june carifications
 

this is from the june clarifications....is everyone comfortable with it?

. The same holds true with runners on 1B and 2B and the batter takes off for 1B thinking it is ball four causing runners to advance. To eliminate confusion for both the offense and the defense, the umpire should call “time.”

I think the only time I'd be willing to do that was at a 10U rec league game. At that level, the coaches probably need as much coaching as the kids.

We're not going to call time on a D3K with less than 2 outs w/ first base occupied, are we?

Im really wondering about some of the clarification which have come out the past couple of months. Last month we got its impossible to drag and replant and this month we are now being told to protect players from being stupid. How do you justify calling time to the defensive coach whos players were on the ball and just threw down in plenty of time to get one of the advancing runners?

No, and I don't know if I would have an automatic trigger for a play or take each at their own value.

Remember, in this case we are talking a ball, not a strike and the subject is confusion. I could understand this in some cases as you may be protecting offense and defense equally.

What are you going to do when you see a batter leave the box toward 1B when there is no reason? If D3K, are we not told to give an emphatic "out" or "batter's out". On less than a ball four, are you going to wait until everything has transpired and then call the batter back, or are you going to offer the true count in a clear and loud manner?

Are you willing to enforce the LBR if it comes into play? Will you warn the batter for stepping out of the box between pitches? Are you going to wait however long it takes for here to get back into the BB without calling a strike for delay? Are you going to penalize the catcher for not returning the ball directly to the pitcher? And I'm not talking about the umpire electing to make those calls, but you know damn well a savvy coach will be out there jumping up and down demanding you enfore the rules.

While I agree this would have to be something to seen before acting upon it, I think I can appreciate the point.

LOL...and i mean LOL !!....which part would you have to see?..the situation was explained qite clearly and concisely...Man, will you defend this old school sillines to no end?realizing how ridiculous that is,,,ive never labeled you or your cronies clones but now i understand why you and yours have earned that label....this interpretation is not only assinine but, if enforced, it would only serve to put umpires in peril...please tell me that you agree and that , in fact, you mispoke

Are you telling me that without seeing what is occuring in front of you, you can make an absolute decision?

Are you really that ignorant that you cannot comprehend something so simple as an observation of understanding the author's concern?

Have a good time with your peers.

I can't wait for the first play where the runners are stealing, the batter thinks she has walked, starts to head down to first base, the catcher guns the runner out and a clone calls "Time."

I'm surprised the clones are willing to judge the player's intent when the player "thinks it's ball 4."

Way to bail out the coaches who can't count to 4. Way to make the coaches responsible for fouling up the one of the few jobs they have.

Another great ruling by ASA.

well..lets see if we can break this down for you....which part of this isnt clear? what part would you have to see?

... with runners on 1B and 2B and the batter takes off for 1B thinking it is ball four causing runners to advance. To eliminate confusion for both the offense and the defense, the umpire should call “time.”

Not to speak for Irish but for me if I have a BR that takes a couple of steps for 1B on ball 3 and the catcher still has the ball (not making a play on a runner) then I'm going to kill it and bring them back to the plate. But if I have a smart catcher that is throwing down to 3B to get R1 who is jogging to 3B thinking it's ball 4 then I'm not taking that play away from the defense. This is why it might depend on the play to see what I personally would do in an actual situation. If I can stop the crazy stuff before it starts I'm going to...but if it's already stirred up I'm going to wait for the dust to settle and rule on what happens.

I guess I see both sides of the coin one, everyone should know the count and react to it appropiately....BUT.... If we kill the play when the defense isn't reacting to the runners (and BR) advancing we are taking an easy steal away from the offense right? So in this case we are helping the defense by killing the play? Since we are keeping the runners at 1B and 2B. But if the offense is not paying attention thinking it's ball 4 and we kill it when the defense is making a play on that unsuspecting runner then we are taking an easy out (maybe 2) away from the defense. So in that case we are helping the offense by keeping their runners on base. So would killing it in all cases be fair? Since there is a possible risk to both teams in this type of situation?? Possibly that is why they are suggesting we kill it in this case?

ok, here we go
 

Good day fellow officials. I have been following this and other forums for the last 5 years but have not joined any until now. I have witnessed (read) posters degrading, belittling, disrespecting...each other, and for some strange reason half reading, omitting, over looking, not paying attention to...what fellow officials write in their post. Then comes the replies/remarks that baffle anyone that (a) picks up a rule/mechanics/case book and actually tries to learn what is in it, and (b)has actually been on a ball field applied these rules/mechanics and dealt with directors, coaches, parents and players.

