june carifications

[Andy]

In reading the published info once again, I see that the subject is "game control" and it speaks about trying to prevent situations before they happen.

The example given is the one that is being discussed here. In the context of the entire article, I think I see the point.

If the batter is truly confused and takes off for first on ball 3, and the runners advance because they see the batter moving toward first, then the advice is to kill the play and reset. The issue I have with this is that it puts the umpire on the field back in the position of judging intent of the player as opposed to the actions of the player. If you have been around long enough, you will run into players and coaches that try this type of thing (intentionally running to first on ball 3) to create confusion and try to gain a "cheap" base.

Up until now, we have taken the position that the onus is on the game participants to know the situation and react accordingly and if a team can create confusion, yeah, it may be bush league, but it is within the rules and we rule on what happens on the field. How many times on this and other similar forums have we chastised some umpires for making up a ruling to "keep it fair" and stop what they considered to be a bush league type play?

I do like the topic of game control and game management and think it is something that all levels of umpires can benefit from. However, I don't think using this particular example fits with the topic.

[tcannizzo]

It is impossible for anyone to describe all the situations in which an umpire can use good game control techniques. [snip] If we see something unusual developing, we should read the situation, and, if an umpire needs to take control before chaos begins, do so. You will be a better umpire for it.

There is something terribly wrong with this example of calling Time on a mistaken batter on a non-ball four.

To that point, what Rule is this clarifying? OK, so game management is not a Rule, but what Rule would support doing this?
And, what ever happened to the time-honored DMC?

We have all seen "unusual" things that turn into "chaos".
But if they don't violate a rule, then who are we to say?

Are we opening Pandora's box here?
I see a train wreck with this.

Play: JO Fast pitch: In the top of the eighth inning. The offensive coach asks the umpires what they are supposed to do. The umpires tell the coach to...

WHOA NELLIE, let's stop right there. The umpires do what???? Since when do we tell coaches what to do or how to coach?

... place the batter due to bat last in this inning on second base and proceed with their normal lineup.

WOW! What a poor choice of words. Very non-specific and wildly open to interpretation, or even not clearly understood.

The player who is "to bat last this inning" is the one who is up when the game-winning run is scored. How does coach know who that will be?
Heck, if they are Vis, and they score 12 runs, how does coach know that right now?

So then, coach interprets that to mean the B9 belongs on 2B because the umpires said so, or at least thought so. You then call BOO and coach says, but you told me to put her there!!!! Now what do you do?

That's a helluva good question because "something unusual just occurred chaos is about to ensue.

I would have worked it this way:
Coach: "What am I supposed to do?"
Me (chuckling internally): "Coach, Who is due to bat first this inning"?
Coach: "It is #42 in the 9 spot" (B9)
Me: "Then #00 in the 8 spot goes to 2B" (B8)

Now, if B9 ends up on 2B, then I have no problem enforcing BOO, if properly appealed.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

WOW! What a poor choice of words. Very non-specific and wildly open to interpretation, or even not clearly understood.

The player who is "to bat last this inning" is the one who is up when the game-winning run is scored. How does coach know who that will be?
Heck, if they are Vis, and they score 12 runs, how does coach know that right now?

So then, coach interprets that to mean the B9 belongs on 2B because the umpires said so, or at least thought so. You then call BOO and coach says, but you told me to put her there!!!! Now what do you do?

.

2012 ASA book RUle 5 section 11 A says "Starting with the top of the eighth inning, and each half inning thereafter, the offensive team shall begin its turn at bat with the player who is scheduled to bat last in that respective half inning being placed on second base (e.g., if the number five batter is the lead off batter, the number four batter in the batting order will be placed on second base. A substitute may be inserted for the runner)."

Seems to me the umpire is giving them by the book advice. Your point is taken however, it is a good idea to not end the conversation there but to make sure that they agree who the lead off is and the person they send to 2B is listed one position above them in the lineup.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

2012 ASA book RUle 5 section 11 A says "Starting with the top of the eighth inning, and each half inning thereafter, the offensive team shall begin its turn at bat with the player who is scheduled to bat last in that respective half inning being placed on second base (e.g., if the number five batter is the lead off batter, the number four batter in the batting order will be placed on second base. A substitute may be inserted for the runner)."

Seems to me the umpire is giving them by the book advice. Your point is taken however, it is a good idea to not end the conversation there but to make sure that they agree who the lead off is and the person they send to 2B is listed one position above them in the lineup.

I'm not sure I've ever been trained on this, so maybe this is wrong, but here's what I've done / seen done the few times I've done tie breakers. At the end of the last tied inning the HP umpire walks up the scorekeeper and finds out who should be up. He tells the coach to send that player out to second. The BU is on the correct line to make sure the runner doesn't go out until warm ups are done.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not sure I've ever been trained on this, so maybe this is wrong, but here's what I've done / seen done the few times I've done tie breakers. At the end of the last tied inning the HP umpire walks up the scorekeeper and finds out who should be up. He tells the coach to send that player out to second. The BU is on the correct line to make sure the runner doesn't go out until warm ups are done.

Exactly. Every time. I don't leave any room for ambiguity. I figure out the right person and tell the coach who belongs on 2nd.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by youngump

At the end of the last tied inning the HP umpire walks up the scorekeeper and finds out who should be up. He tells the coach to send that player out to second.

Except it is not that player who should be placed on 2nd. The player who "should be up" is the lead off. The player that is in front of that player is the one placed on 2nd.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by rwest

Except it is not that player who should be placed on 2nd. The player who "should be up" is the lead off. The player that is in front of that player is the one placed on 2nd.

I'm pretty sure, that is what he meant, using "who is up" as a tool to find a spot in the lineup.
Also, SWP, if the leadoff is up, the TB runner is not the FLEX.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I'm pretty sure, that is what he meant, using "who is up" as a tool to find a spot in the lineup.
Also, SWP, if the leadoff is up, the TB runner is not the FLEX.

Yeah of course, who is up to go to second. Sorry it was unclear the way I wrote it the first time.

[tcannizzo]

Dave, yes, the book uses those words and ump quoted correctly.

When I posed the question about what rule are we clarifying, I was actually referring to the sitch from the OP.

Calling time on ball 3 is supported by what rule?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

In reading the published info once again, I see that the subject is "game control" and it speaks about trying to prevent situations before they happen.

The example given is the one that is being discussed here. In the context of the entire article, I think I see the point.

If the batter is truly confused and takes off for first on ball 3, and the runners advance because they see the batter moving toward first, then the advice is to kill the play and reset. The issue I have with this is that it puts the umpire on the field back in the position of judging intent of the player as opposed to the actions of the player. If you have been around long enough, you will run into players and coaches that try this type of thing (intentionally running to first on ball 3) to create confusion and try to gain a "cheap" base.

Up until now, we have taken the position that the onus is on the game participants to know the situation and react accordingly and if a team can create confusion, yeah, it may be bush league, but it is within the rules and we rule on what happens on the field. How many times on this and other similar forums have we chastised some umpires for making up a ruling to "keep it fair" and stop what they considered to be a bush league type play?

I do like the topic of game control and game management and think it is something that all levels of umpires can benefit from. However, I don't think using this particular example fits with the topic.

I think this "suggestion" of game management of theirs is wrought with problems. If they want the ball to be dead when a batter tries to advance to first on ball 3, codify it. Lacking a rule to kill the ball here, we should not be killing the ball here.