Referee play
 

This is a play from Referee magazine that caused a heated discussion last night. Assume NCAA, NFHS and ASA rulesets, and tell how you would rule in each of them (if any differently):

Runner on third. F1 with the ball in the circle. Batter in the box. F2 pops and and runs out to tell F1 something without requesting or being granted time. R1 takes off for home. You are PU. What do you do?

IMO F2's actions don't negate the LBR. I must be missing the trick somewhere.

ASA Rules
Dead Ball R1 is out for LBR violation.

I got no play and "TIME!" Why would anyone go looking for trouble by calling an out in that situation? If it's clear F2 is heading out to chat w/ F1, I'm granting time even if it wasn't properly requested.

Calling an out in this situation is like sending a coach back to the coaches' box or dugout because they came out to get an explaination and they didn't officially get time granted for the discussion ... even though playing action was clearly over.

NCAA - there is no granting of time in this situation, the catcher and pitcher on the clock. If the runner leaves before my pitch clock goes off, LBR and have a seat. If the count runs out I have a dead ball, ball on the batter, runner's actions are inconsiquential.

Opinions aside, there are approved rulings and/or case play rulings in the three rule sets.

About 10 years ago, ASA first posted this as a case play, and directed plate umpires to call "Time" and sweep the plate, to keep the defense from tricking the offense. NFHS has declared this attempted play as intended deception, and therefore "Time" should be declared to end this unsportsmanlike action.

NCAA is as stated by CelticNHBlue; it is a play that used to be used regularly by a certain SEC team with an Olympic Team head coach. His catchers told the plate umpire she was going out and was NOT requesting "Time"; that way, the umpire was forewarned not to call it inadvertantly. While the NCAA coaches and players knew well enough not to advance home with the ball in the circle, they occasionally got a call for a runner thinking time was out and stepping off while talking with the coach, or adjusting her uniform.

Are these still current or just in old case books?

In NCAA -

1) is there anything to prevent the umpire from calling TIME simpley because "catchers told the plate umpire she was going out and was NOT requesting "Time"; that way, the umpire was forewarned not to call it inadvertantly" ?

When F2 goes to talk to F1, I will often take the opportunity to sweep the plate (as a timing device as much as anything else).

2) If I don't call TIME, isn't F1 still on the 10 second clock?

NCAA: ...however, the pitcher is off the clock if the batter steps out of the batter's box in this sitch. When that happens, the plate umpire is to call "time" and instruct both the pitcher and the batter to take their proper positions and begin the count anew ... correct?

But the batter hasn't stepped out of the batter's box.

This was typically run at the end of an offensive play; most often while the next batter had not yet reached the batter's box, and most often when no "between pitches" count had begun. It was intended to be treated as a continuation of the previous play; and I haven't seen it attempted between pitches since the emphasis on timing.

If you called time on this to sweep the plate in the NCAA, it is within your authority, but you could expect to wear the coach for a while, and then your coordinator. You might well lose that conference affiliation as well as being asked to not return to that school; we aren't expected or allowed to interject ourselves into a (ruled legitimate) play, either inadvertantly or to conscientiously object to the tactic.

I haven't researched current casebooks anew for these case plays; I am 99.9% certain that NFHS has not ruled differently, and 90% certain that ASA has not, either.

That makes sense - I wasn't even thinking about at the end of a play.
I agree, I would not call time at that point.

I was picturing the description :
"Batter in the box. F2 pops and and runs out to tell F1 something without requesting or being granted time."

Where the pitcher is probably on the plate, catcher squatting ("pops up"), then going for a conference.

I'm not sure it would be inappropriate to call Time in that case....

I cannot find a current case book play for ASA on the matter. Doesn't mean it has changed, just not recently addressed.

IMO, I have not problem with calling time. OTOH, I would not gig an umpire for ruling the runner out on the LBR, but may have a talk with him/her suggesting a different approach in the future.

Then again, what do you do if the catcher tells you that she specifically is NOT requesting a suspension of play?

The runner isn't supposed to leave the base anyway, so the offense shouldn't have a complaint if the runner is ruled out. DMR.

Then again, if you do away with the LBR, we are right back to the interpretations Steve noted earlier.:rolleyes:

As a player/coach [and also the pitcher on my team] we actually tried this a few times [mid to late 90's]. I think we only ever managed to get 1 out called when the runner on 3B attempted to "steal" home.

At first, the HP umpire had no call, but I just looked at him, showed him the ball in my hand, and motioned to the "circle" on the ground. We weren't elite enough to have a chalk lined circle, but I was 1 step behind the pitcher's plate at the time.

The other team wasn't too happy, but we just smiled...

In the 2005-2006 ASA Casebook; Play 10.1-2 (page 107).

FP only. R1 on 3B leads off after a pitch to B2. The pitcher, after receiving throw back from catcher, legally plays back R1 to 3B. While ball is alive, F5, pitcher and catcher meet nearest pitcher's plate to consult. R1, seeing home plate unprotected, leaves 3B and crosses home plate, scoring.

RULING: Time out should be called by the umpire. Place R1 back on 3B. (10-1J[2])

In the 2005 and 2006, that rule reference simply stated the equal authority of both PU and BU to call time. BTW, this book was editted at the time by the new regime, although the original ruling was made by the prior regime.

Besides being a rule which doe not need a case/explanation; that is a poor example to use. Not only does it not emphasize a sitch where the non-usual ump calls time; it confuses a different rule, LBR. :rolleyes:

Why isn't the case cited ("While ball is alive, F5, pitcher and catcher meet nearest pitcher's plate") a LBR violation, assuming the pitcher has the ball and not F5 or F2?