Intentional delay of game

[David Emerling]

I asked this question a couple months ago in another forum and I would be interested in the opinions of those who frequent this forum. This actually happened in one of my daughter's 12U fastpitch games played under ASA rules.

The tournament games were being played under 1:30 time limit. 7 innings, or 1:30, whichever came first.

Our team was winning 5-1 as the visitor. The home team was at bat and very little time remained on the clock. The scoreboard had a countdown timer, so there was no question about how much time remained.

Our opponent had a runner at 1st with two outs. The clock was ticking down and less than a minute remained. It got down to a few seconds and the first base coach start shouting to the runner at first, "Get off ... get off!" So she wondered off the bag while our pitcher still had the ball, and the BU called her out. 30 seconds were remaining on the clock.

According to the tournament rules, a new inning now had to be played. The tactic that was just employed was quite obvious.

I approached the home plate umpire and asked if it might be appropriate to invoke ASA 5-4-E which states, "A forfeited game shall be declared by the umpire in favor of the team not at fault in the following cases: If a team employs tactics noticeably designed to delay or to hasten the game."

He was understandably relunctant to do that although we all agreed that the game was now going to be lengthened considerably because of the tactic just employed.

Fine! Then I suggested whether ASA 10-1-L might be more appropriate: "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team."

He would not do that either.

We then had a discussion about whether there was any doubt that the runner was not coaxed off the base by the coach in order to obtain an additional inning of play. He agreed that the runner PURPOSELY got out ... but still was unwilling to invoke any penalty.

I was wondering if any of you would have invoked either of these two penalties under these circumstances.

To my way of thinking, ASA 10-1-L seems uniquely intended to prevent EXACTLY these type of shennanigans.

[Dakota]

ASA gives no POE nor Case Book guidelines to the umpire in how to recognize "tactics noticeably designed to delay or to hasten the game." Some umpires (bolstered by a rather blatent case at an ASA national tournament that was ruled on by the tournament UIC) will allow nearly any legal tactic. They will only enforce this rule if the tactic was per se illegal.

I am not that strict, but I also think the penalty under the rule (forfeit) is so severe that by-the-book enforcement will be rare, since most umpires will be reluctant to declare a forfeit because every batter suddenly has loose shoe laces.

When I detect noticable delay tactics, I issue a warning to the coach, and then become anal about calling out "batter up", explicitly signaling the pitcher to pitch, etc. To date, that has been sufficient to keep the game moving. There is not much I can do about legal actions by the coach wanting to delay (making substitutions, etc.)

I would not declare a forfeit in the case you described, since it was a single act, and a warning at that point was moot.

[Andy]

I am in agreement with Tom here. A forfeit is a severe penalty for trying to run out a clock or force another inning.

The root issue is that ASA allows use of time limits, but gives no guidelines around using those time limits.

As time limits are a fact of life in almost every tournament played, I would appreciate some guidelines around how they are to be administered so that everyone is on the same page. I do not believe that rules 10-1-L and 5-4-E were put in the book to deal with time limit issues, but have been used in those situations.

My feeling on time limits is that if a coach is worrying about it at the end of the game, then (s)he should have had his or her team hustling on and off the field between innings, have courtesy runners ready to go in the first inning as well as when there is :30 left on the timer. I will play the game at the pace the teams have established throughout the contest and deal with the loose shoelaces and obvious delay tactics as they occur.

[David Emerling]

When I raised this issue to a friend who is an ASA umpire he responded that he would never penalize a team with any more than assessing an out for leaving a base early. He asked me if our team was ever beating up on a team so badly, with no end in sight, that we had runners leave the base early, on purpose, just so an out could be registered and the misery could end. He has seen that many times.

Of course we have! But that's not the same thing at all. When a team purposely makes an out and they are winning 17-0, there really is no argument that can be made that the team is employing a tactic to their advantage. What advantage could there possibly be?

