Made me think

[AtlUmpSteve]

Had an interesting situation Saturday; GHSA Sectional (semifinal tournament, cutting from 32 teams in a classification to 8), Georgia High School association, so playing NFHS rule. But, I think a universal circumstance.

R1 on 1st, count is 2-2. On ball (3), PU says "ball", batter trots to first, R1 advances to 2B, while defense makes no play (although verbalizing "that's only ball three"). After both runners stop, defensive coach requests "time", and asks umpires to verify count. PU thought ball four, probably stated 3-2 before the pitch, but never said "four"; both base umpires agree that is ball three. We return batter to plate; R1 starts to return to 1B. I stop her (I am U1 in 3 umpire crew), and state that her proper base is now 2B. Defensive coach knows that is correct, that runner advanced in jeopardy and that his defense should have attempted a play; but questions why I would tell the runner who was voluntarily returning that she should stay on 2B. He also stated he thought my action was, in affect, coaching (not in a negative way, just by way of why he thought I should remain silent).

My response was that this was a dead ball situation, as he had requested and was granted time for the conversation. Just as I should (and he would rightfully expect) stop a runner from improperly advancing in that case, I should also keep a runner on the proper base. In a live ball situation, I would stay silent, and let a runner be in jeopardy (or retreat safely, if so disposed, and the LBR was not in affect). He accepted that explanation, our conversation was just that (conversation, not an argument), and the game moved on.

What say all of you? Do you agree? Same for all rulesets (as I believe), or does anyone think one or more rulesets would vary?