· Two different proposals-one to drop the base on ball count to three, and another poorly written proposal which I believe was meant to reduce the strike count to two, but is not properly worded in that manner.
· Define a “wild throw” as one which cannot be caught or stopped by the fielder with ordinary effort.
· Change the distance of the pitcher’s plate from HP to 53’. There are two proposals for this. One specifying A ball while the other for all SP.
· Change the distance of bases to 70’ for all SP.
· Minimum fence distance for Major class to be 325’
· Change the ball in women’s and coed softball to the 12” ball
· (All) In Championship Play, teams shall not display the names and/or logos of any other softball assns on their uniforms
· In the Co-ed game, the battery will be required to be as follows: One male as the pitcher and one female as the catcher. This is based on the belief than men have quicker reaction time than women. (The guy that thought of this one must be a member at Augusta National).
· Effect for excess HRs at the Class D level: First HR, batter is ruled out. Second HR, two outs are assessed. Third and any succeeding HRs result in that half-inning will be declared over.
· Change the maximum height of a pitch to 10’.
· Keep the maximum height of a pitch at 12’, but eliminate the minimum of 6’. Their reasoning: “There is no need to have minimum of 6’ as the umpire has excessive speed to control the pitcher. Few pitches will ever be in the strike zone when under 6”, but if there is one, why should it not be a strike.” My opinion: If you have ever been to a National school, they usually demonstrate that it is impossible to throw a ball that gets past the plate in the air lower than 6’ without using excessive speed. Also, if we start calling excessive speed, the teams will need about 8 pitchers to last the game. Many pitchers have occasional problems let alone non-pitchers.
· Allow a pitch which passes through the strike zone and touches the plate to be ruled a strike. My opinion: This will be misinterpreted more than any other rule in the book and most legal pitches which hit the plate cannot possibly pass through the strike zone of an adult player.
· (All) After th ball is in play, the batter may not step out of the batter’s box to stop play unless time has been granted by the umpire. Effect: Action continues and the pitch will be called. My opinion – redundant..
· (Seniors & Masters) If the same batter is walked more than one time in the first six inning of a game, he will receive a two base award.
· Numerous proposals to eliminate running the bases on an over-the-fence HR and four-base awards.
· Add to effect on awarded based due to 8.6.G-M: Once a base runner advances on an awarded base, when the base runner advances to or past the next base, the base runner may no longer return to touch any missed base or one left too soon after a fly ball was touched by a fielder.
· (All) After a runner has scored and missed HP and is physically assisted back to home, the ball is dead, the runner is out and the run is nullified.
· (All) Offensive and defensive USC conduct results in a dead ball. If offensive, the runner is ruled out and ejected and all runners returned to last base touched. If defensive, advance the runners to the base had this USC conduct not occurred.

Nah, the explantion about reaction times was just their way of protecting the fragile male ego.

The REAL reason for the propopsal is because men are more hard headed than women. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/bangin.gif

[Edited by Dakota on Nov 4th, 2002 at 12:11 PM]

Personally I have a real problem with homeruns being declared outs. I see the reasoning behind it, you don't want to have teams load up and just pound HR's all day, but if that is what they are doing, them bump them up in class.

The reason I have a problem is because this is what I see happening all the time. A team will use up all of it's homeruns, and then a guy will come up, that has never hit a homerun before and all of a sudden everything goes right and he pops one out of the yard and now instead of being able to enjoy that moment, he's called out or in some cases ejected from the game for hitting the ball well. Or, you get a power hitter comming up, and he's afraid to swing the bat because he doesn't want to take a chance on hitting a homerun, so he just pounds it into the ground. It's like telling a basketball player that your team has made too many three-point shots so if you make another one, you get kicked out of the game and the other team gets the ball. Just doesn't make any sense.

I'd much rather see it that if you hit one over the fence after your limit, it's a base hit, all runners get one base. We've used this rule in many leagues that I umpire and I've never had a problem with a team comming up and hitting a ton of homeruns after they have used their limit.

This only applies to D ball where no HRs are allowed and it is for the exact reason you mention including your final paragraph. If you don't rule them outs, teams will load up and just hit the ball over the fence all day.

There is a field in Richmond that had a short rightfield fence and the ground rule was a double for any ball leaving the field of play over this fence. My team just hit the hell out of the tennis court beyond the fence for most the game which took about 2 hours to play.

