During a game last night my partner said something I had never heard before.

I was working the plate. In the bottom of the fifth inning, the defensive team made a mid-inning pitching change. In my experience in Ontario, it is customary for the base umpire to count the new pitcher's warm-up pitches and then inform the new pitcher of the game situation (e.g. how many out, where the baserunners are, and what the count on the batter is). When my partner didn't give the pitcher the "update" I did it and the game proceeded.

At the end of the inning I asked my partner about this and he said we were not supposed to inform the new pitcher about the number of outs, where the baserunners are, and so forth, because it is "considered coaching." This was news to me. Virtually every umpire I know does this as a matter of protocol. As I recall, years ago I was told at a clinic to definitely do this.

So my question is this: Are we supposed to tell a new pitcher where the baserunners are and how many outs there are, or is it just a falsehood that's been accepted over the years?

I make it a habit of giving the count and outs, I don't give the locations of the baserunners as anyone who isn't blind can figure out where they are at. I will do this anytime there is a long delay, i.e. pitching change, re-setting home plate, replacing a base, injury etc.

-Josh

Me, too. Besides, the catcher (if she is experienced) will also give the outs as well as the location of base runners, where the infield play should be, etc.

I think that you will find that this particular protocol will vary by region or even by individual. I don't believe that it is a documented practice in any umpire manual that I have seen.

I will usually follow the protocol that you describe, John, for this reason.

If this is a mid-inning pitching change, the PU is probably busy verifying the substitution with the defensive coach, or if it is just a position switch (ie F5 will pitch and F1 will play third), noting the line up card of the new pitcher in case the team wants to use a courtesy runner.

The BU doesn't have anything else to do, so s/he may as well count the warmup pitches and let the new pitcher know the game situation, especially if she is just coming in the game from the bullpen. Of course she can see who the runners on base are, but what does it hurt to say....2-2 count on the batter, 1 out, runners at first and second?

Throw me in for the first vote in the "Don't do that - it's coaching" category. I clinic my guys not to do this. I do, however, tell them that after any long delay, PU should hold up the number of outs just before making the ball live, and say it loud enough for batter and catcher. If there is a count after a delay like this, I would signal it as well.

To me - the practice of having BU walking out to the mound, out of position, to do this is annoying and delaying. And if you feel it's important information to impart after a delay, why don't you walk around the bases mentioning it to the runners as well? I think this looks VERY unprofessional. When I see someone I'm working with for the first time do this, I know he's going to be one of those guys who has to come visit with me between every half inning - something else that looks very unprofessional.

You would think that for all the time the coach spends with the new pitcher during warm-ups, s/he would give the pitcher the situation s/he just dumped in their pitcher's lap.

Give outs and count, that's it.

If the coaches have a problem with that, ask them why they are there if they are not going to do their job ;)

If I'm BU during pitching changes, I'm out on the outfield grass. Players should know the rules and the situation, and I don't feel we're there to make sure they know (unless they ask specifically).

I am also not a big fan of the umpire discussions every half inning.

Actually, I should have clarified that. I do not do this as a base umpire. My job out there is to call out and safe, occasionally an illegal pitch, maybe some obs. and interference, and give the outs to a player if requested. I agree the base umpire should be out in shallow outfield during a change.

It is when I am plate umpire that I do this. Hold up the number of outs while announcing it and then announce and signal the count.

Oriole-I agree with you on the chat between innings.

-Josh

I too for years would tell the new pitcher the game situation and quickly move to my required position. However this year our clinician pointed this out as coaching -- so now I don't do it. So for the first time since I have been umpiring I would stay in my current position, count the pitches and signal to the plate umpire when the pitcher was ready. I got to say it looked and felt more professional. Moving forward to games from last night. My games last night were low (LOW LOW) level rec, with a lot of confused players and coaches. During the pitching change, I did go and tell the pitcher the game situation, which as it turns out she didn't know (which in itself makes no since as she was playing the shortstop). We all work games at variety of levels, I would suggest for Tournament Teams and very well coached teams stay out of it. But for the rec teams what does it hurt to tell them the game situation.

Bob

Telling where base runners,etc are is 'coaching'...letting everyone know the count/outs,after ANY break in play is NOT.....especially where there is no scoreboard,it is a common courtesy!

Yes, blue... but don't wander out to the mound to do it. Give the outs and count from behind the plate. For everyone. Walking out to the mound to handhold the pitcher is bush. Doing it as BU is worse.