But in the example I just gave, the team is deliberately doing something illegal to extract some advantage. The advantage in this case is to force the game to be lengthened. The losing team only stood to gain by being "awarded" a fresh inning to catch up.

They did something illegal and they gained an advantage by the penalty being imposed for that single act. They INVITED the penalty!

Now, one might think, "There should at least be a warning!" Well, umpires are usually given the OPTION of issuing warnings. But, in this case, I think a warning would be inappropriate since it would serve no purpose. Besides, if an act is heinous or obvious enough - there really is no reason to issue a warning. In this case, the infraction was OBVIOUS. While the pitcher is holding the ball in the circle, the first base coach is practically PUSHING the girl off the base. "Get off! Get off!" he yelled.

Wouldn't it be almost comical if the umpire HAD invoked ASA 10-1-L and put the girl back on base - only to have the offensive manager argue that their runner SHOULD be called out? Imagine an offensive manager arguing that his runner should NOT be allowed to remain on base, but should be called OUT! That argument, in itself, validates the invocation of 10-1-L since it is tantamount to a confession of guilt.

But then again, softball has no rule equivalent to baseball's rule 5.04 which states, "The offensive team's objective is to have its batter become a runner, and its runners advance."

Perhaps the softball equivalent might read, "The offensive team's objective is to do whatever it needs to do, even if it involves purposely making outs, in order to gain the maximum advantage to win the game."

Now don't take me so seriously, guys! I like to play devil's advocate a lot. I *love* the game of softball and I think the ASA is a great organization. Baseball has it's share of loopholes, as well.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by David Emerling


Now, one might think, "There should at least be a warning!" Well, umpires are usually given the OPTION of issuing warnings. But, in this case, I think a warning would be inappropriate since it would serve no purpose. Besides, if an act is heinous or obvious enough - there really is no reason to issue a warning. In this case, the infraction was OBVIOUS. While the pitcher is holding the ball in the circle, the first base coach is practically PUSHING the girl off the base. "Get off! Get off!" he yelled.

I don't know where you got that impression, but it isn't true. If an umpire knows and admits s/he issued a warning in lieu of enforcing the rule, s/he subjects themselves to a protest.

Personally, as an umpire, if I saw this coming I would kill the ball and admonish the coach. That would be a nice example of preventive umpiring, not to mention kill another minute or so off the clock :-)

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't know where you got that impression, but it isn't true. If an umpire knows and admits s/he issued a warning in lieu of enforcing the rule, s/he subjects themselves to a protest.

Personally, as an umpire, if I saw this coming I would kill the ball and admonish the coach. That would be a nice example of preventive umpiring, not to mention kill another minute or so off the clock :-)

Maybe you misunderstood me. Surely you're aware that there are certain infractions that can cause an umpire to administer a warning prior to invoking a more severe penalty. Couldn't an umpire warn a fielder about executing a fake tag prior to ejecting them? Yet, the umpire could just as easily eject the fielder with no warning. Neither ruling would be incorrect. Agreed?

I would think many of the items listed under ASA 5-4 (forfeited games) would commonly be preceded by a warning. In fact, ASA 5-4-F specifically *requires* a warning. Yet, the umpire need not necessarily issue a warning prior to issuing a forfeit. Would you WARN a team about hitting the umpire? "Coach, if you hit me again you'll forfeit this game." I don't think so. (ref. ASA 5-4-A)

In the case where a runner DELIBERATELY leaves the base early in order to force the game into an extra inning, an umpire COULD reasonably rule that ASA 10-1-L could be invoked - which would cause him to negate the out ... place the runner back on base ... and allow the game to continue. Naturally, in so doing, the clock would run out and the team's tactic would have failed.