By the time you see a team abusing HRs, it is too late to bump them up to the next division.

There has to be a place for the little guy to play and the trophy hunters should be banished, one way or the other.

excessive speed
 

Whatever they demonstrated at that school, around here, players and umpires do not recognize excessive speed unless the ball is thrown practically at modified speed. That includes tournaments in which teams from eight or nine states participate, so it's not just us. Nobody expects excessive speed to be called if the pitch is simply "flat." The rule about ejection was to penalize a pitcher who was being unsportsmanlike, not who threw a second pitch at 5 feet 11 inches. Bad suggestion!

As for allowing the ball to hit the plate—or disregarding the existence of the plate in determining strikes—I think it's quite common for a pitch to enter the strike zone and then hit the plate. It would allow more strikes to be called, but I'm still against it. Why not just go to mat ball?

Most leagues in this area, even the big tournaments, start with a 1-1 count and allow the batter one foul after two strikes.

Years ago, an ump kept calling excessive speed on our pitcher, who then argued that he was throwing a proper arc. The ump told him that his arc was OK, but <i>within that arc,</i> his pitches were traveling too fast!

JMO
 

Personally It would not hurt my feeling to do away with the 6' min in SP yes you may also have to rewrite the part in the book now for excessive speed removal BUT it would eliminate one more whining point by alot of players. I would also favor the rewriting or clarifing of the Obstruction ruling mention in the other posting. Also would be in favor of the moving of the bases and pitcher mound back in SP. Some of our leagues use the 1 and 1 count to start off the batters I also dont see a problem with that it does somewhat speed up the game.

Don't see a reason to change the HR rule, changing the womens ball to 12" in co-ed would even create a bigger disadvantage in the lower leagues and wouldnt bet on the man only being able to pitch in co-ed even getting close to passing. Would also be against bringing the height of arcs down to 10' dont see any possible reason for it except getting the pitcher battered a little more. Don't see a reason to change the physically assisted rule or the USC to a immediate dead ball situation would help any situations


Another rainy day in N. Texas

Don

Re: JMO
 

Don,

You're kidding, right? You think instead of whining about a "flat" pitch they would TELL you about the "modified" pitch they just saw HAD to be illegal? If you think there is disparity in umpire's judgment of 6', what to you see the difference in what umpires believe is "too" fast.

Nothing to rewrite in Obstruction. If the player does not possess the ball, and they impede the runner, it is obstruction. I think this makes the rule much clearer.

To which HR rule are you referring? The "D"s or the walk-offs. I don't care much for the D HR change, but I like the walk-off.

The physical assistance at home is a clarification as a runner is usually no longer considered a runner once they've crossed the plate.

The USC change is in relation to a discussion I had with Walt Sparks in August. I assume he, or someone else had a problem which sparked this proposal. If a runner rounded 1B while the ball was in the outfield and for some reason attacked, punched, ran over (you get the point) F3, the umpire has no rule to do anything until the play was over and then, he could only eject the player. This is a provision to kill the play immediately and adds a little bite to the penalty involved.

purpose of rule change?
 

Define a “wild throw” as one which cannot be caught or stopped by the fielder with ordinary effort.

At first, I thought this might be just for scoring purposes or something. But I wonder if this is to prevent a fielder from allowing a throw to go into DBT if the defense would gain an advantage. It could happen: Runner tags at 1B on a long fly, the throw to 2B makes its way through the infield, and the runner makes it around 3B and is going to make it home, but a fielder allows the ball to roll into the dugout. Runner then has to go back to 3B.

Is there some other reason for changing this definition?

Re: excessive speed
 

I agree. Most umpires don't call it because there wouldn't be anyone left to pitch and it's hard enough to get these guys to throw strikes as it is.

Quote:

As for allowing the ball to hit the plate—or disregarding the existence of the plate in determining strikes—I think it's quite common for a pitch to enter the strike zone and then hit the plate. It would allow more strikes to be called, but I'm still against it. Why not just go to mat ball?

While it is possible for a pitch to pass through the strike zone and catch a portion of the plate, it is more likely that if it hits the plate, it did not get over that front knee at the front of the plate. Also, it would just create to the confusion by allowing some to be strikes and others balls.

Re: purpose of rule change?
 

