B causes IP(?)

[jmkupka]

High level ball, Gold qualifier.

F1 taking signal, batter says "time" a moment before separation of hands.
I don't allow the timeout, and batter does not deviate from her "ready" position at bat.
F1 stops her action immediately after separating her hands.

All this happens within a second, of course.

In my opinion, the batter's word caused F1's hesitation.
I don't call IP.

OC goes ballistic, demanding an IP. "I train my girls to step out ONLY if time is granted. If it's not, and they let a strike go down the middle, they have to deal with me."

If batter never uttered a word, and F1 did what she did, of course I'd have IP.

So, does my opinion dictate the result here (at this level)?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

High level ball, Gold qualifier.

F1 taking signal, batter says "time" a moment before separation of hands.
I don't allow the timeout, and batter does not deviate from her "ready" position at bat.
F1 stops her action immediately after separating her hands.

All this happens within a second, of course.

In my opinion, the batter's word caused F1's hesitation.
I don't call IP.

OC goes ballistic, demanding an IP. "I train my girls to step out ONLY if time is granted. If it's not, and they let a strike go down the middle, they have to deal with me."

If batter never uttered a word, and F1 did what she did, of course I'd have IP.

So, does my opinion dictate the result here (at this level)?

What did the batter do that was illegal? Requesting time is not illegal.

[RKBUmp]

Don't have book in front of me but there is a rule saying something about the offense shall not call time or any other phrase to induce an illegal pitch.

[MT 73]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

High level ball, Gold qualifier.

F1 taking signal, batter says "time" a moment before separation of hands.
I don't allow the timeout, and batter does not deviate from her "ready" position at bat.
F1 stops her action immediately after separating her hands.

All this happens within a second, of course.

In my opinion, the batter's word caused F1's hesitation.
I don't call IP.

OC goes ballistic, demanding an IP. "I train my girls to step out ONLY if time is granted. If it's not, and they let a strike go down the middle, they have to deal with me."

If batter never uttered a word, and F1 did what she did, of course I'd have IP.

So, does my opinion dictate the result here (at this level)?

This is similar to a batter induced balk in baseball, which means it is nothing.
If in your opinion the batter caused F1's hesitation then just call time and it is a do over.
As for the coach going ballistic--explain to him what happened and if he persists calmly remind hm that it is YOU who are in charge of the game.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Don't have book in front of me but there is a rule saying something about the offense shall not call time or any other phrase to induce an illegal pitch.

Again, requesting "time" is not only legal, it is a demand if a player would like play suspended.

The interpretation (case book, I believe) to which you are referring I believe notes a batter raising her hand (toward the pitcher) in an attempt to draw an IP.

I'll say it again, requesting "time" is not an illegal act, nor an attempt to draw an IP.

Pitchers should be and ARE coached to complete any pitch once started.

IMO, the OP is an IP.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Don't have book in front of me but there is a rule saying something about the offense shall not call time or any other phrase to induce an illegal pitch.

The rule (2016 book, but I'm sure it's the same) is 6A.10(e): No pitch shall be declared (E) when a player...calls time...for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch. (emphasis mine, rest of the rule snipped; and the ellipses are also snips). Effect: Dead ball. All subsequent action on that pitch is cancelled.

Unless the batter is trying to bait the pitcher, this is an IP. The onus is on the pitcher to deliver a legal pitch no matter what the batter is doing. Once the hands go together, we're going to have a pitch, legal or illegal.

At low levels, I might kill it and reset it. I can sell that in rec ball. At the Gold qualifier level, IP all day every day.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by teebob21

The rule (2016 book, but I'm sure it's the same) is 6A.10(e): No pitch shall be declared (E) when a player...calls time...for the obvious purpose of trying to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch. (emphasis mine, rest of the rule snipped; and the ellipses are also snips). Effect: Dead ball. All subsequent action on that pitch is cancelled.

Unless the batter is trying to bait the pitcher, this is an IP. The onus is on the pitcher to deliver a legal pitch no matter what the batter is doing. Once the hands go together, we're going to have a pitch, legal or illegal.

At low levels, I might kill it and reset it. I can sell that in rec ball. At the Gold qualifier level, IP all day every day.

At what point do you consider the batter trying to bait the pitcher? I think the first time I've got an IP. If the same team is making a regular habit of this, now I have to seriously question if the team is trying to bait the pitcher into an IP or not.

At Rec league or low level travel ball I'm not calling an IP and will kill it with a no pitch. At the higher level I better have a near certainty that the offensive team is baiting the pitcher.

[Andy]

I'm going to disagree with my two esteemed colleagues on this one....

Irish is absolutely correct that it is not illegal to request time and Tee is correct that, by rule, the action must be done with the intent to cause an IP.

While the action of requesting time is not illegal, it is unusual. It doesn't happen on every pitch with every batter.

The "intent" of the batter in most of these situations is to disrupt the pitcher from her pitching routine. The batter usually thinks that the pitcher is taking too long to deliver the pitch, so she (batter) wants to make the pitcher start over. If an IP is called, not only has the batter succeeded in disrupting the pitcher, she has received the "bonus" of an IP that her actions directly led to.

Yes...a GOLD level pitcher should know enough that once she starts the pitch to finish it. However, I'm not going to allow an unusual action of the batter, even though it's a legal one, to result in an IP.

Call time, No pitch, reset and go again.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm going to disagree with my two esteemed colleagues on this one....

Irish is absolutely correct that it is not illegal to request time and Tee is correct that, by rule, the action must be done with the intent to cause an IP.

While the action of requesting time is not illegal, it is unusual. It doesn't happen on every pitch with every batter.