What if the offense was employing delaying tactics? Let's say, for instance, that the batters were being unreasonably slow to enter the batter's box. There are mere seconds left on the clock. The batter is being very slow to step into the batter's box. The umpire orders the batter to comply. She refuses. 10 seconds go by and the umpire calls a strike. "Get in the batter's box and bat!" She refuses. Technically, the umpire must wait an additional 10 seconds in order to call the next strike. "Strike two! Now get into the batter's box young lady!" She won't. She stares at you while the seconds tick away on the scoreboard. 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... bzzzzt! NOW - she steps into the batter's box!

To my way of thinking, if the batter refuses to comply with an umpire's order, a HIGHER rule comes into play.

It's no longer the lesser rule of issuing a strike for failing to take her place in the batter's box within 10 seconds ... they are now flirting with a forfeiture. I'd WARN them ... "Coach, if you're batter continues to refuse to enter the batter's box, I will issue your team a forfeit."

I don't see how a team's illegal dragging of their feet to prolong an inning to their advantage substantially differs from a team's willful violation of a rule (leaving a base early) to expediate the conclusion of an inning to their advantage.

As one poster commented, since so many games are now played with a time limit, it would probably be prudent to address some of these sticky issues in the rulebook ... or casebook. Almost everything in the rulebook assumes that the games are 7 innings long. That is seldom the case.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by David Emerling

Maybe you misunderstood me. Surely you're aware that there are certain infractions that can cause an umpire to administer a warning prior to invoking a more severe penalty. Couldn't an umpire warn a fielder about executing a fake tag prior to ejecting them? Yet, the umpire could just as easily eject the fielder with no warning. Neither ruling would be incorrect. Agreed?

I would think many of the items listed under ASA 5-4 (forfeited games) would commonly be preceded by a warning. In fact, ASA 5-4-F specifically *requires* a warning. Yet, the umpire need not necessarily issue a warning prior to issuing a forfeit. Would you WARN a team about hitting the umpire? "Coach, if you hit me again you'll forfeit this game." I don't think so. (ref. ASA 5-4-A)

In the case where a runner DELIBERATELY leaves the base early in order to force the game into an extra inning, an umpire COULD reasonably rule that ASA 10-1-L could be invoked - which would cause him to negate the out ... place the runner back on base ... and allow the game to continue. Naturally, in so doing, the clock would run out and the team's tactic would have failed.

What if the offense was employing delaying tactics? Let's say, for instance, that the batters were being unreasonably slow to enter the batter's box. There are mere seconds left on the clock. The batter is being very slow to step into the batter's box. The umpire orders the batter to comply. She refuses. 10 seconds go by and the umpire calls a strike. "Get in the batter's box and bat!" She refuses. Technically, the umpire must wait an additional 10 seconds in order to call the next strike. "Strike two! Now get into the batter's box young lady!" She won't. She stares at you while the seconds tick away on the scoreboard. 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... bzzzzt! NOW - she steps into the batter's box!

To my way of thinking, if the batter refuses to comply with an umpire's order, a HIGHER rule comes into play.

It's no longer the lesser rule of issuing a strike for failing to take her place in the batter's box within 10 seconds ... they are now flirting with a forfeiture. I'd WARN them ... "Coach, if you're batter continues to refuse to enter the batter's box, I will issue your team a forfeit."

I don't see how a team's illegal dragging of their feet to prolong an inning to their advantage substantially differs from a team's willful violation of a rule (leaving a base early) to expediate the conclusion of an inning to their advantage.

As one poster commented, since so many games are now played with a time limit, it would probably be prudent to address some of these sticky issues in the rulebook ... or casebook. Almost everything in the rulebook assumes that the games are 7 innings long. That is seldom the case.

You are correct, there are places for warnings, but they are often defined. I was referring to an umpire ignoring a particular rule.

"Yeah, she's off the base, but I'm not going to call it."
"Sure the OF ran out of play, but the runner had stopped, so I'm not awarding any bases."

These aren't debatable. An umpire cannot acknowledge a violation and ignore it without setting themselves up for a protest. Why do you think umpires start so many sentences with, "In my judgment..."?