The reason given was to establish a difference between an overthow and an errant throw. An overthrow is known in ASA as a thrown ball which leaves the playing field or becomes blocked.

Thanks for the explanation, IrishMafia. When would we as umpires have to know the difference between a wild (errant) throw and an overthrow?

Incidentally, as regards "flat pitches." When I started playing slow pitch (mid-1960s), nobody complained about flat pitches, because virtually everybody had played a lot of baseball and thought flat pitches were the easiest to hit.

[Edited by greymule on Nov 4th, 2002 at 06:58 PM]

proposed ASA changes
 

Thanks Mike. It will be interesting to see what passes. Please keep us posted.

When I was in College (late 70's - early 80's)..............seems like centuries ago.............my roomies/buddies and I put together a pretty good softball team.............

We won 2nd place in all school Intramurals in 1979 (Which included UT (University of Texas for the uninformed) Law School........who had teams together for more than 2-3 seasons...............

My Junior year...........UT decided to re-do all of the Intramural outdoor fields............so Spring Soccer, softball and flag football were off for that Spring........

We decided to play in the local City League (which was an ASA league)............our head honcho signed us up as a class "B" Mens team...........(I don't even know if there was a HR limit back then)

Boy.........did we ever learn our lesson..............we got our asses kicked...............

In that 20 (something) game season...........I think we won 3 or 4 games..................

The behemoths we faces cranked HR after HR.........where we maybe put 1-2 out per game.........and had always relied on solid defense...................

We were a great College intramural team............defense.......speed......very good outfield............great infield at the corners.........

But..........we got our butts handed to us in our hats playing serious softball...................

I had fun...........but we hated losing.............

If anyone is interested..........I can tell you the prostitute story on the way to the softball field story.........................grin

Joel

Just for discussion
 

Nobody in this area has even seen Modified Pitch so unless the pitch would get up to fast-pitch speeds I dont think we have to listen to em whine about that. I just believe the point that from 50+ feet in slow pitch it is pretty impossible to throw a strike without it hitting the 6' mark pretty much takes the need for the 6' requirement out of the picture. It is also very hard to get illegal out in time on these pitches that come in below 6' that this would get rid of having to call....

I agree fully if stated this way in the rule book it will be much easier for everyone to understand than the ball must be closer than the runner

We agree again. I wont tell anyone if you wont. I dont see a need in changing the existing excessive HR rule..

I would have to disagree on this if a runner that has not touched HP I would still consider a runner until he has entered the dugout or DBT..


You could rule obstruction F3 must have been to close(just kidding). I would agree with a tougher penalty as the player or the player closest to home would be called out and the player ejected. Just not sure best bet would be to call dead ball. What if the USC was to try to break up a double play our we just going to allow the one out and player ejection because of the dead ball situation??


Just a few thoughts

Don

Re: Just for discussion
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oppool

But, by rule, if the runner passes the plate you are to rule them safe until properly appealed by the defense. Like I said, this is a clarification for those who saw it differently

No, that is already covered by the rules. This new rule gives the umpire authority to take action should something occur not covered by the rules.

The example similar to the one offered by Walt Sparks (another damn Texan) was this: BR & F3 don't particularly care for each other and been jawing the whole game. As the BR is rounding 1B while the ball is in the outfield, the runner drops F3 with a right to the chops. Under the rules the only authority the umpire had was to wait until the end of the play and then eject the runner. If you don't kill the ball, you may have multiple live runners at the same time you have a bench-clearing brawl around 1B.

The new rule just gives the umpire an instant resolution and additional penalty should something like this happen. And odds are, this did happen somewhere which is what usually brings about new rules like this one.



As usual, they are always appreciated.

OK...you can't leave that one hanging out there like that!

Joel,

Any of your DD's playing in Humble this weekend? It is still
on providing that self -luminous heavenly body keeps on
http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/dazzler.gif and http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/sun.gifing.

http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/smurf.gif
glen
BTW, I like the new arrangement the smiles site has.

Hold your ASA caps, Blues!
 

For all you guys out there in the wet and the cold, I just got back from beautiful Daytona Beach for several days. My husband & I walked on the beach, (water was a little cold but we waded), swam in the heated pool, fished but didn't catch anything, and ate wonderful fresh seafood!! Saturday and Sunday the highs were in the mid 70s, but Monday was 86 degrees and I'm a little sunburned--wow in November, yet! Came back home to low 50s and rain! YUCK!!

