Did defensive charged conference rule change?
 

If so, when? (Speaking ASA).

Didn't it used to be that a defensive conference was not charged if the coach informed the umpire he was going to remove the pitcher?

I can't find this in the ASA book (2007 CD version). Am I missing it, or was it intentionally removed?

The situation is still covered in the 2007 case book in play 1-32, but I can't find it in the rule book.

Not found in my 2008 book, don't have case book, have always ruled as you said.

It has NOT changed...... tell the umpire first.... no conference charged....

go see the pitcher, and then announce.... conference charged.....

Wasnt that easy?


Next question.

The question was... rule citation? It doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Just to show... not quite so easy...
 

OK, where does it back up this case play:

Its not in the 2008 Case plays but I would not consider that a change. You dont charge a conference for a pitching sub... but I do admit, without the case play.. the rule is not clear.

From ASA's Umpire Page, July 2008 Clarification
 

There have been many questions this month on the issue of a charged conference on visits to the pitcher by a coach. The questions have been if a coach goes to the pitcher and has a conversation with the pitcher and then decides to change the pitcher is this a conference. We believe our rule is clear on this situation.

Rule 1 Charged Conference: When a team representative requests a suspension of play or delays the game for the purpose of delivering a message to another team member.

Play 1: After having a conference with the pitcher in the 2nd inning the coach of the defensive team request time to go and talk to their pitcher. The coach talks to the pitcher, first baseman, and the third baseman. As the coach leaves the field the umpire tells the coach that that was their 2nd conference.

Ruling: This is correct the coach requested time and delivered a message to the defensive team.

Play 2: The coach if the defensive team has a conference with the pitcher and catcher in the 1st inning. In the third inning the coach request time and goes out and talks to the pitcher. After a small conversation the coach makes a pitching change before returning to the dugout. Is this a defensive conference?

Ruling: Yes, in this case the defensive coach requested time for the purpose of talking to their pitcher. While doing so they decided to make a change. By rule the defense requested a suspension of play for the purpose of delivering a message therefore this is a charged conference.

Play 3: The coach of the defensive team has a conference with their pitcher in the 2nd inning. In the 5th inning the coach request time and goes out to talk to their pitcher. As the coach approaches the pitcher they turn around and call to the umpire that they will be making a pitching change. Is this a conference?

Ruling: No, this is not a charged conference. In this case the coach informed the umpire that they will be making a change prior to delivering a message to any defensive team member. The reason for the suspension of play was for a pitching change not for delivering a message.

Remember when charging a conference to either the defense of the offense the question of who requested a suspension of play and for what reason. If the suspension of play was to deliver a message then there is a charged conference. If the suspension of play turns out to be for a pitching change and not to deliver a message, then no charged conference has taken place.

I know in the OP we are speaking ASA and Mike has explained that well.

Speaking NFHS: Anytime a pitcher is removed it is not a charged conference, Correct?

That is correct. 3-7-1.

Thanks for posting that, Mike. As to the part of ASA's response to this I quoted above, the fact that there have been many questions about this says to me that, even though this has been settled interpretation for years, that when ASA removed the explanation from the rule (2006 rule 5-7-C-1) and from the RS (2006 RS 9-A-1), they rendered the rule and the interpretation unclear.

In other words, they may believe their rule was clear, but obviously it was not.

Go Figure :D

This is still not clear to me, and seems to contradict itself.
"As the coach approaches the pitcher they turn around and call to the umpire that they will be making a pitching change."

No charged conference. Got it.

"If the suspension of play turns out to be for a pitching change and not to deliver a message, then no charged conference has taken place."

This quote doesn't specifically mention notifying the umpire on their way out.

No, it doesn't, but I do understand what ASA is saying. They are being very technical and precise in their wording of the rule (a new experience of all of us who have read and studied ASA rules for years... :rolleyes: ). If the purpose of the timeout is to deliver a message to the players, it is a charged conference. If the purpose of the timeout is to make a pitching substitution it is not a charged conference, even if during the process of making the substitution, a message is delivered to the players.

Now, is it a charged conference if the coach tells the umpire before talking to anyone that he is making a different defensive substitution (not the pitcher) and then talks with his players while the sub is getting her glove and taking her position on the field?

By the above interpretation, I'd say no, it is not. This time out would be for the purpose of making a sub, wouldn't it? Delivering the message is incidental, just like in the pitching change, isn't it? If not, why not?

Sort of like inteference ;)

It is clearer if not out of context. That sentence is part of a summary of the rulings above, in spite of theconfusion added by the " turns out to be " wording.