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

You are correct, there are places for warnings, but they are often defined. I was referring to an umpire ignoring a particular rule.

"Yeah, she's off the base, but I'm not going to call it."
"Sure the OF ran out of play, but the runner had stopped, so I'm not awarding any bases."

These aren't debatable. An umpire cannot acknowledge a violation and ignore it without setting themselves up for a protest. Why do you think umpires start so many sentences with, "In my judgment..."?

I think that if you were to ever invoke ASA 10-1-L you would *have* to ignore, negate, or overturn a ruling.

How else would you apply this rule? "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team."

"Yes, I know you left the base early, but I'm calling TIME, and putting you back on base. That wasn't a very good acting job. You clearly did that on purpose to gain an advantage. Now let's play ball!"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by David Emerling

I think that if you were to ever invoke ASA 10-1-L you would *have* to ignore, negate, or overturn a ruling.

How else would you apply this rule? "The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team."

"Yes, I know you left the base early, but I'm calling TIME, and putting you back on base. That wasn't a very good acting job. You clearly did that on purpose to gain an advantage. Now let's play ball!"

That is not ignoring a rule, but applying the appropriate rule as directed by the book.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is not ignoring a rule, but applying the appropriate rule as directed by the book.

Well, however you want to look at it. You ignore one rule in order to enforce another. In other words, one rule trumps the other. Symantics, perhaps.

[Dakota]

No matter how you try to cook this goose, the fact remains that the rules, such as they are, on timed games in ASA are so vague and the penalty so severe that you aren't going to find too many umpires who will enforce the penalty of a forfeit.

If ASA really wants umpires to stop the stalling and/or hastening tactics, they should add some words to make it clear when the forfeit should be enforced and when it should not, and provde a more rational way of officiating the rule than the pile driver to crack a nut penalty.

I don't know where you get from the rule on forfeits that only illegal acts are covered. It just says "tactics." Yet, in an ASA national tournament, the UIC allowed a team to change pitchers several times in a row, complete with warm up pitches, with none throwing an actual pitch.

That, to me, is more blatent and more "heinous" & "obvious" (to use David's words) than a mere leaving early violation. I'm sorry, but killing 3-4 minutes with successive pitcher warmups, while legal, is more abusive of the timed game rules than forcing the 3rd out. In the first case, no play can happen - it is a pure stall - while in the second case, at least the players still determine the outcome.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by Dakota
No matter how you try to cook this goose, the fact remains that the rules, such as they are, on timed games in ASA are so vague and the penalty so severe that you aren't going to find too many umpires who will enforce the penalty of a forfeit.

If ASA really wants umpires to stop the stalling and/or hastening tactics, they should add some words to make it clear when the forfeit should be enforced and when it should not, and provde a more rational way of officiating the rule than the pile driver to crack a nut penalty.

I don't know where you get from the rule on forfeits that only illegal acts are covered. It just says "tactics." Yet, in an ASA national tournament, the UIC allowed a team to change pitchers several times in a row, complete with warm up pitches, with none throwing an actual pitch.

That, to me, is more blatent and more "heinous" & "obvious" (to use David's words) than a mere leaving early violation. I'm sorry, but killing 3-4 minutes with successive pitcher warmups, while legal, is more abusive of the timed game rules than forcing the 3rd out. In the first case, no play can happen - it is a pure stall - while in the second case, at least the players still determine the outcome.

The example you give of a team continuously changing pitchers, in baseball, would never be permitted because there is a rule that covers that kind of silliness. OBR 3.05(b) "If the pitcher is replaced, the substitute pitcher shall pitch to the batter then at bat, or any substitute batter, until such batter is put out or reaches first base, or until the offensive team is put out, unless the substitute pitcher sustains injury or illness which, in the umpire-in-chief's judgment, incapicitates him for further play as a pitcher."

ASA has no such rule. Therefore, a team is not breaking the rules when they do this. That is a glaring loophole in the ASA rules!

