to prevent delays that would occur if you could come out to talk to the pitcher after each batter. But that limitation must be adhered to, even if the offense calls time.

Your statement suggests that if the offense calls time (batter goes to third base coach to discuss signs, coach goes to bring helmet to runner, etc.) then the defensive manager can talk to the pitcher so long as he's done by the time the offense finishes. Maybe LL handles this differently, but OBR would call it a trip. The OBR rule regarding trips does not refer to any exceptions that I'm aware of.

(IMO, a trip should be charged in both examples raised in the original post.)

[Edited by Alan G on Sep 27th, 2000 at 04:06 PM]

Alan,

American League Umpires Rules and Regulations, as listed in Make the Right Call, says quite simply, "This rule was adopted by the clubs to speed up games and managers should abide by the spirit of the rule."

Furthermore, "playing coaches" are allowed to visit the mound without being charged as long as they do not abuse the privilege. In youth league, there's no such thing as "playing coaches," so there's an element in the professional rule that cannot possibly occur in youth leagues.

Jim Evans tells us that this rule was adopted in 1967, just when baseball on TV was becoming big business. This is compelling evidence that this rule was adopted for TV. Youth leagues are not played on TV. Youth leagues should not be expected to adhere strictly to the professional code on this matter.

Youth leagues stress instruction as much as competition. Anytime we can give a manager or coach the opportunity to instruct or encourage a player without penalty, we should do so.

I just don't understand your reluctance to accept my opinion. If it doesn't delay the game, and it is impossible for the defense to circumvent the spirit of the rule, what's the harm? I say there is none.

[Rog]

Jim:
I would like to think that what you say is the case; but, take a quick peek at page 65 of NAPBL under: NOTE!
As much as I'm also inclined to allow the visit; if I read this "note" correctly, I don't believe we can.

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Alan,

American League Umpires Rules and Regulations, as listed in Make the Right Call, says quite simply, "This rule was adopted by the clubs to speed up games and managers should abide by the spirit of the rule."

Furthermore, "playing coaches" are allowed to visit the mound without being charged as long as they do not abuse the privilege. In youth league, there's no such thing as "playing coaches," so there's an element in the professional rule that cannot possibly occur in youth leagues.

Jim Evans tells us that this rule was adopted in 1967, just when baseball on TV was becoming big business. This is compelling evidence that this rule was adopted for TV. Youth leagues are not played on TV. Youth leagues should not be expected to adhere strictly to the professional code on this matter.

Youth leagues stress instruction as much as competition. Anytime we can give a manager or coach the opportunity to instruct or encourage a player without penalty, we should do so.

I just don't understand your reluctance to accept my opinion. If it doesn't delay the game, and it is impossible for the defense to circumvent the spirit of the rule, what's the harm? I say there is none.

[Alan G]

Jim,

I have a book called "Make the Right Call", but I can't find the section "American League Umpires Rules and Regulations" which you referred to. In my book, trips to the mound are discussed on pp 156-9. Nevertheless, the quote you provide does not support (or weaken) your interpretation. Also, this is the first time I have heard anyone use "Make the Right Call" as an authoritative reference. But even in my copy, it's clear that there are no exceptions (except in the case of injury to the pitcher).

Anyway, what rule IS it that helps speed up the game? Isn't it the rule that forces a manager to remove a pitcher on the second trip? There is no rule that says, "No trip will be counted when the manager talks to his pitcher after the offense or umpire calls time, unless the offense or umpire is ready to continue and the conversation with the pitcher continues."

Play: Pitcher is struggling to get outs. Batter hits a double and slides hard into second. He appears to be injured, time is called, and the offensive coach goes out to tend to his player. During the time out, the defensive coach goes out to the mound to settle down his pitcher. Defensive coach returns to the bench, after which the coach of the offense returns to his bench.

If I understand your point of view, that's not a trip. I don't agree with that.

[Jim Porter]

Rog,

The whole point to my "opinion" was that professional rules and interps should not apply to youth leagues in this situation. There are factors not present in youth leagues that change the dynamic of this rule. The NAPBL Manual should not apply in this situation when young kids are playing the game.

At least Little League agrees with me. Their interpretation is official for their organization. That's enough for me to apply the LL interp across all OBR-based youth leagues. I'll take my chances with a protest in Cal Ripken or Babe Ruth.

As I said before, the only reason for the rule is to speed up the game. If there's no delay, I've got no problems with it.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Alan G
Jim,

I have a book called "Make the Right Call", but I can't find the section "American League Umpires Rules and Regulations" which you referred to. In my book, trips to the mound are discussed on pp 156-9. Nevertheless, the quote you provide does not support (or weaken) your interpretation. Also, this is the first time I have heard anyone use "Make the Right Call" as an authoritative reference. But even in my copy, it's clear that there are no exceptions (except in the case of injury to the pitcher).