Now onto Softball business. It seems the ASA Rules committee is a little chauvinist, with the "men have faster reaction time than women" crap. Bull hockey!!! What about a line drive in fastpitch at 40-43 feet??? Give me a break!
A strike that hits the plate in SP is ok? Naw!!
The only rule I like is that coed goes to 1 ball, the 12".
You know if you've ever called coed what a pain it is to change balls and have spare ones for the fouls, etc. Many years ago, one of our deputy UICs and I came up with a plan for the coed game that our commissioner immediately rejected and wouldn't even refer to OK City. A pitcher's rubber with a hinged compartment on one end that went below ground level to hold a softball. That way the pitcher could change out the ball!! LOL LOL LOL
Well, we liked it!! The rest of the rule changes (as usual) are designed to confuse the average Joe and Jane. Maybe I'm glad that I might retire from calling.




[Edited by Elaine "Lady Blue" on Nov 5th, 2002 at 06:59 PM]

Thanks for relaying this information.

I would like to see the issue of timed games be more specifically addressed.

I think there should be some examples (perhaps via casebook) of how the following two rules would be invoked:

ASA 5-4-E: 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.

What would be some examples of this?

ASA 10-1-L: 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.

What would be some examples of this?

I also believe there should be a rule that says that time can never expire until the current batter's at-bat has concluded. In other words, there is no amount of stalling that can occur to eliminate the actions of the current batter. The "current batter's" turn at-bat begins the instant the previous batter's turn ends. So, time can not expire *between* batters. There must be ONE MORE batter before time can be considered to have expired. You can't call the game with the count 1-2 on the batter, for example.

This simple and easily enforceable provision would eliminate a lot of shenanigans that occur in timed games.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Hear, hear.

This rule is toothless since the circumstances are so vague that invoke it and the penalty so severe. The only way I have successfully used this rule is as the basis of a warning.

I'd like to see as clear a definition as possible of what kind of "tactics" are included in this, and what kind aren't. I have long maintained that otherwise legal tactics (e.g. taking practice swings) can violate this rule if they meet the test of being "noticeably designed do delay."

I believe that is already the rule, unless time has expired during the bottom of the inning and the home team just scored to go ahead.

Pure umpire's judgment. Examples would be anything the umpire perceives as intentional which delays or, in some cases, shortens the game.

I've used this a few times and you'll know it when you see it. The problem is that too many umpires don't want to be known at the blue who forfeited a game. The players will not understand and will not get a straight answer from the coach.

I can guarantee you that only the coach is going to know the truth and they will make up a story to make the umpire a scapegoat rather than admit s/he or another on the team knowling did something wrong.

Been there, done that. I've been accused of this even when the reason for the forfeiture was something else.

The most obvious reason you will not see examples of such a thing is because no one wants to set down guidelines which in the long run would be detrimental to the game. When in print, too many time people believe that if it isn't written as a no-no, it must be okay.

For example, there is a softball myth that if you don't curse, you can say just about anything you want to an umpire and s/he CANNOT throw you out of the game. I don't know how many times I've heard, "You can't do that, he didn't even curse you!" after ejecting a player for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I agree with you that it is a bad idea to be too specific in the rules when describing a more general thing. However, that does not preclude the ASA from including some examples in the Case Book in order to give umpires some guidance.

For example, is it a violation of this rule for a team, with just a couple of minutes left in the game, to bring in a new pitcher have her throw her 5 warmups, and then bring in a second new pitcher, have her throw her 5 warmups, and then bring in a third new pitcher,... until time expires, and then get the final out to win the game? Apparently not, since something like this happend a few years ago at an ASA National Championship Tournament, and intentional delay was not called.

If this was legal, what is a violation unless the team does something that in and of itself is illegal?

What did the team do that resulted in you declaring a forfeit under this rule?

What I would like to see is some specific clock management rules that go into effect in the final x minutes of the game (say, final 10 minutes). These would allow the umpire to have a range of remedies depending on the situation. Mildest remedy would be for the umpire to stop the clock for any time out for conferences or substitutions during the final 10 minutes. While this might compromise the timely completion of the game, once the coaches know the umpires will do this, the only time outs near the end of the game will be legitimate ones, and not ones called just to delay. After all, what the objective should be is to discourage the delaying / hastening tactics while allowing the game to reach the conclusion it would have reached had these tactics not been employed.

