after your safe call, the smartest player will realize the state of play and make their play. the player that is not as smart and their coach will blame you for their confusion anyways in the aftermath. or imagine this...in the confusion, everyone thinks the ball is already dead including your partner. wouldn't that be ugly. :p

So, those of you who favor giving the safe signal (with no clarifying verbal from the umpire)... how do the players know wtf you are signaling for?

hi tom, I'll bite first, since I'm the troublemaker for you "do nothing" camp guys. ;)

after making sure I knew what was being appealed, I would position myself properly. I would turn to my partner, let's say you, and I would say, "Tom, I have a LIVE appeal for the batter-runner attempting to advance to second". I would indicate at the batter-runner, perhaps w/ both hands. I would then announce "my call is SAFE" and I would give the safe signal.

I'm not implying this way would fix rulebook & umpire manual flaws, but I just can't see any way outa this and not comply w/ our own books. damned if we do, damned if we don't. but doing NOTHING is a plain cop-out.

Well, despite being accused of coaching, I repeat what I opined in post #24 in this thread. One of those is still my response to the "appeal", since no appeal is possible without actually tagging the player.

An "appeal" that doesn't make clear what is being appealed can/should only be answered with a question asking what is being appealed; not a guess about the only legitimate appeal. An appeal that is improperly performed cannot be answered as an appeal; so not safe, nor out; answering the question isn't necessarily coaching, it may be the only possible response to the question posed.

I disagree it is a copout. It seems to me signaling "safe" does not communicate what you are trying to communicate. The problem I have with this is you are, it seems to me, denying the "appeal" - that is, signaling that there was no try for second, when in fact there was. If you signal "safe", it is pretty much impossible short of uttering the words "that is not a proper appeal" or some such to avoid telling the teams (however inadvertently and however much you know it to not be true) that the runner is not in jeopardy if she returns to 1B.

Doing nothing, OTOH, merely leaves the ball live and lets the teams decide what to do next.

how is a safe or out call a denial of an appeal? or coaching? it is explicitly an acknowledgment of an appeal as defined by the umpires manual. it's expressly defined as an appeal w/in the rulebook so as not to be ignored or confused.

if an umpire refuses to answer, that is a denial, because the umpires manual expressly states what an umpire is to do, acknowledge the appeal, and rule. it gives NO other choice other than safe or out call. if safe or out calls were coaching, would safe or out be the only choices allowable responses in the umpires manual? the umpires manual provides NO provision otherwise.

now, if an umpire wants to stretch the manual's intent and DELAY, then by choice that umpire would be willfully creating/forcing a do-nothing scenario, that is gaming the manual's intention set forth. that's why doing nothing is a cop-out.

Why are you cursing at us?
 

The guy with the ball and some others will know because they heard the request for a ruling and saw the signal in response. Some might figure it out from the context. Others might not. Matters not. All the players need to know is whether there is an out. The safe signal tells them there is not. If they're curious about what happened, they can inquire later.

Say what?

Did I say anything about coaching? I'm talking about what the signal means and what it communicates to the players. Let me make this simpler: how is the signal "safe" (meaning that is not an appeal) different from the signal "safe" (meaning the runner did not try for 2B)? The umpire manual does not cover all possible situations.

The bottom line to this whole mess......

Tom, you mean you don't give a safe signal every time a runner touches a base and is not retired so the defense knows that they are not out? :D

ah, you want to clarify the call? there is no provision for this, express or implied. you can do so if you personally prefer. you wanna call "SAFE, missed the TAG", that's your call, but the umpire's manual does not allow for it on appeals.

safe is a state of being. batter-runners are "SAFE" until properly retired. safe is infinite till an action makes it finite, a retirement of that player which would be a proper put out. appeals can be requested more than once, safe, still safe, and then still safe, safe until properly retired. as an umpire, you are give OUTS when you see it, UNLESS it is explicitly appeal play. NFHS allows for more than one appeal, but a guessing game is discouraged.

