Stepping on the Plate

[Andy]

Scott - you're absolutely right, but it seems the intent of the coach was to get that third out and get to the next inning. The coach just did not know the rule (there is a big news flash!)

His intent was to "noticeably delay or to hasten the game?" so 5.4.E comes into effect. The penalty for violating this rule is forfieture of the game.
Since this is a pretty severe penalty, how about this approach; (first suggested by Dakota, if I remember correctly)

Coach: "Batter, step on the plate!"

Umpire: TIME! (wanders slowly over to the coach)

Umpire: "Coach, did you just tell your batter to step on the plate to create an out?"

Coach: "Yep"

Umpire: "Coach, you know that is in violation of rule 5.4.E don't you? Do you know what the penalty is for violation of that rule?"

Coach: "Uhhhh, No"

Umpire: "The penalty is that you forfeit the game, coach. Is that what you want?

If he says yes, go ahead....if he says no, hopefully, you will have taken enough time that the limit will have expired anyway and it becomes a moot point!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Obviously, just stepping on the plate, in and of itself, isn't illegal. But let's change it up a bit. Suppose that in this same situation the coach instructed a player to:

- Purposely step on the plate and hit the ball- and he did.

- Purposely leave a base before the pitch reached the plate- and he did.

Now what do you do?

Just my opinion, but we should separate the two separate cases when this might occur.

1) Team A is thoroughly whipping Team B; they have already exceeded the run rule, or it is early, and a foregone conclusion that they will. Coach A is enacting a mercy killing, trying to allow Team B to bat again before their heads are so far up their tails that someone will get hurt.

I do nothing; or else I congratulate Coach A on his sportsmanship.

2) Team A is behind, and time is about to expire; if they make an intentional out, we get to stay for another full inning. This is being used as a strategy to extend the game, rather than simply play the game and let the clock happen.

Mixed feelings, and it may well depend on how the game has gone. If Team A has hustled all game long, and it's a close, competitive game, I may pretend I didn't hear it, so I just enforce the rule that applies. I'm not taking anything away from a team that has played hard and hustled.

But, as most often happens, Team A lollygagged all game long, and NOW they want to speed up the game; hell, no, it's THEIR fault the time is about to expire. I am calling time, before they commit the offense, and using however much time is necessary to kill the clock to explain to Coach A how that strategy violates the rule, and (oh yeah, by the way, coach), time has now expired.

But that's just me.

[Tru_in_Blu]

As a player/coach in a company intramural league [modified FP] several years ago, I was complicit in a similar situation.

My team was home, and we were in a game with lots of runs and walks. After 5 innings, the visitors were ahead by a run. It was starting to get dark, but the umps decided to try to get in one more inning. Visitors went out quickly in the top half of the inning.

Our half of the inning resulted in a couple of outs, sandwiched around a couple of walks. The visitors were delaying as much as they could, trying to get the game called due to darkness. Our next batter hit a gap double scoring the tying and go-ahead runs. Now the delays became more pronounced, although the umps never said anything about it. Maybe this was before such a rule was in place, I don't know.

The next batter got up, and there were pitches in the dirt, but not far enough away for the runner to advance. Throws back to the pitcher bounded away, all the while taking time. Outfielders were complaining that they couldn't see the ball. The umpires were becoming noticeably nervous about their decision to have started this last inning. The batter ultimately walked. The catcher wanted to talk to the pitcher.

Next batter came to bat. Since we now had a one-run lead, as the pitcher was holding the ball in the circle, delaying some more, I yelled out to the runner at second base: "Joel! Go to third base." He promptly stepped off the base to go to third, and the base umpire called him out.

Game over. We win by a run.

Was that a tactic? Was it illegal? Unethical? My guys thought it was "brilliant!" Umpires were relieved, too.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

As a player/coach in a company intramural league [modified FP] several years ago, I was complicit in a similar situation.

My team was home, and we were in a game with lots of runs and walks. After 5 innings, the visitors were ahead by a run. It was starting to get dark, but the umps decided to try to get in one more inning. Visitors went out quickly in the top half of the inning.

Our half of the inning resulted in a couple of outs, sandwiched around a couple of walks. The visitors were delaying as much as they could, trying to get the game called due to darkness. Our next batter hit a gap double scoring the tying and go-ahead runs. Now the delays became more pronounced, although the umps never said anything about it. Maybe this was before such a rule was in place, I don't know.

The next batter got up, and there were pitches in the dirt, but not far enough away for the runner to advance. Throws back to the pitcher bounded away, all the while taking time. Outfielders were complaining that they couldn't see the ball. The umpires were becoming noticeably nervous about their decision to have started this last inning. The batter ultimately walked. The catcher wanted to talk to the pitcher.

Next batter came to bat. Since we now had a one-run lead, as the pitcher was holding the ball in the circle, delaying some more, I yelled out to the runner at second base: "Joel! Go to third base." He promptly stepped off the base to go to third, and the base umpire called him out.

