Handle This
 

Fed rules. So we have a 10 run rule after 5 innings. Home team is up by 9. R1 on 2B grounder to short, overthrown into DB area so I award R1 her 2 bases game over, right. Ha Ha Home coach wants to decline the award and keep playing so we get into a little bit of a discussion.

He at one point told player to just go into the dugout, forcing me to call her out and the game to continue on.

My question is if coach tells player to go to dugout can I justify something along the lines of restricting him to dugout or possible ejection for not playing within the spirit of the rules or should I just ring up the out and move on ?

He eventually sent girl home and we had a game over....

If the coach doesn't want his player to score and end the game. Just tell him the that game already over and his team lost by forfeit.

MTD, Sr.

NFHS Rule 4If you are having a discussion with the coach, the runner entering the dugout means nothing - the ball is dead. She was not out, and if you do not declare the ball live again, she cannot be out.

Inform the coach he has two choices: end the game by winning, or by forfeit.

Ha! I love this forum!

How can you make the coach forfeit? He's not doing anything to shorten the game, he is trying to lengthen the game. He's not delaying the game, the umpire is causing the delay by continuing the discussion with the coach.

In my opinion, let the coach send the girl to the dugout. If the other team appeals the runner didn't touch the bases then I have an out and we continue (hopefully the other team will make a comeback and beat them, not likely but one can hope). Sure I don't like it but he's not doing anything against the rules that I can see other than possibly violating the "spirit" of the rules.

The game is over. I'm not continuing to officiate an extra-inning scrimmage. He most certainly is delaying the ending of the game, the same as if he was delaying the ending any other way. You can continue to officiate, but instead of hoping the other team comes back for the win, you'd better be hoping no one gets hurt.

SECTION 3 FORFEITED GAME
ART. 1 . . . A game shall be forfeited to the offended team by the umpire when a team:
d. persists in tactics designed to delay or shorten the game.

Still don't think he is delaying or shortening the game by the definition above..that deals with not sending team onto field, etc.

If someone gets hurts that's on him. I'm continuing the game. Hopefully the other coach won't appeal the bases not being touched.

Along the same lines...bottom of five 9-0 home team...bases loaded, two outs, 3-0 on batter. Coach yells to batter, swing at the next three pitches not matter where they are but don't hit the ball so you can get the 3rd out. Are you going to forfeit the game...all he is doing is using the rules to his advantage like the other coach.

Do what you want. I'm explaining to the coach his options: win or forfeit.

I can see both sides here...

How many of us have been involved in games where a coach has his runners step off the bag to mercifully end an inning? I know I have and I sure wouldnt forfeit that game although obviously and thankfully he is shortening the game.

In the OP, the coach is overtly sandbagging, and I see dakota point. So the answer for the coach would be to NOT overtly sandbag, and to slyly sandbag? ( ie swing but dont hit the ball would be perfect).

Some judgment as to the situation has to come into play, but it is a fine line with tactic like this.

For the OP and that specific situation, I think Dakota is 100% right.

Other situations would be other situations and thats why they let us wear a pretty blue shirt...

The rule most definitely does apply when it applies though...

What I say is the coach can always do normal things normally and that is not a delay / hasten - that is coaching.

I agree. A coach telling a runner to go in the dugout so the mercy rule does not come into play... he gets nailed.

A coach taking a time out with a 1:30 to play.. is coaching.

A coach telling his runners to step off because his team is slaughtering the other team and he is invoking a "coaches mercy rule".. he's my hero.

That's what I mean, you must use judgment.

Believe the words that are pertinent from the rule regarding forfeits are "persists in tactics". In the OP, the coach does it once. Do not believe that meets the denotation nor connotation of the words. Also, do the words persists in tactics furthermore imply that a tactic that was delaying or shortening the game was allowed to occur by the umpires. I am sorry but IMO it sounds like you gotta let at least one instance occur.

Dakota called attention to the word "the act of..." on another thread and the importance of the meaning of the word act. I see an inconsistency.

If he does it again in the sixth, then I could say he has persisted in tactics but not on the first attempt.

I'm with Dakota and MTD Sr.

Let's see... I award the base, he declines. We discuss it (me telling him this isn't football; he can't decline). He tries to send the runner to the dugout. I tell him he can't, the ball is dead. He sounds pretty persistent to me. I explain his options. Game over.

But, you do what you want, ronald.

If you believe your discussion with the coach falls under the rule writers intent, then you can sell it . But I find that hard to believe and sincerely doubt you believe that they meant that a coach and umpire disagreeing over and over in a discussion meets persistent tactics.

And if you really do believe it, I got some swamp land in Louisiana I will sell you as prime real estate.:D

From your other well reasoned posts, I can not agree with your reasoning on this one. It is specious.

Ron

Calling it specious doesn't make it so. It is clearly a tactic intended to delay the game, and it is illegal. If I so instruct the coach and he continues, he will suffer the consequences. Like I've said now 3 times in this thread... you do what you want in your game. You can play a practice scrimmage if you want, I don't care.

The fed association I belong to has the rules interpreter for Maryland as its commissioner. I will ask him about how he would rule on it. Better yet, I will email the play to him.

Ron

The sentence is almost unbelievable.

You say, "you gotta let at least one instance occur," correct?

Tom has already stated that (instance 1) the coach attempted to decline the base award, (instance 2) when that failed, attempted to send a runner to the dugout. BOTH INSTANCES are attempts to DELAY the ending of the game. So, his ruling even meets your standard, yet you continue to argue with him that the "win/or forfeit" judgement he has stated is wrong.

:eek:

Couple of points on the OP situation.

1) The ball was dead due to the overthrow (and also the coach / umpire conference). The runner cannot be declared out for entering the dugout during a dead ball.

2) The coach ordering his runner into the dugout is pulling his player off the field. If he refuses to put her back on the field, he is refusing to resume the game.

Take your choice on the reason for the forfeit option: 4-3-1 b,c,d.

I truly don't understand the rationale of wanting to allow the coach to use some ruse to continue a game that is, by rule, completed.

In Maryland, the rules interpreter will support a forfeit but not by 4-3-1d.

Ron:

This situation could legitimately become a forfeit situation. Any coach who tells his players to violate a rule to extend a game is making a travesty of the game. One could easily argue that this isn't specifically addressed by the rules but rule 10 gives the plate umpire the authority to enforce any penalty he/she considers appropriate. As Interpreter, I would support such a decision.

OK..by your interpretor's rationale, the 2nd situation I gave in another post on this thread constitutes a travesty of the game?? He is telling his player to violate a rule to extend a game.

As much as I hate what the coach is doing, in my opinion he appears to be within his rights to take the out however he can "legally" get it. Having his player not touch the bases appears to be within his rights.

Still don't buy it. Agree to disagree

You dont need rule 10 when it is addressed in the rules. People love to fall back on rule 10 for everything...

In any case, your interpreter has the proper result even if he/she took the wrong road to get there.