Charged defensive conferences...

[Dakota]

Excessive defensive conferences can now never invoke the penalty that the pitcher cannot return to pitch.

Rule 5-7 says:

B. Defensive Conference. There shall be only three charged conference(s) between the manager or other team representative from the dugout with any defensive player(s) in a seven inning game. For every inning beyond seven, there shall be one charged conference per inning between the manager or other team representative from the dugout with any defensive player(s).

EFFECT: The fourth and each additional, charged conference in a seven inning game, or for any charged conference in excess of one per inning in an extra inning game, shall result in the removal of the pitcher from the pitching position for the remainder of the game. The removed pitcher can play another position on defense but cannot pitch again.

ASA Rule 1 says:

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, unless the pitcher is removed for the pitching position.

So, if the pitcher is removed as specified in Rule 5-7, it is no longer a charged conference according to Rule 1. Therefore, the EFFECT of Rule 5-7 is never enforced so the pitcher was not removed due to excess charged conferences and may return to pitch!

OK, Mr. Logic Master (Tru_in_Blu), over to you!

[NCASAUmp]

Actually, there is a subtle difference.

If the coach takes an extra defensive conference, the pitcher is automatically removed, and they can NOT return to pitch. If they do return to pitch, the pitcher is DQ'ed.

If the coach removes the pitcher on their own, the pitcher may return to pitch without penalty.

That's emphasized in RS #9.

[Dakota]

I'm aware of that, but read RS 9 closely ... taking the rules and RS 9 at their word, the rule wording in Rule 1 (and RS 9) says nothing about WHY the pitcher was removed or WHO removed the pitcher, it only says if the pitcher was removed, it is not a charged conference. Since it is not a charged conference, there was no 4th charged conference for which to invoke the penalty, hence the pitcher was merely involved in a defensive swap or ordinary substitution and may return, subject to the sub/re-entry rules.

As written, there can never be more than 3 charged defensive conferences in any game, hence, the EFFECT can never be invoked, since if you do invoke it, you have now made what was going to be the 4th charged conference not a charged conference!

Tru in blu likes logical fallacies, so I was hoping he could tell us if this was a catch 22, circular logic, a deadlock, a double bind, a paradox....

[ronald]

I believe Dakota has an unstated premise that if the coach on his fourth trip talks to the center fielder on the way back he will also say he is switching the pitcher; hence no 4th conference.

[NCASAUmp]

Yes, I predict there will be plenty of coaches who abuse the change. However, I'm still going to enforce the rule as I mentioned earlier. If the coach wants to protest, s/he may. I'm confident in my rule interpretation.

[AtlUmpSteve]

With some preventative officiating, it shouldn't make a difference.

When the coach requests "time", I am immediately stating "Coach, you do realize if I grant this time out you are required to change your pitcher, right?"

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

With some preventative officiating, it shouldn't make a difference.

When the coach requests "time", I am immediately stating "Coach, you do realize if I grant this time out you are required to change your pitcher, right?"

I agree that would be preventative officiating, however, it would also be giving
a big advantage to the defensive team. Not knowing you personnally, but having
read many of your posts, I am not sure you would do that.

[Dakota]

I THINK what ASA was trying to do was to allow the coach to preserve his right to return the pitcher to the pitching position later in the game by deciding to remove her DURING the conference.

If the coach does NOT do this, and completes the 4th charged conference WITHOUT removing the pitcher, then the EFFECT is to be enforced and the pitcher removed by rule. In this case, she cannot return to pitch later in the game.

Taking the rule literally, however, says that once the EFFECT of the 4th charged conference is invoked and the pitcher is removed, it is by definition no longer a charged conference so there is no EFFECT to invoke. The 4th charged conference goes immediately "poof" right in the middle of enforcing its EFFECT.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Howdy,

I will check back with you in a while as I have to run a few errands.

Dakota, you're right, I love these. I think in most cases it is inadvertent wordsmithing. But the addition or omission of one word, sometimes one letter, can change the whole context of the passage.

One of my mentors explained this rule to me a few years ago. When I return, I'll share that, and my spin on the current string.

Ted

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

With some preventative officiating, it shouldn't make a difference.

When the coach requests "time", I am immediately stating "Coach, you do realize if I grant this time out you are required to change your pitcher, right?"

Not true

What if the coach is requesting time to discuss a play/call with you or any of your partners?

I know you are not going to remove the pitcher.

Also, not true is Dakota's assumption that a pitcher can never be removed by rule.

What if a coach requests or just enters the field of play for a conference AFTER previously using the allotment of 3?

In any circumstance, the pitcher can ALWAYS return to pitch. Just that if having been removed by rule, after one pitch, she is DQd. Of course, this is where the preventive umpiring comes into play.

[Tru_in_Blu]

The charged conference rule was explained to me a few years ago as such:
1. defensive coach asks for time to talk to his struggling pitcher and returns to the dugout. [first CC]
2. defensive coach asks for time to huddle w/ his infield to discuss strategy in a first & third, 1 out situation and returns to the dugout. [second CC]
3. defensive coach asks for time and approaches HP umpire and indicates that he is making a pitching change, F1 to F3, and F3 to F1. He then proceeds to talk to the new F1 as she is taking her 5 warm-up pitches and then returns to the dugout. [no CC]
4. after F1 takes a line drive off the shin, and the umpire calls time, he requests and is granted permission to check on his player, and then returns to the dugout. [no CC]
5. defensive coach asks for time to talk to his pitcher and catcher on pitching strategy to the next batter and then returns to the dugout. [third CC]
6. defensive coach asks for time and approaches HP umpire and indicates that he is making a pitching change, F3 to F1, and F1 to F3. If this happens in the same inning as #3 above, no warm-up pitches are allowed. [re-entry stuff, whatever, all OK] If not, warm-ups are allowed and coach talks to his pitcher while she's warming up and then goes back to the dugout. [no CC]

At this point the defensive coach has used his allotted 3 charged conferences and another charged conference would result in the pitcher being removed from the pitcher's position for the remainder of the game. It was explained to me that if the coach came out and announced the pitching change before conversing w/ players, we would not charge him with a conference [allowing for the availability of that pitcher to return later in the game]. Theoretically, he could change F1 w/ F3 every other batter [no warm-ups after each F1's first appearance in the inning] if he so wished. [NFHS has a limit here that ASA does not.]

