ASA February Clarifications

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by josephrt1

So along those lines I have 3 notes in my book on section 4.6.C:

There are 3 different terms used in 4.6:
1. Is discovered
2. Is brought to the attention of the umpire
3. Is protested
Do they all mean the same thing. To be “protested” and “brought to the attention” require someone else to notify the ump. But “is discovered” is vague. If I as the ump detect the change, is that “discovered”?

Accurate answer; yes, if you detect it, it has been discovered.

Real world answer; detecting it when you can use preventative officiating, do it. Afterwards, if there is a possible advantage/disadvantage to either team as a result of you "discovering", well, I would simply continue to not notice, and put the onus on the opposing team to bring to my attention and protest.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Accurate answer; yes, if you detect it, it has been discovered.

Real world answer; detecting it when you can use preventative officiating, do it.

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

When I "observe" someone new walking out, or an obvious reentry, and especially during a changeover half inning, I most often pull out my lineup card and pen, open the lineup card, and meaningfully wait for a coach that I just KNOW is just waiting to report it to me but having a different conversation. About 90% of the time, that expedites what is otherwise an avoidable delay, and preventative, as well, without actually telling the coach to report it. If the coach doesn't take the hint, I put it all away when the catcher throws down, and let the chips fall as they may.

If a "friendly" team, if/when it finally reported by either team, I might suggest to my catcher (the one player on each team I always want on my side) that she "remind" her coach about re-entry when she's on her way out. My experience is that is one position that has a prevailing number of runners and then re-entry (followed by DP, F3, F5 in quantity), as well as a team leader.

Interestingly (and I know I was the one saying this isn't an NCAA thread, BUT), the experimental 90 second rule would remove any such delay, since substitutions must be made at the beginning of the 90 seconds; if not, the offending team must wait one complete batter to make (or assumably report) a legal substitution.

As to what you've been told, I would only suggest that "never", "always", and "not your business" are blanket statements that shouldn't "always" apply. Look at where you are, what you are doing, and judge what is appropriate accordingly. "Never" and "always" are words used most often by those that lack the ability to make that judgment, or else presume that you lack that ability.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

I'm with Steve. Pull the line-up card and take a look toward the coach.That was often enough to ignite that light bulb above his/her head and report the change. Of course, this was more effective before the umpires were moved off the lines between innings

[Manny A]

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

I don't have a definitive answer given how this thread has developed. But if it were a D3K where the catcher retrieved the ball and either tagged the batter or threw to F3 for the out, I'd consider that a play.

If a pitch is not considered a "play" and F1 strikes out the side on 9 pitches, then 9 pitches aren't "plays" either.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

I am ruling that yes, this is a play. The catcher caught the pitched ball, in what I will presume was an attempt to retire the BR. Per the USA Softball definition of a play, this is a play. If it's a D3K, and F2 throws to a base, then it is absolutely a play as well.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I am ruling that yes, this is a play. The catcher caught the pitched ball, in what I will presume was an attempt to retire the BR. Per the USA Softball definition of a play, this is a play. If it's a D3K, and F2 throws to a base, then it is absolutely a play as well.

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

From the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department:

1) No one is essentially or virtually (preferred term of a fellow umpire) saying anything!! res ipsa loquitor, the thing (rulebook) speaks for itself. Read the exact rule from the rulebook.

2) Don't want nor need ANYTHING from USA Softball that would either be redundant or unsupported by the rule as adopted and written.

3) We have in this discussion a very clear rule, and exactly one clearly defined exception (agreeing with someone else's rule that differs doesn't muddy this; it is someone else's rule, not THIS rule). The one stated exception is the pitcher delivering the pitch. Personally, I conclude that exception neither includes the catcher catching (or NOT catching) the pitch anymore than it excludes the third baseman that may catch a foul fly ball. I could be wrong; but until a different rule is passed, any official interpretation that THEN includes the catcher is unsupported.

4) Many/most consider the NCAA rulebook repetitive, redundant, overstated, by attempting to restate every permutation of third world "what if" scenarios, instead of allowing the thought process to make reasonable conclusions. And several of their restatements conflict with the original rule, creating even MORE inconsistencies. Why do you wish that on any other rulebook, rather than accept what IS, as well as what IS NOT stated?

If I were the rules editor, I would refuse to restate what I believe is clearly stated (and/or clearly NOT included).

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

Referencing the bold section as it applied to my "ruling" on the hypothetical in this thread: 2017 USA Softball Participant Manual, Rule 1: "Play"; page 30.

PLAY: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal.

That is the rule, verbatim. (Italics mine) The italicized portion is relevant to our conversation.

Edit for Steve -- I'm tired, and your last post was both eloquently verbose and firmly worded. My brain isn't compatible with your post right now. To be clear: You agree with me then, under ASA/USA, that a catcher catching (or not) a third-strike pitch for a putout is making a play? (Also, for what it's worth, I like the NCAA rulebook "in principle" as there are written rules for some of these third-world plays that come up...what I don't like is the "interpretations" that conflict with other rules, as you pointed out.)