No one on base, foul ball back to the screen. Catcher misses the ball and falls down, picks up the ball and flips it to the third baseman. The third baseman throws it to the pitcher. Do we have an additional ball on the batter?

Dont think so.... but I could be wrong

[Edited by azbigdawg on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 03:43 AM]

This is how WE become the problem, and as it has been said before "trouble will find its way to us, do not go looking for it"

Rachel,

Good question. However, I would agree with azbigdawg in this situtation. Just
part of the game. I see where you are coming from though. I am not sure
I would apply Rule 6 Section 7 B. in this case. Especially since I am
looking for "strikes" not "balls". :D

I am working a men's national tournament at this time and this actually happened yesterday. The only reason it was called was because the coach brought it up.

That is the difference between calling the intent of the rule and the letter of the rule.

I would think that an over zealous umpire that calls that is just digging for buggars.

Rachel,

It probably shouldn't matter (I wouldn't go looking for trouble anyway), but if it were a past ball instead of a foul ball, I would have a ball - if extremely pressed by a coach. I'm pretty confident I could sell a no call on the foul ball - especially since the ball is dead when it became foul, and on the past ball, it hasn't become dead yet. Billy P used to always say "...survival is more important than being right."

Casebook 6F.7-2
 

Nice research SRW.

I still have to agree with the previous assessment for the intent of this rule. As I recall, the rule was inserted to eliminate the delay of game issues of the defense passing the ball around the infield with no reason after every pitch. Based on the limited information provided, it sounds like the third baseman was on his way to the plate to either fetch the loose ball or help up his embarassed clumsy catcher. In these cases, he assisting to speed up the game and I will give him an at-a-boy. Or, since the catcher fell down, maybe he flipped it to the pitcher, but it was an erant flip, after all, he was on his a$$ at the time. JMO.

I agree. Rachel, you used the term "flipped" the ball. That, as opposed to "threw" the ball gives me a visual that F5 was nearby or in the path of a throw where a relay makes sense. If so, the players were just trying to get things moving.

Sorry, coach, you batter is going to need to earn that one.

Are we now in the business of determining a "flip" and a "throw"? What about a "toss"? No, we're not.

There was no relay - no one's on base. If there was someone on base, the rule wouldn't apply anyway.

The rule's pretty clear... award the ball. Defense screwed up.

I say thre would be situations where it would be counterproductive to do so.... if the catchers is tossing the to 3b who charges the bunt so she can get herself together, get her mask back on, etc..no way in hell Im calling it..if the toss is to 3b who had nothing to do with the play and is standing by 3b...then I might have a different issue...and YES I CAN pick and choose when to apply this rule

I also pick and choose when to apply the rule. I would never call a ball in the following cases:

1. F2 and F5 chase a foul pop in front of the 3B dugout. F2 falls down and can't hold the ball. From a sitting position, F2 drops the ball into F5's glove. Throw? Toss? Flip? Whatever it is, I'm not calling a ball.

2. With 2 strikes, the batter swings and ticks the ball. F2 scoops it, BR starts to run to 1B, and F2 throws to 1B.

3. With a 2-2 count, the batter checks her swing and starts to run to 1B. F2 scoops the ball and throws to 1B while the PU is asking, "Did she go?" The BU answers, "No," so the pitch is a ball.

Perhaps the rule should be reworded to include "unnecessarily delays the game" or something like that. After all, we are empowered to call a strike if the batter leaves the box between pitches, but the book advises that we use judgment. I don't know what the rest of you do, but I simply remind the batters to stay in the box, and that has always taken care of the situation.

No, it's up to Rachel to tell us, she was there.

Quote:

There was no relay - no one's on base. If there was someone on base, the rule wouldn't apply anyway.

So, you were there?

Quote:

The rule's pretty clear... award the ball. Defense screwed up.

Without knowing all the particulars, I would probably consider this to be overofficious.

Correct... but what does it matter? Throw or toss, it didn't go back to F1.
---
Her original post said "no one on base". I took the term "relay" to mean that F2 was throwing to another infielder for an attempted play on a runner.
---
Enforcing rule 6F-7B or 7-5F is overofficious? Interesting. Perhaps enforcing [insert any other ASA Rule here] is overofficious too?

<b>Perhaps enforcing [insert any other ASA Rule here] is overofficious too?</b>

Not all rules are equal, and nobody expects the umpire to pick every nit on the field. At some point the spirit of the rule comes into play.

Batter singles to the outfield and takes her turn around 1B. The ball goes to the pitcher in the circle, and the runner stops and returns immediately to 1B. With play stopped and the next batter entering the box, the runner on 1B positions herself to leave with the release. You as BU notice that as she is placing her foot on the 2B side of the bag, for a half second there's an inch of space between her foot and the base. You bang her out for violating the look-back rule.

That's correct according to the rule book, but it is not good umpiring. It's overofficiating, using bad judgment, whatever you want to call it.

SRW.... I know u probably wont agree, but remember..its THEIR game.....it has NOTHING to do with you and you are irrelevant..WHY would you even consider this one? go back a couple of weeks and look at the post about the ll umpires telling kids they couldnt speak spanish..... dont insert yourself into the game. It makes life easier.

While some points make sense, which rules are the less than equal ones? Definition of the strike zone? Batter is out when...? 7-2-c-3?

While I am not one to pick nits or look for trouble...to say some rules are "less equal" than others is (insert your favorite word/phrase here).

