"no new inning after xx"

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I think that "no new inning after xx min" are stupid. The best is "drop dead after xx min". That keeps the games moving and on time.

MTD, Jr., and I, on too many occasions, have had the top of a new inning start just before the time limit with the Home team losing, and then have the new inning go as long as 15 minutes past the time limit.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I think that "no new inning after xx min" are stupid. The best is "drop dead after xx min". That keeps the games moving and on time.

.

That works fine for pool games. But for games where the winner matters, having one team bat more than the other doesn't make any sense at all (and neither to "revert to the score from the previous inning" rules, for different reasons).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Rich

Just like soccer and stoppage time, which is at the discretion of the referee.

OMG, one of the worst ideas ever, use antiquity as a basis.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That works fine for pool games. But for games where the winner matters, having one team bat more than the other doesn't make any sense at all (and neither to "revert to the score from the previous inning" rules, for different reasons).

I agree with you regarding pool play games.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I think that "no new inning after xx min" are stupid. The best is "drop dead after xx min". That keeps the games moving and on time.



MTD, Sr.

It may keep them on time but if I'm on defense and up a run I'm stalling to get to the drop dead time before the other team can score.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It may keep them on time but if I'm on defense and up a run I'm stalling to get to the drop dead time before the other team can score.

Stalling can work on offense as well as defense. Granted, it's harder to stall on offense than on defense.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It may keep them on time but if I'm on defense and up a run I'm stalling to get to the drop dead time before the other team can score.

Rich:

As already stated, teams (both offense and defense) will attempt to stall, but we as umpires can eliminate most of it by good game management.

It just my opinion that a time limit without a drop-dead requirement really isn't a time limit.

MTD, Sr.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

It may keep them on time but if I'm on defense and up a run I'm stalling to get to the drop dead time before the other team can score.

I agree, it wouldn't change the stall game

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rich:

As already stated, teams (both offense and defense) will attempt to stall, but we as umpires can eliminate most of it by good game management.

The problem becomes when a coach does something entirely legal, like when the defensive coach conducts multiple conferences in that last inning, the pitcher takes her full 20 seconds, or the offensive coach want to make lineup changes. As an umpire, there's not much you can do to stop that.

[CecilOne]

OK, not really hijack, just a tangent.

In a timed game, what is your criteria/philosophy for when to stop the timer during play.
Don't say lightning or a helicopter on the field, but try for helpful.

Does it ever include an obvious stall?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

OK, not really hijack, just a tangent.

In a timed game, what is your criteria/philosophy for when to stop the timer during play.
Don't say lightning or a helicopter on the field, but try for helpful.

Does it ever include an obvious stall?

No, it doesn't include an obvious stall. No new after 90 means no new after 90.

If the "stall" is a legal use of the game rules, it is part of the 90 minutes. If one coach is arguing about a call, it is part of the 90 minutes. If there is a minor injury stoppage (not requiring outside medical attention, and not exceeding the "coach, either we play now, or you sub now" time frame), it is part of the 90 minutes.

If the "stall" is NOT a legal use of the game rules, there are other game rules that already apply (ASA 5.4-E, 5.4-F, 10.1), so why make up a new one?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

OK, not really hijack, just a tangent.

In a timed game, what is your criteria/philosophy for when to stop the timer during play.
Don't say lightning or a helicopter on the field, but try for helpful.

Does it ever include an obvious stall?

No.

Calling for an ambulance. Possibly a protest situation where I've got to have someone find the UIC/TD and they aren't readily available. That's about all I can think of.

[tcannizzo]

Another valid situation is when the grounds crew is called to fix a field.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Another valid situation is when the grounds crew is called to fix a field.

True if the situation is such that there's going to be a significant delay in the game. But I've seen ground crews come on and off the field pretty quickly during conferences and between innings to fix something relatively minor. No need to stop the clock then.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

No, it doesn't include an obvious stall. No new after 90 means no new after 90.

If the "stall" is a legal use of the game rules, it is part of the 90 minutes. If one coach is arguing about a call, it is part of the 90 minutes. If there is a minor injury stoppage (not requiring outside medical attention, and not exceeding the "coach, either we play now, or you sub now" time frame), it is part of the 90 minutes.

If the "stall" is NOT a legal use of the game rules, there are other game rules that already apply (ASA 5.4-E, 5.4-F, 10.1), so why make up a new one?

I knew you would support my not stopping for legal stalls, but wanted to see if there is a non-supported school of thought.

The bold is what I was getting at and trying to see how subjective each of us is.