What year case book are you quoting? The most recent I have is 2007, and a very similar play is 8-8-67B. The ruling is that defensive deception cannot be allowed to entice a runner to violate the look-back rule.

You keep trying to build your case using totally disimilar situations. For example, what possible connection does an umpire's late or changed call have to do with deception?

In the general case, it is certainly not illegal for one team to try to decieve the other into making a mistake so they can score runs or put out a runner. Before you become so sure that ASA wants all deception declared as USC, perhaps you could find some rules basis for your claim.

After a new pitcher has finished her warm ups, I've seen umpires go to the circle and announce the game situation. It can go something like this: Pitcher, you have the bases loaded with 2 outs.

IMO that's coaching. If her coach feels it's important for F1 to know the game situation, let the coach explain it to her. If there's a count on the batter, I will give the count before putting the ball in play. If asked by a player or coach I will give the number of outs in this situation.

Yup, I've seen that too. I agree - that's coaching.
I'll always give the count a delay and will always respond when asked the number of outs.

Yeah thats horrible. I dont know that thats coaching, I consider it "dancing bear umpire".

ROFL!!!!!!!
But then again, I'd rather coach than dance.
I suspect folks would rather see me coach than see me dance.

Which has also been referred to as the booging bear Blue.:D

Sorry Steve, there were mistakes by the umpire. They have been pointed out already.

Dakota,

I think it comes down to sportsmanship. That is a cursory answer at this time that ties all the dissimilar situations together. If the offense can't take advantage of the defense forgetting to call time out, why should the defense get to trick the offense or allow an incorrect verbalization to effect a game. If one is just ignorance, forgetfulness (umpire sees this and should call time-read interject himself into the game); and ASA does not allow it, why would we think they are going to allow deceit or incorrect verbalization to gain an advantage. To me, I see it as a sportsmanship issue and that is how i explain it at this moment.

Got the casebook at NUS in Jan 2003 in Fairfax Va. So, it could be 2002 plays.

Ron

One team tricking another team is not unsportsman like. That is a part of every sport there is. If you correct a coach based on that reason, that is plain wrong. Stating the outs (and not addressing the coach specifically unless they ask) as part of game management is one thing, deliberately interjecting yourself into a play, even a "trick play", is improper.

Trick plays are a part of sports. Leave that stuff to the coaches to sort out.

And there are "trick plays" that are also against the rules in ASA, such as a fake tag. ASA establishes that they can and will draw a line for deceptive plays. I'm of the camp that if a coach yells out the incorrect number of outs, I will declare the correct number of outs (in a non-directed manner). Just about every time, it's been due to a simple mistake, and it's been appreciated by the players whose games I've called.

For the record, the only time I verbalize outs during a game is when I am asked.

I think I do a lot. That may be the difference here. I yap all the time "ok lets go" "hey batter keep one foot in the box" blah blah blah blah. "thats 1" "we got 2".. its my method of keeping things rolling along. If I make eye contact with a partner after an out, I will usually give the outs by signal just to make sure we are on the same page.

If I have someone stating a number of outs different from what I have, I am going to make sure that what I have is correct. I don't want to do something stupid because I didn't know the correct number of outs.

I will call time, yank my mask, and ask my partner how many outs he has. If he agrees with me, we continue playing. If he disagrees with me, I am going to the scorekeepers to make sure I have the correct number. If what I do, helps everyone get on the same page, so be it. If what I do spoils some secret plot by the defense or offense to trick the other one, so be it.

Respectfully, I must disagree. Both teams have the responsibility to know the situation. I will not give out the outs unless I am asked, then I will give the information for all to hear.

Different wrinkle on the issue: in a situation where there is a scoreboard showing the number of outs, I will take time to try to correct the board or announce the number of outs when the scoreborad is incorrect. My reasoning is that the people running the scoreboard are to some extent an extention of the officiating crew, so really I am cleaning up my own mess. What say you, oh sage blues of the board? :)

But most of the time I am working of fields without such swank as scoreboards. I do, as a matter of routine, in my usual "patter" behind the plate, say things to the batter and catcher as we set up for the first time during an at bat, "OK, here we go, two down". After that they are on their own.

Going back to the original post, if both teams leave the field, then neither team knew the correct number of outs, so the defense should not gain from this by being awarded a 3rd out, right? I guess a strict interp of the rules quoted by On the other hand, if it was a planned play to catch the offense asleep, you would know it becuase the moment the runnner entered the dugout the opposing team would be very vocal about bringing it to your attention; excited that their trap had worked.

Ernie
ASA/NFHS Anchorage, Alaska

They will say that this, in so many words, is in the ASA umpire manual. :D

me too..