Charged Conference

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yeah, NFHS' has a bit of overkill to address different scenarios seemingly created by unnecessary "what if" scenarios. However, I'd like to hear what is so poor about the wording of ASA's. Seems pretty clear to me.

Simply put, by the clear wording of the rule, since there is no charged conference if the pitcher is removed, the coach could go out and "chat" then remove the pitcher. No charged conference. Next pitcher, same thing. This can go on endlessly without there ever being a charged conference. Now there was a rule interpretation provided several years ago, which completely contradicts the rule itself. Then you can look at the rule vs. rules supplement for more inconsistencies.

The purpose of the rule is to limit delays. As written, the rule wouldn't work as long as the pitcher was removed.

Additionally, ASA wants to distinguish between "Good game, Mary, give me the ball. Ump, 12 is going in for 14" and "Ump, 12 is going in for 14. Good game, Mary. Give me the ball." Again, no time difference. Just a sequence. One is charged, one is not. That's the rule interpretation, not withstanding the fact that if is completely at odds with the rule.

I also think that in extra innings it ought to be one charged per pitcher per inning (in regulation as well). Now that they are in extra innings with everything on the line, ASA limits the coaches' ability to conference with a new pitcher.

It's a mess. You can argue all you want that the rule works. But as written as well as interpreted, it's a disaster.