When play is ready to resume after the change, as PU I will give the count. I do not offer the number of outs, but will respond if asked. As BU, I am counting pitches and when the PU is done with paperwork, I will flash my partner the number of warmup pitches taken so far.

Now, when working rec level games, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. For example, as BU, I stopped a game, brought the defensive coach to the circle and explained to coach & pitcher why such & such was an illegal pitch and that for now, we were going to just fix it. Those games are pretty much like JV games - usually having players, coaches, and umpires there to learn.

Didn't the defensive coach make the pitching change? If the coach can't tell the substitute pitcher the situation, I can't think of a reason why I should.

Pretty sure (haven't checked the manual) that NCAA specifically addresses this as an example of things NOT to do.

Don't forget us guys/gals who are here to learn, either. There's a big difference between local P&R games & tournament level games. The difference between "coaching" and not can be as simple as providing the information from behind the plate for a PU: this is different than "don't". Thanks, Steve ... yours was one of the clearer posts in this thread.

I appreciate all these remarks, I really do. Just don't confuse us rookies, ok? Remember us :)

Personally, as PU, I feel like I'm giving the out counts far too often ... as in once each batter change. That's probably pushing the bounds into coaching, so I'm working on reducing that frequency. In local P&R games, nobody seems to object ... it just feels wrong, so it probably is.

Ya know, I can read the rule book all day, and I can know what it says inside and out. Until I get a chance to apply this to real life, it's all trivia. The stuff for which there are no rules -- like "don't coach" -- is much harder to learn. Clinics help, but they're sometimes more opinion and "what works for the clinician". All tips help. I love them. Thanks!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by noobie

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by S Personally, as PU, I feel like I'm giving the out counts far too often ... as in once each batter change. That's probably pushing the bounds into coaching, so I'm working on reducing that frequency. In local P&R games, nobody seems to object ... it just feels wrong, so it probably is. Ya know, I can read the rule book all day, and I can know what it says inside and out. Until I get a chance to apply this to real life, it's all trivia. The stuff for which there are no rules -- like "don't coach" -- is much harder to learn. Clinics help, but they're sometimes more opinion and "what works for the clinician". All tips help. I love them. Thanks!

On the mens rec level, I usually, very sotto voce remind the catcher/batter the out...usually the catcher is screaming it anyways..and the batter ALWAYS asks...so I feel I am just keeping the unnecessary covo down to a minimum..after any break which happens in the middle of an AB, I raise my hands/fingers for my partner....and anyone else paying attention...but they ask anyways...sigh....

I just spoke to a zone umpire-in-chief in Ontario today about this situation. He says the new philosophy is not to go out and "babysit" the pitcher--just give the count and the outs to everyone once the new pitcher's warm-ups have been completed. It used to be common practice to give the pitcher a personal update, but now it's considered coaching. Thanks for all the input, people. It is appreciated.

Exactly.

Though I'm not the out giving kind of guy. Only person I ever signal the outs to is my BU and when asked by a participant. If the pitcher assumed a count, as a PU I'll give her the count and that is it.

As I stated earlier, as PU I will give the outs and count after a long delay (minute or more). However, I saw a blue last night that took it to the extreme. Every time a new batter came up it was "ok ladies, (x number) outs, no count". I was a spectator and was getting really annoyed by it as often as it was done. It's starting to make me rethink my position. I may only give the count from now on, outs if asked only.

-Josh

A friend of mine, quite the smart@$$, once had a slowpitch umpire tell him as he approached the batters box, "1 out, no count." He stopped, looked at the umpire, and said, "Really? No count? Are you sure?" As I cringed anticipating the ejection (wouldn't have been his first ... and I realized I probably would have tossed him had I been PU), instead I saw the umpire just look embarrassed. PU didn't do it again the rest of the game.

PS - regarding the out announcements - I do it every time there's a long delay (pitcher change, offensive conference, or injury), and every time the number of outs changes.

If you have one of those innings and you look at your indicator and say to yourself "Is THAT all the outs there are?"... you'd better be announcing the outs a couple of times between outs, too! ;)

I see nothing wrong with announcing the outs fairly regularly. OTOH, the "no count" with a new batter is silly. The umpire should have been embarassed.

That was my recent-ex-style, which I've pretty much abandoned over the last few days. You're right ... it's pretty bush league. I do like the sotto voce-to-catcher tactic suggested by ASA/NYSSOBLUE earlier -- will use it again tonight (if we don't get rained out!!).

Now, to get to work on the rest of my game :) Thanks, folks!

