Implied Time Out

[Roger Greene]

And just how are you going to handle this (IMO "silly") implied time out on a checked swing with an uncaught third strike!!!!!!?

Roger Greene
(I certianlly hope no other codes move to this interp.)

[mcrowder]

Bluezebra - in your situation, BR should be running to 1st base anyway. If it's ball 4, and it's loose, she should be thinking about second base. If it's strike 3, and it's loose, she should be heading to first on a dropped 3rd strike (and maybe also thinking about second base).

Here's my issue with all of those advocating calling timeout for a check swing appeal:

What if there are 2 strikes, and it bounced on the way in. You can't call time for the appeal - this would remove batters right to try for 1st base if it turns out she did swing.

As long as there is a lull in the action (not necessarily even a complete stoppage), there's nothing preventing you from running the appeal during a live ball. I wouldn't do the appeal while BU had other duties (i.e. no lull in the action), but there's no reason to stop play. Defense has to stay aware when there are runners in play not to ignore them during such an appeal - we're not there to protect them from not paying attention.

[Dakota]

I view it as a "could be considered" not a "must be considered."

You could consider it an implied time out if the offense tries to use the umpire as a distraction for the defense.

The ASA case book uses an example of the umpire responding to the pitcher asking for the count (Case Play 10.8-2). How would the catcher asking for a checked swing appeal be different?

[mcrowder]

Because you can have live-ball situations dependent upon the appeal decision (i.e. D3K). There's no live-ball situation dependent on the answer given to the pitcher asking for the B-S count.

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by bluezebra
One out. R3, R2. 3-2 on the batter. Runners off with the pitch. Checked swing, ball gets past F2, bounces away. "TIME! Did she go?" "No." "Ball four, take your base." R3 and R2 had crossed the plate while the defense was chasing down the ball. You've called time. Runners may not advance on a dead ball, unless forced or bases are awarded. How do you explain to the offensive coach that R3 and R2 must return to their bases?

If you called time (IMO at inappropriate time).. then you explain to the coach you called time and thats it. End of story. Time was called.

[WestMichBlue]

Roger: "And just how are you going to handle this (IMO "silly") implied time out on a checked swing with an uncaught third strike!!!!!!?"

Exactly! Now go back to my "There's Got To Be A Better Way" thread. That action (D3K/Checked Swing)got me in a bind Saturday and I am still looking for some more responses from you'all.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
And just how are you going to handle this (IMO "silly") implied time out on a checked swing with an uncaught third strike!!!!!!?

Roger Greene
(I certianlly hope no other codes move to this interp.)

So are you insinuating that there should be no appeal when the batter has two strikes? I'm sure that isn't what you meant, but that's the way it reads to me.

Who is watching the runners advance and moving into position for a possible call while you are checking with your partner?

On the other hand, even when I worked baseball, I thought the U3K was one of the dumbest things in the world. If the offense wants to get runners on base, let them earn it. It's the offense that missed the ball or watched a third strike. Why should they be awarded a second chance?

I believe this is left-over from the original game (rounders) where in some versions the striker didn't even have to contact the ball, but was still required to run to the first post (or sanctuary).

JMHO,

[bluezebra]

Originally posted by Dakota
The PU should not honor the appeal while continuous action is ongoing. If the defense wants to pause and wait for the umpire (who is waiting for the action to stop), that is their choice, but it is a dangerous one.

Otherwise, once the PU steps out, takes off his mask, etc., it could be considered an implied time out. No formal TIME is required.

Why is time out implied by taking off your mask? I always took off my mask when the ball was hit, a pitch got away, there was an attempted steal, etc. No time out implied.

[Eric Huechteman]

Originally posted by bluezebra

Why is time out implied by taking off your mask? I always took off my mask when the ball was hit, a pitch got away, there was an attempted steal, etc. No time out implied.

The timeout is not implied by taking off the mask. The timeout is implied by the subsequent action by the umpire. (If a runner attempts to advance as I take my mask off to request count from my partner, I let her go. Then, after the play is over, I go to my partner for the count.)

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman

The timeout is not implied by taking off the mask. The timeout is implied by the subsequent action by the umpire. (If a runner attempts to advance as I take my mask off to request count from my partner, I let her go. Then, after the play is over, I go to my partner for the count.)

Bob,

It was the etc.... that is, the umpire-to-umpire communication. As I said, it is not necessarily an implied timeout, but it would be consistent (IMO) with the ASA interpretation if the umpire ruled play was suspended if he needed to.

[Dakota]

BTW, some have suggested (or implied ) actually calling TIME for this - I don't agree with that.

[mcrowder]

I still don't understand the need to kill the play for this. It's quick. Question - answer - done. Why the need to call this a timeout?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I still don't understand the need to kill the play for this. It's quick. Question - answer - done. Why the need to call this a timeout?

You don't "NEED" to call time, but it is necessary that runners not be permitted to advance or defense attempt to play on a runner during this period as the umpires are involved in part of their duties that takes there attention away from a possible play.

As far as the U3K, that is a touch situation, but you've seen my opinion of that.