BOO and USC

WestMichiganBlue · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 11:04am

Something that bothers me about the BOO rules is that it creates the potential for unethical conduct from the D-coach to gain an advantage.

Situation: late innings, D-team leads by 1 run; O-team has runners in scoring position with 2 outs. B4 was the last batter, but B6 is now at bat.

From the D-bench you hear from the player keeping the book "Hey coach, that's the wrong batter." You look over to see the D-coach waving her off, telling her to be quiet.

#1 - do you pay any attention to any comments anywhere, anytime, if they are not specifically addressed to you within the rules of the game?

#2 - would you (a) ask the batter if she is the correct batter? (b) Ask the O-coach if the correct batter is up? Or (c) look to the D-bench and say "Do we have a problem, coach?" (Of course he/she says no.)

You let it go, and the batter drills the ball to the fence, scoring two runs. Now the D-coach comes out and appeals BOO. Had the batter stuck out you wouldn't have heard from him, but now the D-coach is going to use the rules to get an out where his players could not.

So what are your feelings? "Too bad, that's the way the game is played?" I don't think that you can deny the appeal, but might you be inclined to give him the out, and then toss him for USC?
WMB

greymule · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 01:45pm

Failing to call attention to batting out of order is in no way USC. And you as an ump should not respond to anything except an official appeal by the defense. Even if you know the batter is the wrong one, you say nothing.

If the offensive coach comes out and says, "We just batted out of order. What do we do?" Unless the defense appeals, you just inform the coach that the next legal batter is the one who follows the one who just batted. Of course, by this time, somebody on the defense will probably figure out what's going on and appeal. On the other hand, the defensive coach might be well aware of the BOO but choose not to appeal.

Years ago, the Pirates batted out of order all evening against the Mets, but the Mets said nothing until someone batting out of order got a key hit. I think it was the third time around the lineup.

Steve M · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 01:59pm

There's a saying that covers this. It goes something like this - "Don't go looking for boogers". When you insert yourself into a discussion that you're not part of - like the D-coach waving off his player - you're looking for boogers. Do not do that. I recall that Pirates-Mets game from years ago, I think it was the second game of a double header.

Now, what is unethical about the defense making sure that they are able to take advantage of a mistake by the offense? To say that is unethical would mean that the offense would not take the extra base when the defense makes an error. Smart teams, coaches, and players take full advantage of every mistake by their opponent - and they should.

Steve M

Robmola · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 05:37pm

I have to disagree. I call it preventative umpiring.
If at anytime I think the wrong batter is at bat, I will find out, and have it corrected. That includes hearing it from the bench, Or not recognizing the batter I think should be there. That's why you have lineup cards.
I even check my cards on and off during the game just to make sure.

bluezebra · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 07:45pm

In FED, the umpire may ask the batter if she's the proper batter. Until the first pitch, then don't ask.

Bob

[Edited by bluezebra on Feb 8th, 2003 at 06:56 PM]

greymule · #6 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 10:37pm

Well, that's not really why you have lineup cards. You have cards so that you will know who the proper batter is, not so that you can keep people from batting out of order.

Imagine what happens when you catch the red team batting out of order in the fifth inning and correct it. You have just committed yourself to being the lineup monitor for the rest of the game. Now the blue teams bats out of order in the 9th and you miss it. Then the red team appeals and you call a blue batter out. Preventive umpiring?

bluezebra · #7 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 08, 2003, 11:58pm

greymule:

Read the FED Softball Case Book.

Bob

Del-Blue · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 09, 2003, 05:39am

I really don't think I have committed myself as a line up monitor. I check because I want to, If I don't it is still up the the teams to make sure the right batter is up there. If I know she isn't, I will fix it. That makes it easier for me. I try to correct any rule violation before it happens, that way there is no chance of me mis-applying a rule, and risk a protest.

Just me, If you want to wait until it is brought to your attention, that is certainly your right.
To each his/her own.

Steve M · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 09, 2003, 06:17am

I'll grant that "the umpire may ask...." is in the case book and has been there for a number of years. I think it's the first play covering Rule 7, Section 1, Article 2. But the word "may" and the word "should" are two entirely different words with very different meanings. I'm with the old grey mule here, do this once and you've committed yourself to doing it the rest of the game with everybody looking to crucify you if you later miss one.

Steve M

greymule · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 09, 2003, 11:15am

This shows why the case book should be more specific and less ambiguous. In 7.1.2 Situation A, "the batting infraction is detected" should read "the batting infraction is called to the umpire's attention." I'm well aware that the mistake is correctable until the batter completes her at bat.

Now more ambiguity: The case book says, "this situation is correctable," but it doesn't say, "the umpire shall correct this situation." When the case book says, "B5 will take the place of B7," it is unclear whether that means "B5 must take the place of B7" or "B5 will take the place of B7 if the situation is to be corrected." Note that rule 7-1-1 says, "When an improper batter's infraction is first discovered, time may be requested and the improper batter replaced by the proper batter who will assume the improper batter's ball and strike count. . . ."

Obviously, if everybody knows the wrong batter is up, the offensive coach will put the right batter up. But whether it is up to the umpire to order the correct batter into the box is an open question.

The book should probably say, "If the BOO is called to the umpire's attention [by any of the various people], the umpire shall direct the proper batter to take her place in the batter's box and assume the count."

As for preventive umpiring, I'm reminded of the time I saw an ump, on a bases-loaded walk that forced across the winning run with two out in the bottom of the seventh, announce, "Coaches, please have your runners touch the next base." Guess he didn't want to deal with an appeal or abandonment of effort.

[Edited by greymule on Feb 9th, 2003 at 10:25 AM]

WestMichiganBlue · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Feb 09, 2003, 08:56pm

FED Casebook 7.1.2A says "Before a pitch, the umpire may ask the improper batter if she should be at bat. After a pitch, the umpire shall remain silent."

What is "a" pitch? The first pitch? Any pitch? A player is not considered to be "at bat" until after a pitch (the first pitch). Prior to the first pitch, she is not an improper batter. So how can the umpire ask "the improper batter?"

Sometimes I think that we get too nitpicky, and need to deal with "intent" rather than the actual words. IMO, the rules makers gave us the authority, prior to a batter taking the first pitch and if we have reason to believe the batter(to be) is improper, to ask her if she belongs there. That is preventive umpiring. If she get that startled look on her face and runs back to the bench, then we have prevented a future issue. If she say "yes" then we shut up (even if we know she is wrong.) After that it is up to the coaches to make the correction.
WMB

Bill Baker · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 10, 2003, 09:47pm

Is injecting ourselves into the BOO without an appeal any different then declaring a runner out for leaving too early or missing a base without an appeal?

greymule · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Feb 10, 2003, 10:36pm

It was only in Fed that we declared runners out, without an appeal, for missing bases or leaving them too soon. But that rule was changed last year. And we certainly don't call BOO without an appeal.

Bill Baker · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Feb 11, 2003, 07:35am

Quote:

Originally posted by Robmola
I have to disagree. I call it preventative umpiring.
If at anytime I think the wrong batter is at bat, I will find out, and have it corrected. ........

This action is what I mean by "injecting" ourselves without an appeal.

The originating post did not specify FED only and neither did the quoted reply. Pardon my thick old head........

David Robinson · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Feb 12, 2003, 10:10am

WestMichiganBlue wrote:

Had the batter stuck out you wouldn't have heard from him

Not sure if he was only referencing FED rules but in ASA, if I'm correctly interpreting 7.2.C.2 (2002 rule book), I would have alerted ump to BOO after a strike out because I could get two outs for the price of one.