True, someone sitting behind a desk somewhere in ASA has come up with something unrealistic. We that get on the field know if we start protecting players in even half of the instances that their brain shuts down, and they without the right to step off of a base do so, we will be dealing with the other teams coaches having to explain why we stopped their team from having the opportunity to get an out, or score a run(many a defense have tossed the ball and headed for the dugout thinking there was 2 outs -do we call "time" and protect aginst the ensuing chaos here also). I was tempted to reply to my state ASA UIC and just suggest that he ensure ALL of the coaches in the state get this "clarification" and be ok with it, since it has been put out as direction for ASA umpires.

Back to my opening, enough with the name calling fellow officials, Irish Mafia had good points in his post, and he had the answer to the "time" situation that I myself use, just loudly give the count, or the outs, that usually re-engages all of the brains(players, coaches, parents and fellow officials)that may have momentarily shut down. I hope ASA revisits this and gives different "clarification".

Did you read the entire statement provided in the clarification or just what was quoted here? While it isn't a directive to call time, it was presented as a method of game management. Definitely not an absolute rule or mechanic. Irish said it best:
BTW, I don't think that Irish, as much as a clone that he is, is in total agreement with the clarification.

Ok, here is a challenge for you. Please enlighten the forum of other rulings by the ASA in which you are not in agreement. Limit this to interpretation of playing rules, not mechanics (we already know your views on that topic). And, for bonus points, provide written and available rulings/clarifications from other organizations that are different.

giving a loud ball and strike count is fine with me as well..unfortunately this is not what ASA directs us to do...that being said, it is a directive. read the clarification. it gives no alternative

Either kill it ALWAYS, or NEVER. (I say never). Ball is live. It's our job to observe action and rule on it. I don't like the suggestion of killing it if the offense is about to benefit, but not killing it if the defense is aware, and about to benefit.

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.

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.

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

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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.

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?

Welcome. And I do mean, welcome. Always nice to have a voice of reason here.

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.

Except....
 

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.

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

In which instances is the batter what is scheduled to bat last in the inning different from the "last batted out"? I have umpires in my organization who explain to the coaches that last batted out should go to second base. I tell them it's not last batted out, it's player scheduled to bat last in the inning. They say "same difference". I cringe.

How do I effectively explain the difference to these numbskulls?

One of many examples.

B1 put out, B2 put out. B3 walks. B4 walks. B5 walks. With B6 at bat, any one of the 3 runners is picked off, or R3 out at plate attempting to advance on passed ball.

By the rule, B6 is first batter in next inning, B5 placed on base. "Last batted out" (a term that doesn't exist) was B2; clearly the wrong runner.

Or, just about any play that is a fielder's choice for the 3rd out, or any advance runner thrown out; the last batter wasn't put out, so wouldn't be the runner by those claiming "same difference".

That is why one rule book says "last completed turn at bat".

Here is how I explain it.

Pull out your well-maintained line up card and locate the batter scheduled to lead off that half an inning. Now, look at the name of the player in the batting order slot immediately above. That player, or legal substitute or legal courtesy runner, it the player placed on 2nd base to start the inning.

Can you place a courtesy runner on 2nd for the start of that inning, considering the F1 or F2 didn't technically bat to earn their way on 2nd?

Yes. There is no prohibition against it - ASA, PONY, NYSSO

How does ANY player technically earn their way to 2nd as the tiebreaker runner?

Answer: By being the player listed in the batting order directly above the proper first batter (aka the 9th listed batter in the inning).

Does the player's defensive position change that? Did the F3, F4, etc., do anything additional to EARN that position? Assuming you answer correctly, then you should understand that F1 and F2 did everything every OTHER player did to EARN that position.

Yes, they EARNED that position, just like every OTHER player in the listed lineup, and as F1 or F2 that played that defensive position at the end of the prior half inning, then they are eligible for courtesy runners.

ok...I figured I'd play devil's advocate and ask.