an umpire is denying nothing with a safe call on this appeal, and providing NO hints. an umpire would be simply affirming the batter-runners current state of being, that no proper retirement of that player has been presented, even if an anomaly is identified. if the umpire calls out, he/she is affirming that this appeal was properly requested AND the player was properly put out. the umpire needs all the appropriate elements of a put out, AND a proper request, not OR. both elements are needed. in the OP scenario, both elements are not properly presented, but a call IS required per the umpires manual.

a question for you might be, do you not wish to rule because an appeal was not properly requested, or the put out was not properly presented? there is a distinction. by all criteria, an appeal was properly requested, and I think that is the issue you have, but it is possible to muddle that with the properly presented put out. when you give the call, you are not affirming the anomaly you just saw and recorded. you are affirming the batter-runners present state, which is still SAFE, since "out" hasn't happened. the recorded the anomaly you identified and recorded in your mind, but didn't revealed is not what you are answering. I can sense you see it that way.

I understand you have an issue w/ the umpires manual as it is written. I am not defending the manual. I am merely adhering to what is written w/in.

There is a fallacy in your assertion; an appeal has not been properly presented. To make this particular live ball appeal, a defender with the ball must tag the runner. Until that happens, no appeal has been made, So far, we have a defender verbalizing a desire to make an appeal that hasn't been effected.

Consider this alternate play. F1 leaves first on a fly ball, and while attempting to return, F3 verbalizes "she left early" while the ball is in flight, and not possessed by F3 tagging either the base or the runner. Based on what you have stated, you believe that is an appeal that we are obligated to repond to, with the current status of "safe"??

I have no problem with the manual; I don't believe you are applying it correctly.

Okay, Tom, now I know why you're cursing at us. :o
I agree that neither the umpire's manual or any other authority requires a response to an improperly-constituted appeal, and you are far more experienced than me, but I stll favor giving a quick safe signal.

Not Tom, but if there is an attempt at a put out, yes.

But that isn't what I asked. There is not an attempt to put out the runner EVERY time. For that matter, there are even times when there may be an attempt that a call still may not be necessary/apppropriate (i.e., the ball is missed or dropped and rolling on the ground away from the attempted play; an obviously late tag, etc.)

You've changed my mind. During live ball, if a player makes an improper appeal, I keep my mouth shut, my arms down, and my eyes open.

I wouldn't give my quick safe in AtlUmpSteve's situation because all skill levels should know that a verbal appeal is not the correct procedure. Nor would I for a botched appeal on a missed base, because my safe signal might reasonably be misinterpreted as saying that I saw BR touch the base.

I'd still be tempted to give my quick safe signal in the OP sitch for the lower skill levels I'm used to, because not responding might cause F3 to pause while waiting for a response and allow R2 to race home from third, or BR to achieve second. But any reasonable player, regardless of skill level, would know that she's got to tag the runner off the base for an out. If F3 knows that an overrun followed by an attempt at second is an appeal situation, then she should know how to appeal properly. Even if F3 is thinking I missed an LBR violation (8-7-4-c, which is not the OP), same result. If F3 loses focus while awaiting a response, then it's a DMF3. Giving a safe signal might deprive the offense of a deserved opportunity.

Cecil? Shaggie?

it does occur to me that the rulebook would define the OP scenario is an invalid attempt at an appeal. it also bothers me that the umpires manual is express in addressing that if an appeal is requested, the umpire must rule. the umpires manual does not make a distinction between a good appeal and a bad one. it bothers me that an advance attempt by batter-runner towards second is an "appeal" at all. but there is a disconnect between the rulebook and the umpires manual that requires some addressing.

if doing NOTHING was appropriate, the manual would have made it explicit so, perhaps w/ an exception. however, it is explicit in describing the opposite, and I am at odds with simply disregarding it's purpose.

it's apparent that this so-called "appeal" was designed to deter and batter-runner from drawing fielders & ball away from the infield so that the runner on 3B can score. but doing nothing accomplishes nothing, and changes nothing. the ruling body might as well have not put in the rule at all.

perhaps that's what we can all agree on.

Or not be that smart and engage the umpire for calling the runner safe which to the defense, in an obvious misconception, believes they have caught the umpire in a mistake.