Wait until next year.

You're not saying there is a move to make this the recommended mechanic!

I stand by "silly."

...usually followed by "how much time is left in this game?" :)

This actually becomes relevant if the games have time limits---which in some cases can be a good thing :)

No, but in the SP game, it is very possible that there will be a count when a new batter comes to the plate next year.

Hopefully what mike mentioned wont happen....but in local leagues the count can start at 1 and 1.. so the first week of the season, I may give the first couple of batters the starting count...after that they are on their own.

If last year was an indicator, it will happen this year.

For SP it is not a bad thing. Even at the national level players were stepping in the box EXPECTING a one-one count. The only difference is that ASA will probably include a courtesy foul.

there is not point to it...even LESS of a point of you are going to include the courtesy foul....

I understand the 1 and 1 count in local leagues where time limits of 60 minutes are in use, but I can't imagine why they would want to change this in tournament and championship play. If I were still playing SP, I would be really upset if I heard this rule change was coming.

It's what the players want.
 

The rule change has been proposed only because that is what the players at the tournament level have indicated they want. The fact that many, if not most, local leagues have adopted the same rule makes one believe it must be a good rule.

Truth is, it would already be a rule this year if some minor wording had been accepted by the rule proposer. It only failed because approval required 66.7% approval last year; this year will require 60%, and exceeded that last year, with expectation that it would have even more acceptance this year after wording is adjusted.

Thats Interesting Steve, because I hear the opposite from the players..they like the open count..it lets them be a little more choosy about what they hit...either way, its their game..not ours...

Sorry, my fast pitch myopia was showing again! ;)

I seem to recall a survey taken at some ASA nationals, where more than 80% stated that, with the 4-3 count, rather than 3-2, that they always waited for a first called strike before hitting away. They wanted the more action with less dead time. Henry Pollard, now as a Commissioner, is the lead proponent of this rule, with Bernie Profato close behind.

This change will most likely (again based on last year's outcome) only apply, at least at first, to Adult Slow Pitch, not youth or Seniors. If successful, it may then start to spread, like stealing.

there is not point to it...even LESS of a point of you are going to include the courtesy foul....
__________________
Darrell
Phx ASA DUIC

With all due respect, the point is it speeds up the game. Players come to the plate swinging and not waiting. We use it here in our state championship play and most games come in at about an hour. Take away the 1-1 and you get close to hour and a half. It also reduces 'Disscussion' about strike zones from pitchers and batters when they come up hacking.

FOZZIE

Nothing I hate more (as player and as umpire) than batters going up there looking for a walk, taking pitches until they get a strike. Starting at 1-1 should help things, and get people swinging.

Agree, but it will only pass with the courtesy foul.

Many people see this as a speed-up rule. It is not. It is meant to make the players to take the bat off their shoulders and use it. The rule increases offense, thus increasing defensive action. This makes for a more exciting game.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jun 28th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]

Many people see this as a speed-up rule. It is not. It is meant to make the players to take the bat off their shoulders and use it. The rule increases offense, thus increasing defensive action. This makes for a more exciting game.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jun 28th, 2005 at 11:17 AM]
__________________
Mike Rowe
ASA Umpire

You can count me as one of the people who see this as a speed up rule. at the National level they might be selling it as a rule to add offense, and I agree it certainly does. But as a local issue the reason they went to the 1-1 count was to speed up the game. With hour time limits the players were complaining about only getting in 3 or 4 innings in under the old 0-0 count. Now they are getting complete or near complete games in even with the time limit restrictions.

FOZZIE

Either way you slice it, it's effect will be both. It will speed up things by making batters swing at the first good pitch they see instead of trying for a walk. It will increase action by making batters swing at the first good pitch they see instead of trying for a walk.

Agreed. The one "standout" thing I remember about the old SP game (circa 1982) vs now (1-1 count, my local P&R league) is that batters are much more prone to swing at something they think is hittable. If you wanna work a walk, you certainly can ... the 1-1 initial count doesn't change that. On the flip side, the risk of a K is higher ... no self-respecting SP batter wants to K.

Given the changes with the home run limit rule, there's less incentive to wait for a teammate to crank one out of the park, thus de-valuing the BB: the incentive to play small ball (did I just say that?) in the modern SP game is an improvement, I think. I kinda like it; but I still need more time to get used to it. I still get kidded for calling the first ball "ball one" :)

I think the shortening of the game (I noticed this right away) is a good thing, too, especially in this heat :)