Game over. We win by a run.

Was that a tactic? Was it illegal? Unethical? My guys thought it was "brilliant!" Umpires were relieved, too.

Why wasn't the game called anyway? Were they going to start another inning? The home team was ahead in the last inning.
________
WEB SHOWS

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

Would this be a tactic "noticeably designed to delay or to hasten the game"?

5.4.E anyone?

'extending' the game does not necessarily mean "noticeably designed to delay or to hasten the game".

By stepping on the plate (FP with the pitcher toed up) or SP (stepping on the plate and making contact with the ball) or a base runner vacating a base, all in order to get an out(s) to get to the next inning is simply that, getting to the next inning. This is 'extending' the game and not 'delaying or hastening' the game as the game is still continuing, and I would simply apply the rule for the violation and play another inning. That is the nature if the beast of a 'time limit' game.

just my 2 cents

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

By stepping on the plate (FP with the pitcher toed up) or SP (stepping on the plate and making contact with the ball)...in order to get an out(s) to get to the next inning...

Not to get off the subject of enforcing a potential "delaying or hastening the game" situation (because it is an interesting topic), but the above quote seems to imply that you think there is a different rule about stepping on the plate for fastpitch and slow pitch.

There isn't. Both require the batter to actually contact the ball with the bat while touching the plate.

Are you maybe confusing the rule about stepping across the plate, as in switching to the other batter's box, while the pitcher is in position to pitch?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Are you maybe confusing the rule about stepping across the plate, as in switching to the other batter's box, while the pitcher is in position to pitch?

yep

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why wasn't the game called anyway? Were they going to start another inning? The home team was ahead in the last inning.

At the time I thought the same thing. But there were some rumblings about not having the current inning complete and reverting back to the previous inning's score.

But since the umpires allowed the game to continue, I began wondering if that could be the case. If the home team was ahead after 4.5 or 5 innings, they could have called it and that would be that.

When the third out was called, it seemed to confirm the finality of the outcome. Once the home team went ahead, they could have just called it. Don't know why they didn't. It could have resulted in a protest one way or the other that should have clarified.

But this way, there was no room for argument.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Just my opinion, but we should separate the two separate cases when this might occur.

1) Team A is thoroughly whipping Team B; they have already exceeded the run rule, or it is early, and a foregone conclusion that they will. Coach A is enacting a mercy killing, trying to allow Team B to bat again before their heads are so far up their tails that someone will get hurt.

I do nothing; or else I congratulate Coach A on his sportsmanship.

2) Team A is behind, and time is about to expire; if they make an intentional out, we get to stay for another full inning. This is being used as a strategy to extend the game, rather than simply play the game and let the clock happen.

Mixed feelings, and it may well depend on how the game has gone. If Team A has hustled all game long, and it's a close, competitive game, I may pretend I didn't hear it, so I just enforce the rule that applies. I'm not taking anything away from a team that has played hard and hustled.

But, as most often happens, Team A lollygagged all game long, and NOW they want to speed up the game; hell, no, it's THEIR fault the time is about to expire. I am calling time, before they commit the offense, and using however much time is necessary to kill the clock to explain to Coach A how that strategy violates the rule, and (oh yeah, by the way, coach), time has now expired.

But that's just me.

In your second situation the team is prolonging the game, not dealying or hastening it. What rule are you going to use to enforce a penalty.

But, if you are going to use the rule, it should be applied the same to both situations you described. You shouldn't pick and choose when you want to use it.

I'm not sure the reasoning for this rule, but I think it might have been for coaching using tactics not covered in the rule book to delay the game? Coaches have the right to use rules to their advantage when necessary don't they?

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I am calling time, before they commit the offense, and using however much time is necessary to kill the clock to explain to Coach A how that strategy violates the rule, and (oh yeah, by the way, coach), time has now expired.

I have coached, I prefer to umpire. Maybe my perspective is a bit different.

Let the players play, let the coach coach, I'll call balls, strikes and outs. I don't see any need to get involved in the outcome of the game by managing the clock for the coach.

A timed softball game is no different than any other timed gamed, clock management becomes part of the game. An umpire purposefully delaying the game because they don't like the lack of hustle of a team is a lot closer to unsportsmanlike conduct than a coach hollering at Suzie to leave early.

What makes it ok for the umpire to delay the game when it is against the rules for the participants to delay the game?

Tom

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tmielke

I have coached, I prefer to umpire. Maybe my perspective is a bit different.

Let the players play, let the coach coach, I'll call balls, strikes and outs. I don't see any need to get involved in the outcome of the game by managing the clock for the coach.

A timed softball game is no different than any other timed gamed, clock management becomes part of the game. An umpire purposefully delaying the game because they don't like the lack of hustle of a team is a lot closer to unsportsmanlike conduct than a coach hollering at Suzie to leave early.