Yes, it is a DMF, and is more likely to happen at the lower levels. However, the team believes it just successfully executed what they believe to be a legitimate play. IMO & experience, giving that non-play credence by making a call is going to be more disruptive to the game than just staying with the play as instructed. As previously noted, they can question the lack of a call after the play.

Others have also brought this up earlier in this thread. In my opinion, it is listed as an appeal in order to emphasize that whether a runner is or is not in jeopardy after overrunning 1B is in the judgement of the umpire and the umpire is not to convey their judgement until and unless the defense tags the runner.

But does that not apply anytime an active runner or batter-runner is tagged with the ball?

Not when you're Robinson Cano. ;)

mike, you seem to be missing the point why paul might want to give the safe call. it may be far more simple and straightforward to do nothing and to prepare in advance that doing nothing will draw questions by coaches later. but how do you reconcile the discrepancy between rulebook and umpires manual? do you simply disregard the manual? I realize you being a UIC with experience, will insist that there is no discrepancy so any concerns can be simply dismissed, but it might not be so simple.

let's say during live play, this player asks the wrong umpire (plate) for an appeal (yeah, it happens). the umpires manual states, that umpire should point to the responsible umpire, call the umpires name, and indicate that the defense "wishes to make an appeal". given your desire to do nothing, I see a possible fiasco in the making. plate, simply redirecting the request as the manual says, would point to the responsible umpire (base), and base umpire in the do nothing camp would freeze, do nothing and say nothing. we can't stop players on the field from making requests, good or bad, and bad requests do happen. the umpires manual explicitly addresses the "wish" to make requests. it addresses the intention and desire to make an appeal, not the validity of an appeal. it makes no distinction between a good or bad request, and makes no provision to ignore a bad request. since it merely addresses the "wish" to make a request, not the completeness of a request, we can infer that it's instructing umpires NOT to do nothing, that you gotta do something, and it tells us what umpires would do. it does not assume a team should or should not know how an appeal can be made, nor assume higher level of players and coaches should know better. the umpires manual seems to address all levels of play, and all possibilities which a good manual would do.

now, for arguments sake, lets say the base umpire calls safe, which you detest. that call to me does far less less damage than a frozen umpire, and looks far more professional. it puts a clamp on further confusion and guessing that the rulebook discourages. later, when a coach questions that umpire on the call, the explanation can simply be, the batter-runner remains safe until the proper retirement is applied.

if umpires are in synch (assuming 2 or 3 man crew), doing nothing looks sharp, but applying the umpires manual which should not be ignored, it won't happen that way. the disconnect between the rulebook and umpires manual is there in our face begging for clarification. the responsible umpire, frozen and doing nothing, will appear either inept, or arrogant, or both. it's not just players and coaches. fans that know even less about the rules will see a frozen, poker faced umpire.

I apologize in advance for being the troublemaker in challenging the simplicity and elegance of doing nothing. as the senior UIC arguing for the do nothing camp, your comments are requested.

Is he out yet?

No.

Is he out yet?

No.

Is he out yet?

NO!

Remember, some of you have to deal with AA players.

So I'm not a senior UIC, but maybe if I restate your scenario in a little variation it'll help you see why this makes no sense. Here's what seems to me to be a very similar situation.

R1 on 3rd. Flyball and she clearly leaves early. Inexplicably, F8 throws to F4 who tags second while yelling to the BU that R1 left early.
Most everybody here wants the BU to just ignore that and do nothing as they didn't meet the threshhold for making an appeal.
You want the BU to point to the home plate umpire, and call out, "they're appealing R1 leaving early." Then you want the PU to signal safe.

If a player executes an appeal and it's not my call, I'll engage my partner. If a player does not execute an appeal but thinks he has and it's not my call, I'm certainly not going to make the situation more confusing by acknowledging it.

However, if my partner were to do so, then I'm not sure what the best thing to do is because I agree that it's just going to confuse people if my partner actively engages me and I try and ignore him. I can ignore nothing on the field but that's a little different than another umpire. My best guess is that in this situation a direct verbal response to my partner along the lines of:
We have no appeal.
is the only way that makes sense. But I'm not the fellow who knows the tough ones and the veteran folks may have a better approach on that.
________
Park Royal 3 Condominium Prathumnak

I am merely throwing a book out. but yes, the best qualified umpire to answer the question would be the UIC. mike (irish) is adamant on the do nothing approach.