Anyway, what rule IS it that helps speed up the game? Isn't it the rule that forces a manager to remove a pitcher on the second trip? There is no rule that says, "No trip will be counted when the manager talks to his pitcher after the offense or umpire calls time, unless the offense or umpire is ready to continue and the conversation with the pitcher continues."

Play: Pitcher is struggling to get outs. Batter hits a double and slides hard into second. He appears to be injured, time is called, and the offensive coach goes out to tend to his player. During the time out, the defensive coach goes out to the mound to settle down his pitcher. Defensive coach returns to the bench, after which the coach of the offense returns to his bench.

If I understand your point of view, that's not a trip. I don't agree with that.

Alan,

Make the Right Call is simply a big Official Baseball Rules, with casebook comments in gray, and added comments from American League Umpires Rules and Regulations as well as Instructions to National League Umpires (when they differ or add information.) If you read the introduction to the book, it explains all of this.

So if you look under 8.06, and then look under American League, you will find the quote I have provided.

"This rule was adopted by the clubs to speed up games and managers should abide by the spirit of the rule."

How you can say that this does not support "my" interpretation (remember, it isn't my interpretation, it is Little League's) is beyond me. The spirit and intent of a rule, specifically why it was adopted to the professional code, is absolutely key to administering the rules of baseball. I cannot stress that enough. It is absolutely key to administering the rules.

So, if the rule is there to "speed up" the game, and such a conference in youth leagues wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on how quickly the game is played, I have no problem with it. And neither does Little League.

In the play you created, I have no idea why you have such a problem with Little League's interpretation (and my opinion.) No, I wouldn't charge a conference. The rule is there to speed up the game, not to limit the number of times a coach can settle down a player, or to limit strategic meetings, or anything else you can dream up. It's there to speed up games.

I wrote the following piece last winter, when Little League and Andy Konyar were taking quite a beating over this interpretation. It helped to convince many people that LL's interpretation was the right one for youth leagues. Perhaps it will do the same for you.

___________________________________________
There can be little doubt that the rules limiting manager and player-manager trips to the pitcher were instituted for one reason: to speed up the game. According to Amercian League Umpires Rules and Regulations, "This rule was adopted by the clubs to speed up games and managers should abide by the spirit of the rule." Indeed other interpretive manuals agree, therefore we can easily dismiss the idea that any tactical or strategic purposes exist for limiting pitcher and manager visits. Quite the contrary, for player-coaches ARE allowed to have multiple visits with a pitcher as long as they do not abuse such privilege.

Jim Evans's Annotated:
"TRIPS TO THE MOUND BY PLAYING COACH
While playing he will be treated as a player until such time he is considered to have abused the privilege. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the privilege is abused, the playing coach and his manager will be advised that any future visits to the mound will be charged as trips."

NAPBL Manual:
"6.11 TRIPS TO THE MOUND BY PLAYER-COACH
While playing, a player-coach will be treated as a player until he is con-sidered to have abused the privilege. If; in the judgment of the umpire, the privilege is abused, the player-coach and his manager will be advised that any future visits to the mound will be charged as trips."

Jaksa/Roder
"A player-coach is considered to be a player unless he abuses his privilege, whereupon he, too, shall be subject to the above limitations."

All of the other provisions and instructions regarding this rule are all pointed toward avoiding a delay in the game. From the rule requiring a manager to remain in the circle in order not to be charged for another visit to an in-coming pitcher, to the instruction allowing managers to change their mind about the visit until they reach the foul line - all instructions and rules point toward the obvious answer that 8.06 is only in the book to speed up the game.

Limitations are ONLY put on managers and player-managers and ONLY in an effort to discourage delay. If tactical or strategic reasons for these limitations existed, player-coaches would also be included in the limitation. They clearly are not. This is compelling evidence that delay is the only objective to OBR Rule 8.06.

Where most people get sidetracked on the issue of the spirit of the charged visits rule is when considering a visit to an injured or ill pitcher. In such cases we are instructed to accompany the manager to assure that the injury visit is legitimate and that strategy is not discussed. The only reason that "strategy" is a part of this instruction is to ensure that the game has not been needlessly delayed. As the OBR casebook comments clearly explain, "Any attempt to evade or circumvent this rule by the manager or coach...shall constitute a trip to the mound." If the manager goes to the mound for the sole purpose of checking on an injured pitcher, that needs to be the only purpose for the visit. Otherwise, managers could circumvent the spirit of the rule and continue to delay the game without restriction.