Now if it was bottom of the 7th and he absolutely had to huddle w/ his infielders and called time to do so and just marched out there before talking with the umpire, this would result in his fourth CC and would result in the removal of the current F1 from the pitcher's position for the remainder of the game. And if he walked off without realizing that, the umpire would have to inform him that the pitcher needed to be changed.

So I think the intent of the rule that was amended was to clarify the point that if the coach indicated to the umpire that s/he was making a pitching change before going out there, a conference would not be charged.

It appears as though ASA's wording to clarify this situation was to simply add "unless the pitcher is removed for [sic; should probably be "from"] the pitching position" to the existing definition of a charged conference. [It should be noted that this would be a charged defensive conference as opposed to simply a charged conference.]

At least the Rules Supplement distinguishes between the offensive and defensive conferences. Additional wording in the RS #9 states simply that: "It is not a charged conference if the pitcher is removed."

In my scenarios #3 and #6 above, prior to the "re-defining of the rule" we'd have no CC. And, obviously w/ the re-defined rule, no CC either.

I thought that if a coach called time, went to the player and talked, and THEN decided to remove the pitcher, that this would be a CC. Reading the re-defined rule, I'd say this wouldn't be a CC. Because he removed the pitcher, it satisfied the new definition and a conference cannot be charged. Following the wording in RS #9 and the definition of a CC, it simply says that if the pitcher is removed, it is not a charged conference.

I think this is Dakota's interpretation of the words as written, if not intent. I agree with him, for all the grief that will get me! Maybe the veteran umpires know what is meant by this rule, but I'd guess we'd have a few different interpretations.

Personally, now, I'm not so sure that if the coach calls time, talks to F1, and then changes pitchers, is that a CC or not? I thought I used to know, now I'm a little iffy.

Dakota, I don't know what lable to put on this. I'm no philosopher or logician. Give a multiple-choice ASA exam question as to what type of fallacy this might be, I'd guess "circular". Maybe one of you programmer types can develop a flow diagram w/ those activity boxes and Y/N decision points and figure this out. Stay out of the endless loops!

Ted

[Dakota]

To clarify (if possible). The old ASA rule was that the coach had to inform before he crossed the foul line of his intent to remove F1, or it was a CC. Somewhere along the way, the foul line standard went away, and he only had to inform of his intent to remove F1 before talking with any defensive player. Now, he is allowed to talk with the players first and then decide.

As I said, I belive that the intent was that it was still a charged conference if the coach does NOT remove the pitcher, and she ends up being removed by rule due to the 4th CC.

But, the definition of a charged conference (Rule 1 and RS 9) does not distunguish WHY the pitcher was removed, only THAT the pitcher was removed. Which brings us to the logical trap. I say it is a catch 22 (ala Joseph Heller).

In order to be excused from combat flight duty, Yossarian must submit an official medical diagnosis from his squadron's flight surgeon, demonstrating that he is unfit to fly because he is insane. In order to get the diagnosis, he must approach the surgeon to ask for one. However, an insane person cannot believe or suspect that they are insane. Thus, to be recognised as insane, a person must not ask for an evaluation, because doing so implicitly shows that they suspect themselves to be insane. But, if a person does not ask for an evaluation, they cannot be recognised as insane because the evaluation is the method by which such recognition would occur. Thus, nobody can ever classify themselves as insane (even if they genuinely are), and thus nobody may ever use an insanity diagnosis to escape flying combat missions.

For a pitcher to be removed by rule requres that there be a 4th charged conference. For there to be a charged conference, the pitcher must not be removed, because if the pitcher is removed, it is not a charged conference. Therefore, no pitcher can ever be removed by rule.

No, Mike, I'm not serious about the intent. But, it is what the rule actually says.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

As I said, I belive that the intent was that it was still a charged conference if the coach does NOT remove the pitcher, and she ends up being removed by rule due to the 4th CC.

But, the definition of a charged conference (Rule 1 and RS 9) does not distunguish WHY the pitcher was removed, only THAT the pitcher was removed. Which brings us to the logical trap. I say it is a catch 22 (ala Joseph Heller).

For a pitcher to be removed by rule requres that there be a 4th charged conference. For there to be a charged conference, the pitcher must not be removed, because if the pitcher is removed, it is not a charged conference. Therefore, no pitcher can ever be removed by rule.

No, Mike, I'm not serious about the intent. But, it is what the rule actually says.

And if the coach doesn't remove, but just returns to the dugout? If you are then prepared to continue play, would you not then direct the coach to place another player in the pitching position?

So, you now have a coach who insisted upon a fourth conference, completed it and you are now removing the pitcher from the position, by rule. Are you not?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And if the coach doesn't remove, but just returns to the dugout? If you are then prepared to continue play, would you not then direct the coach to place another player in the pitching position?

So, you now have a coach who insisted upon a fourth conference, completed it and you are now removing the pitcher from the position, by rule. Are you not?

Sure, but once that happens, it is no longer a charged conference by definition ...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Sure, but once that happens, it is no longer a charged conference by definition ...

Yeah, I believe it is. As the umpire, I was ready to play and he is off the field of play. That FOURTH conference was over and the pitcher was still in the circle.