Good way to put it, Youngump; I guess SRW has taught you a few tricks.

Shagpal, let me expand. You refer to the NFHS Umpire Manual, but have never quoted it. I don't believe it says that umpires must rule anytime a player requests it; my copy says "If the appeal is requested", nothing about wishing or wanting to appeal.

Let's be clear, an appeal is a defined term; included in that definition (Rule 2-1 Art 3) is "Methods by which an appeal may be made". If one of those methods is followed on a situation defined as a possible appeal, then we are certainly required to "make the safe or out call"; that is when it has been requested. We are directed to point to the responsible umpire and point out an appeal has been because the players aren't expected to know our mechanics; not because we rule "safe or out" on anything they ask at anytime.

If someone asks in an appeal situation but has not met the requirements of how an appeal is to be made, then that person is not making an appeal. She may be wanting to make an appeal, but she hasn't; and we cannot tell the player what to do. So, there is no discrepancy in the umpire manual, as nothing has been presented properly for any umpire to "make the safe or out call". Look further at the definition of an appeal; the umpire simply cannot rule unless appealed, and the methods to make that appeal are requirements, not suggestions. Granted the rule does not go further to say "EFFECT: If not made by one of the required methods, this is not an appeal", but wouldn't you think that should undersood already? Remember, we use defined terms by the definitions, not by any common usage. To be an appeal, requirements must be meet; if not met, then, not an appeal.

So, what's an umpire to do? In the strictest of games, you can do nothing. You should not rule when no play or appeal has been made, and you certainly cannot coach them how to make a proper appeal that must be answered. Since you can say "missed tag" or "pulled the foot" without it being coaching, I submit you can say "that's not an appeal" to indicate why you cannot rule.

The player asking without effecting an appeal has no more legal standing than asking you after she swings at a pitch if it would have been a strike. If you want to answer, go ahead; if you want to ignore, you can. Most times, it is best to tell them what they expect to hear, so you can move on.

I don't quote the manual in whole, because everyone has one, or should, and it all is the same.

the thread has already established that the OP appeal is improperly made. that's not at issue. the do nothing camp has dismissed this appeal because it does not meet the criteria of the appeal, so a reiteration is moot, and not my question.

my question, directed to mike, is why the sanctioning body would have a manual contain language that would suggest umpires not responsible for the appeal be in the position to predetermine for the responsible umpire what is or is not a good appeal given different sets of eyes in game situations. as it reads, it says their responsibility is to redirect, not to predecide, and let the responsible umpire make his/her call. it's the last paragraph in the umpires manual regarding appeals on p13.

steve, I appreciate your clarification, but I believe mike can address and justify this himself, as he should without help, as I am purposefully asking.

If you want to have a private conversation with Mike, try a PM. If you post publicly, well, it's public.

He catches on fast. :)

unnecessary. a private reply is not the purpose.

one thing I do want to answer to you directly. you didn't mention anything about coaching, so I apologize for the reference. the thread has gotten muddled, so my reply lumped you into replies that referred to the appearance of coaching.

Shagpal, I would not want to give a safe signal; I was trying to explain why I would be tempted to do so. AtlUmpSteve has it exactly right: a purported appeal is not necessarily an appeal, and if it is not, then the umpire manual does not require a response. I like his suggestion of saying "That is not an appeal" without a signal in lower-skilled games (say mediocre high school JV and lower).

If you have specific language in the umpire manual to back up your position that a response is required, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, citing the entire manual doesn't work; I looked and did not find pertinent language other than what Steve quoted. I did find "Umpires must guard against rendering decisions prematurely." (Section 1-Other Prerequisites-2)

yes, I understand the position already laid out. the validity for doing nothing has already been established, but not the awkwardness and confusion doing nothing can cause, hence your temptation and my contention. nothing works for me for in a host of situations, but not for the panacea being hailed for this situation.

there is only one section in the umpires manual regarding appeals. it's on page 12 to 13, totaling 3 simple paragraphs. the last paragraph taken in whole and entirety does not reconcile w/ doing nothing. the key word that I find alarming being "wishes". wishes conveys desire & intention, whereas the do nothing camp is arguing validity.

