Illlegal Pitch Effect

[MD Longhorn]

So you aided the defense. Bad move.

You should have stood there and done nothing. Talking to the offensive coach during the play and the defense overhearing your explanation directly affected the play and aided the defense.

Next time, do nothing. At MOST, continue to point fair, but this late in the play even that might be aiding one team over the other.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So you aided the defense. Bad move.

You should have stood there and done nothing. Talking to the offensive coach during the play and the defense overhearing your explanation directly affected the play and aided the defense.

Next time, do nothing. At MOST, continue to point fair, but this late in the play even that might be aiding one team over the other.

This and only this ^^^^^ And this is not aiding either team, but simply executing the prescribed mechanic

["Lurker"77]

Coaching in a scholastic sub-varsity situation (and often in other developmental situations), I never minded truly good officials who took every measure they could to take pity on new and under-educated coaches. I'm on this board, but I rarely wanted to see my team excessively score and dominate the game because the adult on the other side didn't know or hadn't educated their students on proper rules and procedures. It doesn't teach anything to my well-prepared team and doesn't help the other students either.

I think that Ernie's situation of two entire JV teams (please say there were no fans and only a solo coach with each team!) not understanding that a batter-runner is required to go to first base qualifies as a situation where a good umpire may want to stretch mechanics to help a clueless coach (two of them!). It's hard to see in this case how either coach could truly object to a using this as a teachable moment rather than just continuing to wait it out (which it sounds like it already had been a while).

At the JV level with very rough players/coaches early in the season, sometimes preventative-officiating-type conversations take place beyond the bounds where they typically should (dead balls, etc.) in order to get the student-athletes and raw coaches trained properly for later and higher levels, no?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by "Lurker"77

At the JV level with very rough players/coaches early in the season, sometimes preventative-officiating-type conversations take place beyond the bounds where they typically should (dead balls, etc.) in order to get the student-athletes and raw coaches trained properly for later and higher levels, no?

Preventative is one thing (telling a coach that's about to enter the field during a live ball, perhaps accompanied by a stop sign). Preventative things during dead balls are fine too (Hey, coach, your 1st baseman is obstructing on every single ball hit to the outfield).

But I cannot imagine any circumstance where a conversation, preventative or not, during a LIVE ball, could be appropriate at any age where they are keeping score (meaning 10U and up).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by "Lurker"77

Coaching in a scholastic sub-varsity situation (and often in other developmental situations), I never minded truly good officials who took every measure they could to take pity on new and under-educated coaches. I'm on this board, but I rarely wanted to see my team excessively score and dominate the game because the adult on the other side didn't know or hadn't educated their students on proper rules and procedures. It doesn't teach anything to my well-prepared team and doesn't help the other students either.

I think that Ernie's situation of two entire JV teams (please say there were no fans and only a solo coach with each team!) not understanding that a batter-runner is required to go to first base qualifies as a situation where a good umpire may want to stretch mechanics to help a clueless coach (two of them!). It's hard to see in this case how either coach could truly object to a using this as a teachable moment rather than just continuing to wait it out (which it sounds like it already had been a while).

At the JV level with very rough players/coaches early in the season, sometimes preventative-officiating-type conversations take place beyond the bounds where they typically should (dead balls, etc.) in order to get the student-athletes and raw coaches trained properly for later and higher levels, no?

Please stop making excuses. These kids learn at 6yo to run anytime
they hit the ball, especially in fair territory. Yes, there are coaches that are clueless, but there is really no reason for anyone to step foot on a field not to know that the batter runs when they hit the ball

["Lurker"77]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Please stop making excuses. These kids learn at 6yo to run anytime
they hit the ball, especially in fair territory. Yes, there are coaches that are clueless, but there is really no reason for anyone to step foot on a field not to know that the batter runs when they hit the ball

No argument there. There is no excuse for the batter not running or the coaches missing this initially, but the teachable moment here (and in similar situations) is to infer from silence which isn't always an easy skill even for adolescents to figure out depending on their strengths. I was saying (as a coach of similarly aged players in a different sport with a personal affinity for softball/baseball) if a JV player or their clueless coach(es) verbally ask an umpire during a live ball about the status of the ball, give them the push they need to help them connect the dots so they can learn to figure it out for themselves. Because, yes, they should know that an umpire not calling a play dead indicates something and be able to work logically back to the fact that they missed something.

For instance, this past season at an MLB game I saw in person, after a hit to the outfield with a runner on, the ball returned to the infield and F4 appeared to insist he wanted time. First was uncovered, so the (fast) batter had rounded first and stopped almost halfway to second (standing still). The umpire refused the request for time and F4 seemed to not figure out why -- and it wasn't the umpire's job to connect the dots for him at that level (although he may have even methodically glanced at the runner). If I recall correctly, F4 seemed to become upset before a teammate finally stepped in. No excuse at that level and entirely on the player/team. If a HS JV player was similarly confused/frustrated, even as the opposition, I would not necessarily object to the umpire waiting few beats (to see what happens) and giving a vague verbal clue if things were truly stuck -- although I agree it is a very fine line.

People who know the rules should know what certain non-calls mean (and certain signals, terminology, etc.), but if asked point blank in those situation what is going on by a confused participant in a scholastic game I've always appreciated officials that can artfully teach missing information without ceasing to perform all their proper duties, observation, and mechanics appropriately and without unduly disadvantaging those who come prepared and ready.

[Put another way, it is not officials jobs to coach or teach. But, in extreme situations where bad coaching is actively confusing the rules and procedures of the game to kidsin a learning environment, I've never minded an official taking small steps to clarify or translate their rulings and mechanics when they see that a vast majority of the participants did not understand something and it has started to create a mess. Typically, a dead ball would be required, but if everyone completely stops on a live ball and can't figure out what to do . . .]