Question for my fellow umpires

[Crabby_Bob]

I agree with Sheriff10 but, from an offense perspective, in a "no new inning" game and as home team with less than two minutes left, you won't always get a new inning.

[Sheriff10]

I agree Bob. There are always exceptions such as that one that TDs might institute for a tournament.

I was referring to the routine, timed bracket game.

[MTR]

I coached for many years. I now umpire. When parents pay the money they do for their DD to play at this level, the expect the coach to do everything he can, within the confines of the rules, to win. In doing so, it gives their team another chance to win and move on to play another game.

I don't buy that 100%. To a point, yes, but many parents pay to get their DD seen. Winning obviously helps, but I don't think that is the priority as it pertains to the $$

I don't think having a girl step across the plate while the pitcher is in the pitching position, with her knowing WHY she is doing it, would crush her spirit. As long as the clock is a game factor, most coaches will use tactics to use it to their advantage.

Speaking ASA, what do you do with 5.4.E?

[Sheriff10]

I coached for many years. I now umpire. When parents pay the money they do for their DD to play at this level, the expect the coach to do everything he can, within the confines of the rules, to win. In doing so, it gives their team another chance to win and move on to play another game.

I don't buy that 100%. To a point, yes, but many parents pay to get their DD seen. Winning obviously helps, but I don't think that is the priority as it pertains to the $$

I don't think having a girl step across the plate while the pitcher is in the pitching position, with her knowing WHY she is doing it, would crush her spirit. As long as the clock is a game factor, most coaches will use tactics to use it to their advantage.

Speaking ASA, what do you do with 5.4.E?

That's a good question. The acts I have been describing earlier have become so common, at least here, that I never enforce that rule, nor have I seen another umpire do it. It is the same as a runner stepping off of the base early in order to accomplish the same thing. (Getting to the next inning)
I'm guessing the umpires who concurred with my non-call would have the same viewpoint.

[Bretman]

The rule about "delaying or hastening the game" has been around forever, I would suspect from the time that ASA wrote the first softball rule book in 1933. This exact rule was already in the existing baseball rules and many of the first softball rules were taken verbatim from there.

The use of a clock- in a game specifically designed not to use a clock- kind of warps the context of what that rule was designed to address. In an untimed game, there would be limited situations where this rule could be applied.

For instance, say the visiting team was leading at the end of the sixth inning. Darkness is approaching in the bottom of the seventh as the home team is mounting a comeback. By delaying the game, the visiting team would gain a huge advantage. With the game at risk of being ended due to darkness, their delay could essentially take the bats right out of the home team's hands. Stall long enough and the game is ended, with the score reverting back to the last complete inning.

A similar scenario would be a game with the home team leading in the bottom of the fifth and rain on the horizon. The home team might have an incentive to make quick outs to get the inning in the books, thus completing enough innings to make it an official game.

The original rule addressed situations where a team could gain a palpable advantage by not playing the game, or gain an unintended advantage by purposely playing poorly. The early baseball rules rulemakers sought to address these kind of situations, not just in the spirit of fair play, but from the standpoint of not having paying fans be witness to teams making a mockery of the game.

Throw in a game clock and that changes things a bit.

With a clock, when a team stalls while sitting on a lead that does effectively "take the bats out of the hands" of their opponents. The delay tactics are creating an advantage- or more accurately, creating a disadvantage for the other team by denying them their chance to play ball. This is a situation where the umpire can step in, issue a warning and get the game moving along again.

A team purposely making outs to allow another inning to be played is something different and not a scenario really addressed by the original rule that had no regard for a clock. Making outs on purpose does not delay the game and it does not disadvantage the opponent as does stalling when in the lead. In fact, there is some advantage gained by the other team as they will also have another crack at it in the top of the next inning. This tactic does not put the other team in a position where it is impossible for them to win the game and I think that is the kind of scenario the original rule was meant to cover.

Purposely making outs does not delay the game and I don't think that you could say it hastens the game, either. How could something that will make the game be longer be considered as "hastening" the game (ie: make the game go more quickly)?

Like it or not, playing games with a clock is here to stay. As long as it is, teams will look for creative ways to work the clock to their advantage. Until the time that specific rules are crafted to address these specific scenarios, the umpire will be forced to rely on his own game management techniques. And players, fans and coaches aren't always going to be happy about it!

[Patrick]

I have warned coaches about employing tactics designed to delay or hasten, and haven't had to say another word.

[MTR]

I have warned coaches about employing tactics designed to delay or hasten, and haven't had to say another word.

And I don't disagree and I am not suggesting the umpire LOOK for cause to forfeit the game.

However, when it becomes so obvious that you are forced to make on-field decisions, the rules are there to accommodate those fine coaches.

[wadeintothem]

That's a good question. The acts I have been describing earlier have become so common, at least here, that I never enforce that rule, nor have I seen another umpire do it. It is the same as a runner stepping off of the base early in order to accomplish the same thing. (Getting to the next inning)
I'm guessing the umpires who concurred with my non-call would have the same viewpoint.

Well it is well known and has been discussed many times that "stepping off" and other type acts could be construed to be a violation of 5.4.e.

My take on it is:

You will likely never see it enforced like that or other similar "good spirited" type acts to get it over, not run up the score, or perhaps use the clock a little; nor should it be, IMO. I remember one time I saw an umpire call both runners out who stepped off simulataneously, and no one said a world

The intent of the rule is in regards to blatantly cheating (read: mean spririted). Hence the harsh punishment (which doesnt even allow for a warning). The penalty is so harsh in fact, I doubt you could ever get away with calling it in championship play unless there was a egregious violation.

5.4.e FIRST falls under the Rule for 1.00 for Umpiring, one that is often broken, "use common sense".

[MTR]

I'm not suggesting an umpire go right to 5.4.E and end the game, but to use as leverage to get the coach's attention.

If you cannot get the coach's attention with that, you may want to consider inforcing the rule, but only, ONLY as a last resort.

[wadeintothem]

I know, but I didnt want bret to start thinking.



(jk bret!)