I appreciate your engaging and candid response, but I am expecting for mikes (irishmafia) response, since he was most adamant.

How does this compare with the confusion caused by appearing to deny an appeal by signaling safe, when what you are really trying to convey is "that is not a proper appeal"?

Yes, I have been converted. Recognizing that no signal is best because "safe" is misleading, the downside seems to be the fielder now being distracted by our lack of response and the ensuing screaming, yelling, and arguing. I have never thought those kind of downsides justified not calling something correctly.

The question is then, what game management technique(s) to use to get everyone back to playing? What are your suggestions?

shagpal,
You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer in your day job, would you? :cool:

you got the question wrong. the question is, are you judge? :p

could you describe the confusion as you might see it?

I think it's agreed, it is desirable to convey nothing. the do nothing camp insists doing nothing conveys nothing, and that might apply in vacuum of a forum. but I don't think that is what it will convey when it is really applied.

I imagine that it will cause and exacerbate confusion at the worst possible moment. when that happens, the do nothing will be largely the target of blame, since the do nothing will likely be the draw of attention and highly culpable in creating confusion.

I already did.

okie, sorry, the thread has gotten quite long, and some replies are very hard to follow, so lemme go back thru and see what you posted.

Get into position and stay alert. Expect a tag attempt, a pickoff throw, or the ball getting to the pitcher in the circle. Let the players play and the coaches coach.

We're getting into the twilight zone here. Has anyone ever had a stalemate last longer than a minute, or even a few seconds, before someone did something?

I might respond to any comments or questions directed at me with "live ball" or "That's not an appeal". And I might be quick to call the game for darkness when we actually reach twilight.;)

Just stay with the play. Move to the best possible position for any possible subsequent play. The players have coaches and teammates to help them react and perform on the field and you have........yourself and the mechanics. You just do your job which does not include making up for the players' shortcomings. It is their job to know how to play the game, our job to officiate it.

How many times has a player told you where you have to be or get to? How often are they right? Would it be nice to get into the infield for the back end of a two-banger at 1B? Sure, but if there is a runner on or rounding 3B, are you willing to forego missing a play at the plate should an infielder try to cut down the run instead of getting the BR at first?

You know that when situations are not the best, the mechanics resort to priorities. We all know a play at the plate is more important than one at 1B.

BTW, when a fair ball lies still in front of the plate and the BR isn't running and the catcher isn't pouncing on the ball, what is the prescribed mechanic? Is there anything else to do other then moving up the line and point fair just as you do on any other fair ball?

While I am not a fan of all prescribed mechanics, they are the best tool to keep an umpire out of trouble during a game.

almost every explanation you've given assumes solo umpiring and NO consideration for the umpires manual, addressing nothing about typical crew situations w/ different eyes. the umpires manual IS part of the sanctioning body. give it the attention it deserves.

if the plate sees an attempt, and base doesn't, players might still ask any umpire. players will ask the base, that might lead to pleading to the plate, the plate would redirect back per the umpires manual as instructed, and at that point, your stubbornness will have throwing one of our umpires under the bus.

be the authority figure as the UIC and address this. clarify. do something.

I have said this before, I don't like the discrepancy either, but doing nothing as a panacea to cover everything can be a recipe for disaster.

That was not what I meant. I guess I assumed that part, always optimizing position, alertness, not being in the way, etc.

I intended the question to be about handling the non-playing result:
- fielder coming to you with an argument
- runner doing the same
- base coach getting in the way while complaining
- activity like that
any or all of which confuses or disrupts the situation to the point of something having to be done. For example, at what point do you
- hold up a hand to dissuade the arguer
- back away a little to indicate there is no play going on
- verbally exert more control
- etc., like the red wording above?