Rule 8.06 was adopted in 1967 which gives us even more insight into the spirit with which and reasons why 8.06 was adopted by the rules committee. It was during this time period that professional baseball on television was becoming big business. This had tremendous influence in the necessity to adopt 8.06. Long, dragged out contests make for boring television. By limiting the number of times managers could visit the mound, television viewers would not have to be subjected to the boring delaying tactics that were being employed by MLB's managers.

The construct of MLB parks was also a factor in adopting 8.06. With the propensity of MLB managers to slowly saunter to the mound, sometimes they take what seems like a television eternity to finally reach their destination. Almost all MLB parks have their dugouts situated a full 60 feet from the baseline and sometimes much more. This makes the distance to the pitcher's mound 90 feet from the dugout. Managers make the most out of this 90 feet. Think about how slowly YOU can walk from home to first base.

So why, when LL has added rules to specifically speed up the games, would they allow a defensive trip during an offensive time-out without charging the conference?

That answer is multi-layered.

1. LL games are not geared toward a television audience.

2. LL has limited offensive time-outs to one per inning. So the most that this could happen is once every inning.

3. The LL interpretation requires that no extra time be used by the defense during the offense's time out and thus no delay in the game would take place. If there was a delay then that WOULD be considered a charged defensive conference. The spirit of the rule is preserved.

4. LL requires managers to meet with their pitchers at the foul line. This is only a recommended 25 feet - a far cry from the MLB 90 feet. At some LL fields, in fact most in my area, this distance is closer still.

5. LL games are only 6 innings long.

6. LL's purpose is far different from any other baseball league in the world. The main purpose is centered around teaching children teamwork, sportsmanship and fair play. The baseball game is not central to the program (vital, but not central.) It is LL's goal, and hope, that any manager who does use such a free visit would do so for the benefit of that child and to meet the goals of the LL program.

There are those who argue that the rules are clear. I have learned in 18 years of umpiring that no rules are clear. The issue is over the words, "come out to visit". The LL interpretation of those words, especially "to visit", is only when the time-out is not initiated by the offense. If a time-out is initiated by the offense and the defense comes out, it is NOT considered a "visit". It is only considered a "visit" if the defense delays the game beyond the offensive time-out.

This idea of interpreting simple everyday words into "baseball language" is not unusual, like this unique LL definition of "visit". In fact there is an entire section of the OBR which deals with just definitions of words, some of these definitions alter the very meaning of those words themselves.

There are other examples in the rules where interpretation seems to contradict the rules themselves. For example when a batter is hit by a foul ball while his foot or any part of his person is in the fair portion of the batter's box. Due to fairness we consider this a foul ball. By the letter of the rule the batter should be out. No one could possibly propose calling out a batter who gets hit by a foul ball while in the box despite the fact that the rules say we sometimes must.

Interpretation has allowed us to relax rules such as the coaching box when the letter of the rules are quite clear.

The LL rulebook tells us that, "any umpire's decision which involves judgment...is final." It even goes on to specifically name balls and strikes as an example. Now how many of you honor a request from the defense for a checked-swing appeal when you've called the pitch a ball? Ah! But the rules are quite clear that this is not allowed.

Jaksa/Roder has lists of inarticulate, contradictory and ambiguous rules which require interpretation in order for anyone to make sense out of them. This just confirms the idea that interpretation is required for calling baseball. The rulebook itself is not enough.

Another common argument has been, "That's not the way other leagues do it." So what? To each his own, the grass is always greener...how many other cliches could I come up with that illustrate through ancestral wisdom that this is no argument whatsoever? Why even Leave it to Beaver had at least 25 episodes devoted to this concept alone.

We are now left with one, and only one, reason for charging defensive conferences during offensive time-outs - tradition. Sometimes tradition is as good a reason as any for holding onto rules or regulations in a game so rich with history as baseball is.

But when such a tradition makes little logical sense, does not violate the spirit of the rule in question, contains factors that do not apply to the field or level in which you are playing, contradicts the goals of the league and makes no difference in the balance between teams or the advantage/disadvantage concept, then I submit it is time to let go of the tradition and allow good common sense to prevail.

Andy Konyar agrees, Eastern Region agrees, according to Hayes Davis Western Region has agreed all along, I agree, - we all agree. We have strong supporting evidence that I have provided above - historical evidence, material evidence and even the wisdom of the Cleavers. This is why we feel the way we do.

