june carifications

[umpire12]

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.”

[Tru_in_Blu]

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?

[RKBUmp]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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?

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.

[umpire12]

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by umpire12

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.

[EsqUmp]

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.

[umpire12]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.”

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by umpire12

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?

[Softball910]

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".

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

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.

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:

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.

BTW, I don't think that Irish, as much as a clone that he is, is in total agreement with the clarification.

Another great ruling by ASA.

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.

[umpire12]

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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?

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.

[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.