I don't like reading upside down. :rolleyes:

Just about the same. Stay with the play. If they get in the way, step around them. If they block you out, I guess you cannot see their teammate just put out the runner. Whatever you do, you stay with the play. If the coach interferes with the play, eject him when the play is over. I s/he physically keeps you from doing your job and you feel you have to kill the play, do so. Award runners the bases you believed they would have made had the coach not interfered with you and eject the coach.

All are possibilities, but stay with the play.

Re-state the play? (or not)
 

If someone would like to aid my understanding of this latest part of this discussion......

Please re-state specifically the play being "appealed" or not appealed.
And also specifically state the actions of the defense in "appealing".

I use quotation marks because I understand that part of the question is whether or not a proper appeal is being made..

.............never mind.......

Why would you think anyone would not stay with the play? :confused:

I think I need to clarify to help move the discussion.

what mike is trying to describe, is how he would do nothing, which is silly. his description is trying to describe how he's really not advocating being frozen. what the do nothing camp is really saying is just do as you normally do, but don't say a word, since any uttering could result in something undesirable. it's like saying, "you have the right to remain silent", so stay silent, STFU, and call your safe & outs, and your balls & strikes.

my position isn't that doing nothing is wrong, on the contrary. my position is that if doing nothing appears to be causing more harm than good, staying with that approach is a cop-out, and I believe the umpires manuals suggest that to be the case as well.

the problem w/ the do nothing camp is their stubbornness, rigidity, and I think their arrogance. their answer lies in the umpire manuals. all they have to do is point out the difference between the NHFS umpires manual, and the CCA umpires manual. the CCA manual does a much better job of clarifying.

the mechanic to apply as I am reading this, is first, wait and pause, and do nothing. that is consistent w/ the do nothing camp. the reason being, this attempted appeal is an action-only appeal, attempted by a possibly wrong action (depending on what's being appealed). I am fully aware of this and am not oblivious to this as the do nothings continue to peddle.

second, if it is clearly obvious that the player on 1B with possession of the ball and touching the bag is attempting to invoke an appeal, the responsible umpire should ask what is being requested, and of what player. the reason for this is because perhaps player on 1B really wants to appeal a missed bag, and the umpire, doing nothing, thinks otherwise. it's the responsible umpires obligation to clarify the request, given the OP's scenario. there is nothing in the manual that indicates this can't be done while the ball is live.

the do nothing camp might insist it is verboten to even utter anything to clarify, even tho the umpire manuals clearly state it is appropriate to do so. after clarification, I would rule either on the missed bag, or if player on 1B requests a check of BR attempting second, I might reply w/ something like "I got nothing".

the point where the responsible umpire should clarify, is where I differ from the do nothing guys. the do nothing guys might insist that speaking during live play is verboten, but I can't find anything in the umpires manual that suggests such. the do nothings might say it's okay to clarify but afterwards to return back to doing nothing. I would disagree, because at that point it's already abundantly clear to everyone something is being requested. once it's gone that far, there is no turning back to doing nothing.

why "I have nothing"? well, it's partially compliant with the do nothing camp, so it makes them happy. it's got nothing in the sentence. if redirected by a partner, it's a simple, "partner, I have nothing". this might or might not work, but is equivalently close to saying nothing, without saying nothing. this is the best thing I could come up w/ and still not infuriate the do nothings.

What office are you running for? :confused: :p

we need a new president. ;)

Because people screaming to/at you from another part of the field may be distracting especially if you "wish" to provide them with some type of indication to their query which could be more confusing than not.

You have been around long enough that I'm pretty sure you have experienced the following:

You are staying with a runner who may or may not miss a base. During the play, you hear another player (let's say F3) scream, "Blue! Blue! He missed 1st base!!!"

You stay with your mechanics and take the runner into 3rd base as the ball is coming in from the outfield. From behind you hear, "BLUE! BLUE?"

You check to make sure the runner is done, suspend play by calling "TIME", take a second look at the runner, turn around and address the player attempting to make an appeal.

You have now:

• Completed your obligations to stay with the runner;
• Made sure the play was over before suspending play;
• Checked to make sure the runner isn't going to attempt to return and touch all bases;
• Addressed the player making an appeal in a proper and professional manner;
• And you now have a situation where a dead ball appeal can be made to the proper umpire in a calm fashion.