I hope you can at least see our side of the story. You can certainly disagree, that is your business, but don't use such words as "stupid" to describe someone whose opinion is based on so much historical evidence and common sense. This is not an interpetation made off the cuff - that idea is absurd. The idea that this interpretation was made hastily is short-sighted to say the least. It was not. And everything I have just taken an hour to compile proves that is true.

[Rog]

Jim:
I've put my shades on; cause, you just shed so much light on the subject that I got blinded. ;-}
Anyway, in most of the Babe Ruth games I've done; unless I feel a coach is going to object, I would probably allow the visit.
But, it has been my experience that the BR leagues seem to follow the OBR real closely. Unlike some other leagues which like to: adopt, modify, alter, codify, insert, change, overlook, ignore, etc. rules on occasion.
I feel that BR opted to follow OBR for a specific reason; and as such, should follow those edicts. Especially if I feel an issue will be protested. On this I believe you would agree as well.

Originally posted by Jim Porter
Rog,

The whole point to my "opinion" was that professional rules and interps should not apply to youth leagues in this situation. There are factors not present in youth leagues that change the dynamic of this rule. The NAPBL Manual should not apply in this situation when young kids are playing the game.

At least Little League agrees with me. Their interpretation is official for their organization. That's enough for me to apply the LL interp across all OBR-based youth leagues. I'll take my chances with a protest in Cal Ripken or Babe Ruth.

As I said before, the only reason for the rule is to speed up the game. If there's no delay, I've got no problems with it.

[Alan G]

Jim,

I read your last post and although there's lots to disagree with, I must go further than that on one issue. I did not use the word "stupid" in anything I've written on this issue (or any other, for that matter). Please do not make that kind of unwarrented accusation. (I realize that may have been directed at someone other than myself, but it wasn't obvious on first reading.)

Back to baseball: LL has its own rules about lots of things. (Dropped third strike, stealing, number of trips in an inning, etc.) So if it's a LL rule or interpretation, I don't see what that has to do with OBR.

Next, your continuing to refer to the rights of a player-coach as though that settles the issue is way off. The limitation is on the non-playing manager or coach because of the potential delay. But as you point out(quoting JEA, NAPBL, and JR), a player-coach is assumed to be a player (unless the privilege is abused) with all the rights allowed a player. The reason the two-trip rule for managers speeds up the game is because it prohibits a third and subsequent trip, which would slow down the game.

As my last and final attempt to convince you, please tell me the last time you saw a ML game in which a manager went to talk to the pitcher (no injury involved) and it was NOT a trip. I've never seen it, and I'll bet you haven't either. So if I'm umpiring in a league which uses OBR, I think I'd have a tough time convincing the offensive coach that I'm not counting a trip to the mound. (My explanation that it is a LL interpretation would probably not count for much.)

[Edited by Alan G on Sep 28th, 2000 at 01:17 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Alan G
Jim,

I read your last post and although there's lots to disagree with, I must go further than that on one issue. I did not use the word "stupid" in anything I've written on this issue (or any other, for that matter). Please do not make that kind of unwarrented accusation. (I realize that may have been directed at someone other than myself, but it wasn't obvious on first reading.)

Alan,

I said pretty clearly that I was reposting a piece I had written some months ago. I said pretty clearly that it was written in response to folks who blasted Andy Konyar (LL) for this interpretation. I even put a line between yesterday's comments and the repost so there would be no confusion.

If it wasn't clear to you, that certainly wasn't my fault. I did everything I could to let everyone know that it was a reposted piece.

I apologize if you were confused.

As to your other comments, I said over and over and over and over that the LL interpretation of this exact OBR rule should be used in OBR-based youth leagues. I don't know why you'd bring up MLB.

If I were working a Babe Ruth game, and I allowed a defensive conference during an offense-initiated time-out, and the offensive coach questioned me on it, my answer would not be, "Well, that's the way it's done in Little League, Coach." Instead, my answer would be, "The spirit of the rule is to avoid delays in the game. The defense caused no delay, therefore I am charging no conference." It's that simple.

You keep making claims about the intent behind these rules. I would appreciate some source for your claims. My authoritative sources tell me differently. If you know something I don't, please let me know. I'd hate to have missed something important.

Thanks for your time. It has been an interesting discussion.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Rog
Jim:
I've put my shades on; cause, you just shed so much light on the subject that I got blinded. ;-}
Anyway, in most of the Babe Ruth games I've done; unless I feel a coach is going to object, I would probably allow the visit.
But, it has been my experience that the BR leagues seem to follow the OBR real closely. Unlike some other leagues which like to: adopt, modify, alter, codify, insert, change, overlook, ignore, etc. rules on occasion.
I feel that BR opted to follow OBR for a specific reason; and as such, should follow those edicts. Especially if I feel an issue will be protested. On this I believe you would agree as well.