JMO, of course.

One instance when I used it was when the pitcher started throwing bullets against the backstop. I gave him an excessive speed warning. The next pitch was a slow arc, but high enough to easily clear the 12' backstop. I gave the ball out of my bag to the catcher and told him to make sure it didn't happen again. Being one of these smart catchers, he shouted to his pitcher that the blue said don't do it again.

Pitcher laughs and says, "what's he gonna do, forfeit the game?" Then tossed the next pitch higher and much farther. Game was over.

Another time was when one team was trying to get the game legal while the other was trying to stall. We were on a field which loses it's light real early in August, and we were going to an "if". I checked with the league president warning him about the problem we were going to face with available light, but he wanted us to try and get it in. Church league championship game and the decided underdog was up by 16 runs in the 3rd and it was getting dark. If the team would just hit a small roller, the defense would let it roll through their legs.

We had about 15 minutes of light left when some kid (maybe 16) came to bat. With me less than 6 feet away, this kids older brother tells him to just step on the plate and hit the ball and I would have no choice but to rule him out. Well, I had enough and leaned forward while the batter's brother was still there and told both of them not to do it. The kid looked at his brother who just nodded. As the first pitch was coming, the kid looked down and put his foot in the middle of the plate and swung at a pitch 2 feet over his head, and just tipping it foul.

My ruling: I called dead ball and halt the game due to darkness. Well, these good young Christian men went ballistic. A young gentleman who was a Delaware State Trooper came over and got in my face, called me everything he could think of and told my I ruined his dream of winning a championship because he wasn't available on the pre-determined make-up date. The president of the league realized things were getting out of hand and thanked me for putting an end to it. He than had and one of the pastors escorted my partner and myself to the parking lot and stayed with us until we were ready to go.

Two different scenarios that could have gone either way and I handled them in two different manners. There are other umpires out there which might have just as successfully handled the same situations in a different manner. Neither one of us would be right or wrong.

This is the type of situation that anyone HTBT to understand any action taken. I think the powers that be are trusting the umpire to be intelligent enough to know how to handle situations without giving them guidelines which may point them toward an inevitable result which may have possibly been handled in a different and maybe better manner had he relied on his experience than a book. Damn, that was a long sentence.

JMHO,

No, not really.

Most leagues that have timed games allow another inning to begin if there is ANY time remaining of the clock at the conclusion of an inning.

So, let's say the home team is at-bat and they're winning. When time expires during their turn at-bat, the game is *immediately* over. The team on defense wants to get this inning over as quick as possible so that they can begin a new inning. So they are rushing. Time could expire at any time, even while a batter is at-bat. The count could be 1-1 and the buzzer could sound. Game over!

I'm saying that once a batter begins his turn at-bat ... it should be completed even if time expires while it is in progress. If there's 20 seconds remaining on the clock, the pitcher might as well relax because time can *not* expire until this batter completes his turn at-bat. And if the batter wants to stand in there and take the pitches until time expires ... that's his perogative. That is a more justified ending to the game than a mad panic on the part of the defense to hurry up and pitch in a desperate attempt to get the 3rd out - so a new inning can begin.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

League rules, not ASA. If you want a change in league rules, deal with the league.

Why would you expect ASA to address a rule that does not exist?

OK, but a couple of questions.

What if the pitcher started throwing pitches way outside, but legal in terms of speed and arc - wouuld you have called anything?

In the second case, what if the defense had continued to intentionally misplay in order to extend the inning? Would you have called anything?

In other words, I notice that in both cases, you did not invoke the rule until someone did something illegal.

Finally, in your second example, the issue was darkness, not the clock. Sure, delay / hastening was still the issue, but clock management was not. My concern stems from timed games, not from other issues such as darkness. Every other sport that uses a clock has special rules governing acceptable behavior, etc., during the final minutes of the game. Since the rules of softball are not designed with a clock in mind, providing end-of-game (from a clock perspective) rules would be especially useful.

JMO - never JMHO, though ;)

Well, Tom, I'm going to have to disagree with the way you are looking at this. It wasn't the "illegal" action that initiated my action, but the intentional acts to alter the progress of the game for the sole purpose of preserving a win or preventing the game from not becoming official.