What makes it ok for the umpire to delay the game when it is against the rules for the participants to delay the game?

Tom

Well, unfortunately, the job of the umpire is regulate the game under the rules the teams agreed upon.

In every other "clocked" games, there are also rules which manage the manner in which a team can "use" the clock as a strategy.

However, like it or not, IMO, one of the main causes for a clock to be involved in the game of softball is because of the coaches.

When I was growing up we had this thing called "practice" and subsequently took part in "scrimmages". This is where the coaches taught players how to play the game. When we played the game, the coach coached the team through the game.

Nowadays, some coaches seem to want to coach the players throughout every step of the game, from during warm-ups to each at-bat. An umpire tries to enforce the time limitations between innings or call a strike because the batter is having a hard time reading the 20-gesture signal from the Gene Mauch wannabe at 3B and all you hear is the "let the girls play".

I can appreciate your position and readily admit my examples do not apply to the most of the coaches out there. However, the type of tactics this type of coaches use is one reason a clock has been added to what is supposed to be a non-timed game.

But I lean towards Steve's way of looking at things. The teams agreed to play with a clock, unfortunately, the umpire is saddled with the task of managing the game situations.

[Stu Clary]

Originally Posted by Umpteenth

ASA SP Coed Rec. Home team at bat, bottom of 6th, down by many runs, two outs and time is about to expire (less than one minute). Coach yells at batter to step on home plate when the ball is pitched to become the third out. How would you handle this?

I might handle it by calling time and taking a very long time cleaning home plate....and maybe the pitchers plate.

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, unfortunately, the job of the umpire is regulate the game under the rules the teams agreed upon.

Absolutely

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In every other "clocked" games, there are also rules which manage the manner in which a team can "use" the clock as a strategy.

However, like it or not, IMO, one of the main causes for a clock to be involved in the game of softball is because of the coaches.

My experience is that the clock is there to keep lower level play from going on forever and to keep tournaments on schedule.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

When I was growing up we had this thing called "practice" and subsequently took part in "scrimmages". This is where the coaches taught players how to play the game. When we played the game, the coach coached the team through the game.


Nowadays, some coaches seem to want to coach the players throughout every step of the game, from during warm-ups to each at-bat. An umpire tries to enforce the time limitations between innings or call a strike because the batter is having a hard time reading the 20-gesture signal from the Gene Mauch wannabe at 3B and all you hear is the "let the girls play".

I am with you here as well. Enforce the rules and keep game moving at the pace it is supposed to be played. If Gene doesn't like it, too bad.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But I lean towards Steve's way of looking at things. The teams agreed to play with a clock, unfortunately, the umpire is saddled with the task of managing the game situations.

I don't have any problem with the umpire managing the game. If managing the game means counting the warm up pitches, keeping the time between innings to a minute, getting the batter back in the box, etc. I also don't have any problem with a coach working within the rules to give his girls the best chance to win. If the coach thinks that getting to the next inning before the game times out will give the team the best chance to win, I don't care. I do have a problem with an umpire that thinks he/she can decide when the game should be over and delay it to fit their definition of when enough is enough. Once the timer is going, why would the umpire pay any attention to it until the beeper goes off? Let the coaches worry about how much time is left!

I have coached on both sides of the clock. When my team was up, we take our full warm up time. When we are down and need the innings, no warm up. When I call a game I don't impose what I think is right or wrong on one of the teams, I just call the game and keep it moving. My objection to an umpire taking his time to run out the clock is that it helps a team.

Tom

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tmielke

I have coached on both sides of the clock. When my team was up, we take our full warm up time.

I guarantee your team has never used less than the alloted time to warm up.

When we are down and need the innings, no warm up. When I call a game I don't impose what I think is right or wrong on one of the teams, I just call the game and keep it moving. My objection to an umpire taking his time to run out the clock is that it helps a team.

And Steve's point is that God helps those who help themselves.

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I guarantee your team has never used less than the alloted time to warm up.

You are correct here. When my team warms up, the pitcher takes three pitches and the balls come in. I have never had an umpire cut us short, nor have I ever cut a team short because they took to much time to get on the field when I am behind the plate.

I have had my team go on the field with no balls for warm up, the pitcher goes to the circle picks up the ball and stands there, I tell the umpire we are ready to go. This takes 15-20 seconds. They get a batter in the box and we get going.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And Steve's point is that God helps those who help themselves.

I guess my point is I don't care for umpires that think they are God!

There have been a few comments in this thread that advocate the umpire managing the clock to fit their definition of what they think should happen.

I have asked two questions that haven't been answered.

Once the timer is going, why would the umpire pay any attention to it, until the beeper goes off? I should add besides mother nature and injury.

and

What makes it ok for the umpire to delay the game when it is against the rules for the participants to delay the game?

Any comments on these questions?