Of course leagues are different from one town to another. For Little League, what I have outlined is the official interpretation. For other OBR-based youth leagues, what I have outlined is my opinion.

Babe Ruth isn't pure OBR either, though Rog. They have made changes to suit the level of play, just like LL. That's why I personally don't have a problem ruling as I have outlined.

Really, the proper ruling for Babe Ruth and other OBR-based youth leagues is exactly what it says in the NAPBL Manual. I never pretended to deny that. I just thought an interesting discussion could take place around my opinion that, in this area, it just doesn't make good sense to use the Pro interpretation in youth leagues.

I do agree with you. And really, Alan and you are both correct and I am wrong. But that's never stopped me before from ambitiously defending my position.

Thanks again guys for an interesting discussion.

[Rog]

For us rookie's, these kind of debates are exactly what give us the insight needed to advance from novice to intermediate umpire's.
It can be difficult getting a grasp on some of the issues when so many responses are posted; and, a person has to take their pick of what they hope is the correct answer.
Someday I might even understand this game we call base
ball!

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Alan,

I said pretty clearly that I was reposting a piece I had written some months ago. I said pretty clearly that it was written in response to folks who blasted Andy Konyar (LL) for this interpretation. I even put a line between yesterday's comments and the repost so there would be no confusion.

If it wasn't clear to you, that certainly wasn't my fault. I did everything I could to let everyone know that it was a reposted piece.

I apologize if you were confused.

As to your other comments, I said over and over and over and over that the LL interpretation of this exact OBR rule should be used in OBR-based youth leagues. I don't know why you'd bring up MLB.

If I were working a Babe Ruth game, and I allowed a defensive conference during an offense-initiated time-out, and the offensive coach questioned me on it, my answer would not be, "Well, that's the way it's done in Little League, Coach." Instead, my answer would be, "The spirit of the rule is to avoid delays in the game. The defense caused no delay, therefore I am charging no conference." It's that simple.

You keep making claims about the intent behind these rules. I would appreciate some source for your claims. My authoritative sources tell me differently. If you know something I don't, please let me know. I'd hate to have missed something important.

Thanks for your time. It has been an interesting discussion.

[cmcallm]

Hi. I'm new here, but have 20+ years of NCAA, Legion, and Independent Minor League ball under my belt. I'm also a Rules Interpreter for the Illinois High School Association, so I do some homework and lots of experienced associates to lean on and draw from. Hopefully I can offer some insight from time to time.

As to "Trip or Not?", as long as there is no delay by the team having the conference, on the Federation level and levels below that I would NOT charge a trip. NCAA, Legion, and above I WOULD charge a trip. Logic? At the lower levels players are still learning the game, and I'd allow the opportunity enhance their ability. At the higher levels, my assumption is they know the game and therefore know the intent of a "trip" is for an initiating coach to discuss a situation with his players. If the opposing coach wants to discuss the same situation, or another situation, he will need to initiate his own trip (or wait until his team is in the dugout when he can talk to them without having to use a trip).

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by cmcallm
Hi. I'm new here, but have 20+ years of NCAA, Legion, and Independent Minor League ball under my belt. I'm also a Rules Interpreter for the Illinois High School Association, so I do some homework and lots of experienced associates to lean on and draw from. Hopefully I can offer some insight from time to time.

As to "Trip or Not?", as long as there is no delay by the team having the conference, on the Federation level and levels below that I would NOT charge a trip. NCAA, Legion, and above I WOULD charge a trip. Logic? At the lower levels players are still learning the game, and I'd allow the opportunity enhance their ability. At the higher levels, my assumption is they know the game and therefore know the intent of a "trip" is for an initiating coach to discuss a situation with his players. If the opposing coach wants to discuss the same situation, or another situation, he will need to initiate his own trip (or wait until his team is in the dugout when he can talk to them without having to use a trip).

Bless your heart! Thanks for the support. I was beginning to think I was all alone.

Plus, you've reminded me of something so vitally important it slipped my mind. You see, I live in Rhode Island. Our high schools play AL OBR, with some modifications of course. So my mind is almost never in FED mode.

The FED ruling is just as I have stated above. If the other team initiates the time-out, then the defense can meet without a conference being charged. (FED 3-4-5; 3.4.1b)

If I'm not mistaken, in NCAA, a trip is charged unless there is a "prolonged injury time-out." If that's the case then no trip should be charged. (Carl's BRD)

In OBR games, a trip should always be charged. But as cmcallm has said, and I concur, this should not be the case in youth leagues. It just makes too much sense to use the FED ruling.