In the first scenario, the game was on the clock (1 hr/one-pitch tournament). The second scenario BOTH teams were doing their best to prevent the other from obtaining their goal, that is why I called the came on darkness instead of forfeiting the game. Also, I don't see the difference between a clock running out and light running out, by rule they both draw the same conclusion.

Mike,

I'm continuing this discussion not to debate, but to learn when ASA wants this rule applied and under what condidions. I've seen it argued elsewhere that so long as the action is per se legel, then this rule cannot be invoked. I don't agree with that, so that is why I observed that in the 2 examples you gave, illegal actions were being performed.

Starting with your last statement, the only reason I made the distinction of clock v darkness was because of my suggestion of having special rules dealing with the final 10 minutes of a timed game. Otherwise, I agree it is the same issue.

Let's take your first situation. Suppose the defense decided to intentionally walk every batter. Given the situation, would you invoke the rule? The pitcher made it easier for you by throwing illegal pitches and intentionally disregarding your instructions. Suppose he hadn't done that, but just intentionally walked the batter?

And, again, in the game called on account of darkness, what would you have done if one team had been innocent? Suppose the defense just "muffs" every play, never allowing the inning to end, but the other team just continues to play normally? Would you invoke the rule against the defensive team once it became clear they were just stalling? Or what would you have done if you hadn't heard the offensive players talking about getting an intentional out by stepping on the plate?

And, finally, what about changing pitchers 3 times in succession, as was (supposedly) done at an ASA JO FP Nationals?

I didn't stop it for the illegal pitches. I stopped it for the pitcher intentionally stalling by making a travesty of the game. In my judgement, that is just what he was doing. After all, throwing the game balls out of play is going to cause a delay in retrieving or replacing them.

If it were one sided, I would have offered the team whose actions were blatent a warning to play straight up or I would forfeit the game. A short story about that at the bottom.

Since the clock does not come into play in anything other than pool play over 10U, I would think this was somewhat of a bush league move by a Gene Mauch wannabe. If it were obvious the intention was to run out a clock, I don't see where the umpires and TD could not suspend the clock to permit this abnormal need to change pitchers. A TD has a lot more authority than many people realize.

Short story. Team A had Team B down by 14 runs going into the bottom of the 5th inning. First pitch was popped up behind the SS only to have him take a few steps toward the pitcher to say something. Next ball was hit to F4 who turn to 2B for the force out. F6 wasn't there, but talking to F5. When he turned to throw to 1B, F3 was watching the game on the other field. Team A was decidedly a superior team, but they wanted to bat again.

My partner and I got together and both agreed something was strange. The next ball rolled past F3 and halfway into RF as F10 walked over to the ball. The batter ended up with a triple.

At this point, my partner and I told the coach that his team was making a travesty of the game and if they didn't start to play the game properly, it would be forfeited to their opponent and we really didn't care what the score was.

Well, much to our surprise, Team B made a comeback and got to within 2 runs by the end of that half inning. We moved to the bottom of the 6th after Team A went scoreless in the top and it started to rain lightly. Team B got a couple of runners on base and you should have heard the whining by Team A that we need to call the game. When the coach called time to confer with me about the weather, I told him lightning would have to strike 2B for me to stop this game. He told me that wasn't right and I reminded him that his team could have been in the comfort of their homes or local pub if they hadn't screwed around earlier. He had a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face when he returned to his position at 1B.

Team A ended up winning the complete game by 4 runs as the rain never became a safety factor. Had they continued to play in a manner my partner and I believed was intentionally dragging the game on, it never would have gone past the fifth inning.

Baseball and softball are simply not timable games, so whenever close games and time limits coincide, trouble is sure to follow.

There's no absolute answer as to how to handle it. The defense purposely messes while the offense tries to make outs. If they're slick about it, it's tougher to assert that they're doing it on purpose. Pitcher tries to prolong the inning by throwing a little too far inside. Batter swings anyway and grounds to F5. F5 fields the ball but throws it a little short of F3, who swipes at the ball but misses it. Oops, now we gotta chase the ball down the line.

Let's face it, either defense or offense can prolong the game significantly without being obvious, and there's not much we as umpires can do about it.

During the ground rules before games with short time limits (girls' fast-pitch bracket play sometimes has an 80-minute deadline), I usually warn the coaches that I will simply add time to the clock if there's any stalling. Of course, darkness is another story.