The "intent" of the batter in most of these situations is to disrupt the pitcher from her pitching routine. The batter usually thinks that the pitcher is taking too long to deliver the pitch, so she (batter) wants to make the pitcher start over. If an IP is called, not only has the batter succeeded in disrupting the pitcher, she has received the "bonus" of an IP that her actions directly led to.

Yes...a GOLD level pitcher should know enough that once she starts the pitch to finish it. However, I'm not going to allow an unusual action of the batter, even though it's a legal one, to result in an IP.

Call time, No pitch, reset and go again.

Well put and I completely concur.
The moment I see the pitcher deviating, I "grant" the time. Perhaps loudly and boldly.

[Manny A]

ASA 6-10-E covers the specific situation where an umpire judges that a player, manager or coach intentionally tries to make the pitcher commit an illegal pitch. The effect is a No Pitch call, as well as a team warning for the obviously unsporting act.

There is no rule in ASA that allows us to have "offsetting penalties" when it comes to a batter verbally requesting Time which, in turn, causes a pitcher to hesitate or stop his/her delivery. Why, I'm not sure. Similar rules exist in other softball organizations.

In FED, the batter verbally asking for time is not mentioned; what is mentioned in rule 7-3-1 is when the batter steps out of the box or holds up her hand to request time. But to me, I would argue that verbally requesting it has the same implication as putting up the hand, so I would rule the No Pitch.

In NCAA play, rule 11.12.5 is more open-ended. It does include the language "holding up her hand or using any other action as if requesting time". So if this happened in college play, the PU should rule the No Pitch.

So why would ASA pitchers as young as 8U be held to a higher standard than NCAA Division I pitchers? Candidly, I don't think they should. But without an actual rule or case play, we are bound to calling an IP here.

[jmkupka]

I'm really glad there are opposing POVs here.
But at the risk of contradicting my own OP...
I don't believe it was an attempt at deception by the batter.
But I do believe F2 stopped her action solely due to the batter's word.

That said, strictly following the rule, I think I should have ruled IP.

At least at the higher level.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

At what point do you consider the batter trying to bait the pitcher? I think the first time I've got an IP. If the same team is making a regular habit of this, now I have to seriously question if the team is trying to bait the pitcher into an IP or not.

At Rec league or low level travel ball I'm not calling an IP and will kill it with a no pitch. At the higher level I better have a near certainty that the offensive team is baiting the pitcher.

I'm with you on this. If the pitcher is getting late in the time-between-pitches count, and the batter wants time, I probably either grant it or tell the batter "NO" and keep counting. I could have been less cut-and-dried in my reply, and I'm calling time way more than I'm calling IPs here in the real world...but the scenario in the OP looks like an IP to me.

If a team's batters start asking for time right as the pitcher starts her motion, then that's obvious enough to me that the intent is to disconcert.

I respectfully disagree with Andy that the intent of the batter IN MOST CASES is to disrupt the pitcher's timing. If that was the case, I would have issued far more warnings for this than my current lifetime count of zero. Rather, I suspect the intent is for the batter to refocus and reset herself when a pitch is slow in coming. We're not mind readers, so who knows. Ten or twenty seconds is a long time to stand ready in that batter's box, and the "coaching" that comes from the stands is usually to "make the pitcher reset". IMO, boo to that idea. This isn't baseball: the pitcher gets a certain amount of time to throw and she can use as much or as little of it as she likes. The rule is there to keep the game moving with consistent pace, and granting time to a batter unnecessarily is a great way to slow down the game.

Fed and NCAA have rules covering when a pitcher violates based on a batter's "innocent" actions or simultaneous violations, but USA/ASA does not. I gotta call an IP here.

[RKBUmp]

From the OP, unless the pitcher was hanging the batter out the timing of the verbal time request along with the coaches reaction to the IP not being called sounds to me like this was a coached tactic to try and illicit an IP.

Information not included in the OP that could very well have bearing on the situation, were there any runners on base and if so where were they? How convenient would it be in a critical point in the game with a runner on 3rd base to get an IP called?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm going to disagree with my two esteemed colleagues on this one....

Irish is absolutely correct that it is not illegal to request time and Tee is correct that, by rule, the action must be done with the intent to cause an IP.

While the action of requesting time is not illegal, it is unusual. It doesn't happen on every pitch with every batter.

Unusual? What games do you umpire? Are not batters told that if they want "time", they must request it, not just assume it will be approved just because they raise a hand or step out?

The "intent" of the batter in most of these situations is to disrupt the pitcher from her pitching routine. The batter usually thinks that the pitcher is taking too long to deliver the pitch, so she (batter) wants to make the pitcher start over. If an IP is called, not only has the batter succeeded in disrupting the pitcher, she has received the "bonus" of an IP that her actions directly led to.

Yes...a GOLD level pitcher should know enough that once she starts the pitch to finish it. However, I'm not going to allow an unusual action of the batter, even though it's a legal one, to result in an IP.

Please. That is taught at 12U. You are making a lot of assumptions that simply have not been presented. The umpire did not approve the request for time, the batter did not make any movement or action that would affect the pitcher

Call time, No pitch, reset and go again.

Back in the day.......we were taught that when something like this happened, you called the whatever happened. If it occurred again, then you called no pitch and warn players and coaches.

[tcannizzo]

Unusual? What games do you umpire? Are not batters told that if they want "time", they must request it, not just assume it will be approved just because they raise a hand or step out?

Just because batters request time, does not mean they are going to get it.

What was it, 6-7 yrs ago when we were instructed NOT to automatically grant time . . . that P has 20 seconds (USA/ASA, et al) to deliver the pitch, and she is going to get every bit of it, unless the batter was in some kind of distress.

In addition to pitchers, GOLD batters and coaches should know this by now.