At no time did you allow yourself to be distracted or do anything that could distract or confuse anyone else.

OK, the answer is you are concerned about an umpire being distracted by the chaos or another umpire's play. Got it.

Always nice to see a thorough and coherent post which is on point. :cool:

Now that I read the above, I have probably fulfilled ny clinic requirement. ;)

Similar Type Play
 

Not that this tread is long enough, but I had a play that was similar to the original question this past weekend. When it happened I thought of this tread.

Ball hit to F7 where the grass is wet. R1 stops on 3rd. F7 throws ball to F2. F2 tries to hand me the ball for a dry one. I just stand there. F2 again tries to get me to give her a dry ball. I just stand there. Finally, the defensive coach realized what was happening and told F2 to throw the ball to F1. When she did, R1 immediately broke for home. F1 made a bad throw to F2 and R1 slid in safely at home.

Guess who got mad at me. Defensive coach and all the parents. My response to the coach was that I could not kill the play until the pitcher had the ball in the circle and all play had stopped. She said what kind of stupid rule is that. I could not help but smile at her foolish remark and that made her even madder. After the game, the coach told me that I was right and apologized for her behavior.

I love early season games!!


Did I handle the situation correctly?

If all play has stopped you can call time. You don't have to wait until the ball is back in the circle. If you know the grass is wet and you need to replace the ball each time it goes into the grass, then why make her return it to the pitcher before you call time so she can throw it back to the catcher?

Larry, the NCAA is specific that we shouldn't (generally) kill play unless the ball is in the circle in possession of F1. There are, of course, situations like a wet ball, when we might; but people tend to take the directions literally.

Then, we get the umpires that seem to think that whatever applies in NCAA has to apply everywhere else, since NCAA is "higher than" what they are calling then, even if that game has different rules, mechanics, or procedures. Or, that is how they have been instructed by their "trainers".

Strike 4, two answers for you (since you didn't indicate what rule set you were using). If NCAA, you were by the book, but not per common sense. If the ball is too wet to throw for the next pitch, why would you make the pitcher handle it?? That only increases the possibility that the next pitch (ball) will also be too wet, since her hand and/or glove handled the wet ball. If NFHS or ASA, that really isn't per the book; don't kill a play unnecessarily, but if all play has ended and you know the ball needs to be replaced, do it!!

I assume that is from the CCA since there is no mention of it in the rules. The two red paragraphs address the situation in the OP:

15.10 Suspension of Play (NCAA)

15.10.1 An umpire may temporarily suspend play in the following situations:

15.10.1.1 When, in his or her judgment, conditions justify such action.
15.10.1.2 When he/she leaves his or her position to brush the plate or to

perform other duties not directly connected with the calling of plays.
15.10.1.3 When a batter or pitcher steps out of position for a legitimate
reason.
15.10.2 An umpire shall not temporarily suspend play in the following situations:
15.10.2.1 While any play is in progress, including when a thrown ball hits
an umpire.
15.10.2.2 After the pitcher has started her delivery.
15.10.2.3 In case of injury until all plays in progress have been completed
or each runner has been held at her base.

has been completed.

Thanks for the replies. It was a NFHS game. The 3b coach was watching ever move F2 made hoping for a chance to send the runner, that is why I did not kill the play when F2 ask for a new ball. F2 was not aware of 3b coach's actions, so she thought the play was over. U2 noticed this also and was still in position to make a call if needed.

The 2010 CCA Softball Umpires manual says, with reference to the Look Back Rule (Page 103):
I agree with your observation relative to 15.10.1.1; the wet ball should be considered as a possible condition that would justify calling time. However, your reference to 15.10.2.4 actually speaks against your point. By the definition, all action has not been completed if there are runners and the ball is not in the circle in control of the pitchers, and all the runners are stopped on a base. Prior to that point, you may believe that all apparent action is complete, but teams do utilize plays that are triggered by those last split-second decisions that can be made when the pitcher/circle/LBR actions create an opportunity. The NCAA ruling is predicated on making sure we (the umpires) do not take away any conceivable play either team might choose to make.