I have to agree with SRW on this. If the rule book doesn't want to apply this rule in certain instances, they need to spell it out. The rule book is black and white, with a few mistakes and poorly worded sections. While I understand all the comments about the intent of the rule, I can't win a protest with the intent. I have to enforce it with the rule itself. I'm probably not going to award the ball until the coach asks me about it in this situation, but, if he handles the question correctly, I'm going to have to enforce the rule, as worded in the book Since I don't have the "reasoning behind the rules" section in my Rule Book I have to go with what ASA did give me, which is a Rule Book and a Case Book. They spell it out on what happens in this instance. Until I get to be on the council changing rules, I need to stay with the rules that are currently written down in the 2005 Rule Book.

There's 1 more in your corner on this discussion, SRW. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/wink/thumb.gif

John,

Think that greymule meant that it is the intent and interpretation of the
rule, rather than rules being "less equal".

In you reference 7-2-c-3, it does not say batter is out if count is less than
3 strikes and enters the dugout. It does say the umpire may warn the player and may
if repeated offense occurs, call a strike. This was not stated in the originial
post. However, if in your game you wish to call someone out on two strikes, then
do so. Personally, I am bringing the batter back to complete his/her turn at
the plate.

Texblue..if the other coach comes and argues..then you HAVE to..but if he doesnt......why do it? play on.....

Yeah, I gotta think I agree with you. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/...rin2orange.gif

[Edited by TexBlue on Aug 22nd, 2005 at 10:15 PM]

I was on there as the base ump. The catcher has a habit of flipping it to 1st or 3rd after a foul ball. It actually speeds up the game. Don't think the plate ump would have called it but the coach was insistant and the UIC said call it a ball.

I'm a little narrow minded here, granted, but if the UIC wants a ball called, he needs to come out and take my place. If he/she wants to talk to me after the game about it, I'll do whatever he/she wants in this instance. But, if they put me on the field, and trusted me to call a fair game, correctly, let me do it. I don't need some UIC talking to me through the fence about my game. Until it's protested.

Who's butt are you kissing?
 

Wait a minute here.

Yes, it's THEIR game.
It's THEIR rules.
I am hired to enforce THEIR rules for THEIR game.
THEY pay me to do that.
If THEY don't wamt me to enforce THEIR rules as written, then THEY need to remove the rule from THEIR rule book.

And this sitch would be an example of calling THEIR rules as THEY wrote them. Telling a kid s/he can't speak spanish on the field doesn't compare to this; THEY don't have a rule about speaking other languages.

And if my job was to make MY life easier, then why would I even show up to officiate THEIR game?

Unbelieveable!
 

Why call strikes then, just let the coach argue every pitch until he gets the strikeout.

Or wait until the offensive coach argues for a ball, then walk the batter.

I can't believe that your idea of officiating is to let the coaches argue the call, THEN reverse your call (or call the rule that's written in THEIR book)... that's just unbelieveable.

Why do it? Why even show up? Blue like this (those just there to make the players happy and collect their paycheck) give those of us (who actually call a true game and aren't afraid of calling a ball on the throw to F5, or aren't afraid to call OBS on the game-winning close-throw tag-out-at-the-plate when it happens) a bad name.

I am irrelevant. I was told so.
 

As azbigdawg so eloquently put it:

LIke I said SRW..you wouldnt agree..your first comments told me that......its overofficiating.....say what you what about "umpires like me".....and Ill say what I want about "umpires like you"...gawd.....

Welcome to the board Bernae, and thank you for the input.

Was there a protest? Rachel's post mentioned nothing about a protest.

At what point did the UIC get involved?

Oooops, did not see your post Rick, however, would still like to know how
UIC got involved.



[Edited by whiskers_ump on Aug 23rd, 2005 at 02:41 AM]

Personally I dont like the rule but it is their and should be applied .
If I dont call it a ball and the players and coach brings it up then I look like I dont know the rules and this is the beginning of doubt in players and coaches minds so they start to question more .
Lets be honest call it once and it wont happen again .
Ironically now in NZ the catcher leaves the ball 3rd base picks it up and it can now be thrown around , just to get around the rule .
For me get rid of the rule but while its there apply it .

Re: Casebook 6F.7-2
 

Doncha just love these casebook examples that like never happen? There are many more relevant and frequent situations.

Change F2 to F7 and tell me the call.

Re: Re: Casebook 6F.7-2
 

Come on, Tony, talk about plays that never happen!

When was the last time you saw F7 receive a pitch?

Apples and oranges.

I would agree that the rule book is black/white, but effective officials have learned that there is a gray are for applying the rules to the game. Knowing how to prudently use the gray zone to administer the rules is what separates the good officials from the best officials.

Gray Zone = Survival

I just threw 7-2-c-3 out there for the heck of it...didn't even think about what it was...and frankly, I'd do the very same thing: bring the batter back, complete your turn at the plate.

Is calling Rule 5-7-B (4th defensive conference, pull your pitcher, coach) being overofficious? How does calling one rule differ from another?

SRW..if you havent learned that one..there is nothing that I can tell you to change your mind

Re: Re: Re: Casebook 6F.7-2
 

LOL Mike, but F2 didn't recieve a pitch. F2 was retrieving a foul ball.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Casebook 6F.7-2
 

That is true, but it is the premise of the rule, isn't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Casebook 6F.7-2
 

I agree. Based on the premise of the rule, I think it is ludicrous that if F2 was retrieving a foul ball and throws it to any other player than F1 that a ball is awarded. Sure, the normal job of F2 is to receive a pitch, but the case book has gone into the weeds on this one.