What can you do when a team calls "time out" for a conference with the pitcher when there are 2 outs, 1 minute left on the clock, no runners on base, and the pitcher is doing great? Nothing! You can't deny them their right to call "time out." It's legal.

You think changing pitchers takes a long time? Change pitchers and catchers and you're talking a good 5 minutes.

This is all very different from a team violating the rules in order to hasten or slow the pace of the game to their advantage. Leaving the base early is an illegal act the penalty for which is that the runner is called out.

ASA 10-1-L directly addresses how violations of the rules can be overruled if the the violation is to the offending team's advantage. In fact, it doesn't even mention whether the act needs to be intentional or not. If it is clearly intentional, (like a coach yelling "Get off! Get off!") it makes that call all that much easier, in my opinion.

In my runner leaving early scenario, the umpire has a more palatable option rather than issuing a forfeit under ASA 5-4. He can invoke ASA 10-1-L and allow the offense to continue to bat. Put the runner back on base. They can still catch up! Although they are down 5-1 in the last inning - nonetheless, they have a runner on base and still have an out remaining. Play ball!

Yet, I'll agree with you. The ASA needs to give some caseplay examples of how they envision some of these rules to be enforced. I'd love to see a caseplay involving the utilization of ASA 10-1-L. I'd be curious to see what they had in mind when they constructed that rule.

The reality of timed games, as opposed to 7-inning games, needs to be addressed more specifically. In the meantime, I think an umpire is free to make any fair interpretation based on the written rules.

Who's to argue with him - especially when there is a rule that indicates that his ruling is justified? ... albeit, that the rule has no supporting interpretations.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Time limits are not used in NCs except 10U, in which my personal feeling is that there should not be a NC in that age division.

Time limits are basically for pool play, none of which would elminate a team from the tournament. They are in place to get the games complete in a reasonable time frame.

At the local level, time limits are a tool of the tournament director, NOT the UIC. If they are going to use them, the TDs should provide the guidelines.

Personally, I hate time limits. The only reason they exist is because of all the BS that goes on between innings and put-outs. Coaching antics and their lack of willingness to control their players is what creates the need. Every time you have an umpire try to speed the game along by using the rules, all you hear is "let the girl's play, it's their game."

RANT ON

Well, this is a pet peeve of mine as an umpire and a UIC. Local directors, TDs, coaches and parents act as if umpires are the trolls under the bridge and will come out whenever beckoned.

I have constantly run into people who have the attitude that the tournament/league directors should:

Change a starting time to give players a break;
Change a starting time because the sun may be in their eyes;
Move this game here or that game there to accommodate travel problems;
Move games from Sunday morning to Saturday evening.

Then there are those who think that an umpire who tries to keep a game moving "has a date" or "promise" and that since the umpires are being paid, they should back off and let the players run the show.

For anyone in the forum who are not umpires, let me enlighten you. Umpires are human being who also have families often including children the same age as yours. They wouldn't mind being able to see their families on ocassion. Many also have regular jobs which they need to keep to be able to afford to umpire when they can. Point is that our lives are no different that those doing the complaining. We are not paid by the hour and there is no sensible reason to expect us to just stand around while others goof off.

Umpires are on the field for a full seven inning plus and do not get a break to sit in a dugout or under a tree every other half-inning. Unless an extreme emergency, we also cannot stop a game to take a bathroom break. While teams may play every so many game slots, many umpires are lucky to get a game break after every two or three games.

As a UIC, I have a helluva time getting umpires to commit to an entire weekend to work state or regional tournaments, but those who do are the same faces week in and week out. I'm am very lucky that those who do work for me will step up to the plate when there is a problem and volunteer to skip a break to cover the games.

It's about time people realize that umpires are not something that just appears when you schedule something. The funny thing is that those who complain or whine the loudest are the first to discount even the remotest possibility of becoming a sport's official.

RANT OFF.

Have a good day,


[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Aug 11th, 2002 at 02:55 PM]