Yet that fact makes a difference as the runner could not be declared out unless they did so according to your rule citation of 8.7.U.

You can be as "leerly" as you want, I don't care. I think I am a bit more qualified to state what has happened in my life than your are.

I dont correct the coach, but when I hear that, I say and signal the correct number of outs.

ie

Coach "OK girls 2 outs".

Me getting set "Here we go 1 down".

if coach batter & catcher dont catch on, thats their problem.

My umpire didn't indicate whether R1 entered the dugout area. Probably wasn't looking. Let's say she didn't. Let's say she did go close to the dugout, have someone toss her glove to her and then go to her spot on the field. Couldn't base abandonment ( Fed 8-6-22) come in to play in this situation?

It definitely applies if that was ruled by the umpire. I think the key here is the umpire mistake. If every one is switching and the umpire is happily cleaning the plate, and giving the impression (and believes) the inning is over, this is an umpire error and can be fixed. Had the umpire determined that the runner had abandoned her base and called her out, that would have been different. Even better would have been some preventative umpiring (but the umpire did not know how many outs).

Note that ASA is different on this rule and requires the runner to enter deadball/dugout territory for the out. NFHS does not.

What I cannot understand for the life of me is how a pitcher could pitch not giving him the chance to ascertain the number of outs.

The pitcher aint in charge of anything.

This was a failure on the part of the umpire, not a trick play.. not an abandonment (that must be declared by the umpire).. so best thing is to fix it IMO.

Yes. It is coaching.

This is a new one for me..

I gotta admit, I've never heard umpires claim giving the count or outs is coaching.

Now today, with 2 outs, I heard a coach say "get the lead runner". I didnt say anything, give the outs, or do anything outside my routine.

Now if I had said "look moron, there are 2 outs", that would have been coaching.

Simply giving outs or count is not coaching.

But, if you correct a coach who has made an announcement to his that is incorrect, as was being discussed, that is what you are saying in some form or fashion, and subsequently it is coaching.

I'd kind of agree with you as to how it is done. If you overtly correct a coach, it could be coaching. If you independently announce it, then that is what it is.

What you dont want to happen is partners to click an out thinking the coach is right, score keepers get confused and everything else. You are not the holder of the big secret as to how many outs there are. It is not soccer where only you know the time. If there was a score board, that would be one thing.. if you are holding out on information for fear its coaching.. its not. You are preventing an issue and making sure everyone is on the same page.

You dont need to address the coach, make your call.

IRISHMAFIA: You can make your assumtions. I've already made mine.

Sportsmanship (somebody verbalizing wrong number of outs). Make sure the game is played fair.

If you remember the movie about AIDS with Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks and Denzel keeps bringing up thinking like a six year old... There is our answer.

I'm 100% sure that is what ASA was thinking when they said not to call an illegal pitch when a player is in foul territory. :D

That may be OK in your little league or some other kind of recreational play. But that is not OK in a real game. Following your line of thought, do you have a "do-over" when a defensive player makes an error and allows a run to score? Or when a runner leaves a base too early, do you reset everything and do that over too?

I've made no assumptions. My posts on this thread have been made on point based upon the OP. You are the one citing a rule and then arguing the prerequisite to effect that rule.

This is actually in line with what I was referring. I'm not calling out, "hey, coach, you dolt, there's only 1 out." I'm simply calling out, "1 out"

Heck, maybe *I* have the wrong number of outs, and I need to confirm it with my partner.

That's not coaching. That IS preventative umpiring. Yes, preventative umpiring can sometimes be borderline coaching, but in this case, I think it's worth your while to make sure everyone knows the correct number of outs.

of course not steve m. Your extrapolation is unwarranted.

Play 10.1.2 Asa casebook

(FP Only) R1 on 3b leads off after a pitch to B2. The pitcher, after receiving throw back from catcher legally plays back r1 to 3b. While ball is alive, F5, pitcher and catcher meet nearest pitcher's plate to consult. R1, seeing home plate unprotected, leaves 3b and crosses home plate, scoring.

Ruling: It ain't that the run scores. Time out should be called by the umpire. Place R1 back on 3b.

If ASA wants that on that play, I think it is reasonable that ASA would want umpires to correct an erroneous verbalization of outs by either team.

Now for you word masters that see the word should, imagine you are at a tournament and this play happens and the UIC just happens to be the person who wrote or approved this play for the casebook. Think you ain't going to get dinged or come out on the wrong side of this discussion.

If they are not going to allow a run to score on this play, then they certainly do not want any shenanigans by an unscrupulous coach. Not part of Amateur Softball and good sportsmanship.

They go on further in this section of the casebook, to state that umpires could reverse a result of an umpires signal when it is obvious that the signal was incorrect. (home run called and ball not over the fence).

If a boneheaded call by the umpire can be rectified (cause it placed a runner or batter in jeopardy) even though it was obvious that it was wrong to everyone in the park and should have been noticed by coaches and runners, I am quite certain ASA wants both teams to know the correct number of outs when either team incorrectly verbalizes the number of outs.