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?

That is where we are going with this. In NCAA it would be a LBR violation. However, ASA and Referee Magazine, apparently, have chosen to take the route of awarding the dumb team by returning them to the base.

While this is not a "Marquis of Queensbury" play, per se, the onus of knowing the situation should not be ignored. However, that seems to be the path ASA has chosen.

I am still not hearing much on how folks would rule in NFHS.

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])

Apparently, it was or it wouldn't be there. Someone had to ask the question for them to include it.

Doesn't need to. There rule referenced specifically addresses when all umpires have the authority to suspend play.

That's part of the point, the play is showing that the LBR is not applicable.

Because it was included to reference Rule 10, not Rule 8 and, as previously stated, the LBR doesn't apply.

The pitcher, after receiving throw back from catcher

And I'd like to point out to Steve (and anyone else who would get it), the wording is "old regime" since apparently the ball in the case play is living and breathing. ;)

I first heard an interpretation on this play at an ASA National in 1996. We were told by the UIC that there were two "plays" currently making the rounds in California that ASA staff wanted us to be aware of, and nip in the bud. Amazing that we saw both plays several times, as this was 12A, the youngest age at that time.

First was the batter squaring to bunt while a runner was stealing, and the batter drawing the bat back to interfere with the catcher. We were directed to rule interference if contact was made and 1) the batter moved back in the box after squaring, or 2) the batter looked back while drawing the bat back, or 3) of the batter drew the bat back in a greater arc than the original squaring action. After several interference calls, that play stopped happening.

The second was this play; the catcher (and others) meeting in the circle with a live ball, to draw the runners off a base. We were directed to call time whenever that happened, to prevent any LBR play from developing; and to sweep the plate to justify the time. We were reminded that umpires could call time with the ball in the circle and all play ended; and that it was wanted for us to do that, as "they" considered the trick to be deceitful and not sporting. So, as preventative officiating, to call "time" any time play had ended, and the catcher went out to the circle.

That (deceit or unsporting) was never written into the rule; we were simply directed to call "time". IMO, that is the basis for the case play ruling, no matter how described.

I am equally confident that Mary Struckhoff issued an identical approved ruling for NFHS years later; and I really recall her describing the play as unsportsmanlike, and that a warning would be appropriate, in addition to killing the play if it developed.

Live vs. dead............
 

It's been years since I've done FP, but I do remember that one "unwritten edict" is KEEP THE BALL LIVE. Now, I'm strictly an ASA SP umpire. The pitched ball is dead as soon as it hits the ground. So, in the future, I won't respond to any FP, FED, MOD or other-based posts. Sorry if I confused anyone.

First off, noting ASA anything in red is just plain wrong. USSSA, ASA SP

As to the rest of your point, let me ponder. What to follow? Stevetheump's memory of the one "unwritten edict", or the direction of the member of the ASA National Umpire Staff that is UIC of this National Championship Final?? One highly regarded, in fact, a long time member, DE from Kansas?

Hmmmmmmmmmm??? What to do?

Let me interrupt this discussion/argument (12th verse) of FP being a live ball game as compared with SP for a moment to suggest that maybe Mike was poking fun at the choice of words in the quoted case play.

While ball is alive vs "while the ball is live".

If he wasn't poking fun at that, well, he should have! :)

I just typed what was there; I just rechecked to confirm it wasn't my add.

Mike, I used "prior regime" versus "old regime" because some of us (you included, of course) umpired in the days that Tom Mason was National Director of Umpires. Now, that was the "old" regime; at least to me.

Didn't say you did, Bubba ;):D

Actually, I was talking to Tom this past Saturday. He will be speaking at the NFHS and ASA state clinic promoting the state's Sports Hall of Fame. Tom and Doris still plugging away and try to make as many events as they can.

Aside from our godfather, I was referring to anything prior to KR who went on a rant at a regional clinic a few years ago about the use of the work "alive". :rolleyes:

Blue vs. red............
 

First, I offended some with my bold type. So, I stopped that.
Now, it appears I offend when I put ASA in red instead of blue.
What if I just kept it in black?:confused:

I think he's just making a joke about the red shirts USSSA umpires wear. ;)

Now, now, enough of that. :(
Besides, we wear white on Sundays. :rolleyes:

And yes, my main sanctions are NFHS and ASA, but some very good work at the others as well. :cool: