Stepping on the Plate

[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?