Catcher's Infractions - Little League vs. NFHS

[PlayPerfect]

intentionally delaying? Ive heard of that. Intentionally hastening? No I haven't. Is that the one where you don't give the runner time to return to base or the batter time to be ready in the box? I appreciate your response that its essentially much ado about nothing. Sorry for delving too far.

I have one other obstruction issue. I will start a separate thread if I cant find it addressed earlier.

 

[Comp]

It's all part of the same rule, any actions to purposely delay or hasten (make the game end sooner) are grounds for the game to be called a forfeit.

 

[PlayPerfect]

Any actions? Like a dominant team intentionally leaving the base early in the early innings up 25-0 with no end in sight is grounds for a forfeit?

 

[Comp]

That is typically overlooked because of the blowout score. But, situations like time is running out, home team is down and wants to get new inning started before time runs out so coach yells out for a runner to purposely leave early, or batter to step on plat and make contact with ball so they can get new inning going. Those are infractions that could lead to a an umpire invoking the rule.

 

[MTR]

So let me reallllly simplify it and re state the original question. NO ONE on base....3-1 count. Catcher catches a called second strike and guns it to 1st FOR WHATEVER REASON. Would you award the batter ball four? In NFHS, USSSA, NSA or whatever rule book you are familiar with? Thanks for officiating. We need you to have a game.

It is a game control rule that is not in effect with any runner on any base regardless of where the catcher throws the ball. It is also a rule with a ludicrous effect. It is meant to avoid a delay in the game, not as a "gotcha" should the catcher make an error the count. The effect should be a warning and, at the umpire's discretion, be an award of a ball should it become a problem.

Unfortunately, too many "traditionalists" would go crazy because they think it has always been that way, but it hasn't.

 

[PlayPerfect]

Thanks MTR - the rule needs to change then. If my team was at bat...in that LLWS pool play game...I'm protesting the game at that point. That thing called the rulebook is in my favor.

 

[CJ D]

Jeez. I bet you are just a pleasure to be around at the ball park. I'm wondering how many games you've been ejected from at this point.

 

[PlayPerfect]

Jeez. I bet you are just a pleasure to be around at the ball park. I'm wondering how many games you've been ejected from at this point.

None. And I've never even been warned. I try to know the rulebook as best as I can because I owe it to my team and parents to be informed on the sport and how it is to be played...within the rules, to give us the best chance to win and succeed and play the game the right way. And any umpire will tell you..they want a coach who knows the book as well as they do. Thanks for judging me from a thread on the internet. That's pretty darn classy of you.

 

[MTR]

Thanks MTR - the rule needs to change then. If my team was at bat...in that LLWS pool play game...I'm protesting the game at that point. That thing called the rulebook is in my favor.

I agree. The automatic award needs to be eliminated. It is a rule derived from baseball that baseball really doesn't use any longer

 

[chinamigarden]

Comp - you must be an umpire, because you totally created a situation that was protest proof. And its one of the problems with umpires in our sport right now. You try to imagine what a player mustve been thinking to make it a judgment case instead of an admitted lack of knowledge on the rules. That doesn't mean your dumb or incompetent. The rules are vast and varied. Youre human. and so am I. I've NEVER coached a perfect game and rarely have I run a perfect practice. But I can at least admit it when I did not know something. Like carrying the bat to first. . You said "where in the rules does it specifically prohibit running in reverse". I told you and you responded as if you already knew that one...Curious why you asked if you already knew. and Im also curious why you said "with no one on base" when the rules never say a word about that. You bend it to imply well of course they could throw to first to "try to pull a runner off third" but you know as well as I, the reason they require returning the ball directly to the pitcher is the SAME REASON FOR THE LOOK BACK RULE. Without it we would have essentially the North Carolina four corner offense stall running the clock out to win a game without actually playing the sport. I would protest the game. The UIC would side with your convoluted response. You would wiggle out of it. Next time you worked my game, I might just play catch between first and home for an hour until the time limit ran. My team would win. You would be boxed into a call you earlier misused. The girls, the spectators and the sport would lose and the lacrosse league would be 8 kids bigger the next spring.

So let me reallllly simplify it and re state the original question. NO ONE on base....3-1 count. Catcher catches a called second strike and guns it to 1st FOR WHATEVER REASON. Would you award the batter ball four? In NFHS, USSSA, NSA or whatever rule book you are familiar with? Thanks for officiating. We need you to have a game.

I get what you are saying, but are time limits in the rule books? Or are time limits something that tournaments make up as a local rule? I am not sure, but I don't think they are in the actual rule book, which would mean that ASA, NSA, USSSA... probably wouldn't create a rule to solve a problem that does not exist under the rules.