FED Intentional Base on Balls

[ALStripes17]

Sure. I look at it more as denying it since we (presumably) know the sub is illegal. Same as we would deny a second offensive conference in the same inning. So my perspective is that not allowing doesn't come under my umbrella of "preventive officiating," so much as it means allowing it would be an error on our part.

False... They are able to do it, and by your logic, they should know better and we are not allowed to 'assist' in any way.

You are picking and choosing when you apply preventive officiating. Use the rules to your advantage. Who in the baseball world will be upset with you when you confirm the F2 asking for an IBB? Nobody... Who could be upset if you don't ask and the coach is blindsided by his F2 requesting an IBB in a crucial point in the game? Everyone and their momma. Use common sense

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

12 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

False... They are able to do it, and by your logic, they should know better and we are not allowed to 'assist' in any way.

You are picking and choosing when you apply preventive officiating. Use the rules to your advantage. Who in the baseball world will be upset with you by confirming the F2 asking for an IBB? Nobody... Who could be upset if you don't ask and the coach is blindsided by his F2 requesting an IBB in a crucial point in the game? Everyone and their momma. Use common sense

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You're mixing your examples. You're talking about allowing (or not) an illegal act versus prompting a coach for confirmation before a legitimate strategic decision is made. And for me, that's where the line is. And yes, I'm picking and choosing how I apply preventive umpiring, but not choosing which rules I do or don't uphold. If you want to check with a coach when the catcher asks for an IBB, knock yourself out. I disagree with the practice and won't do it, myself.

And to answer your question about  who would be upset? I'm sure lots of people would be, but there'll be no blame to lay at the feet of the umpire. That's a miscommunication among a team, and I don't believe we have any responsibilities for that in this case.

[ALStripes17]

You're mixing your examples. You're talking about allowing (or not) an illegal act versus prompting a coach for confirmation before a legitimate strategic decision is made. And for me, that's where the line is. And yes, I'm picking and choosing how I apply preventive umpiring, but not choosing which rules I do or don't uphold. If you want to check with a coach when the catcher asks for an IBB, knock yourself out. I disagree with the practice and won't do it, myself.

And to answer your question about  who would be upset? I'm sure lots of people would be, but there'll be no blame to lay at the feet of the umpire. That's a miscommunication among a team, and I don't believe we have any responsibilities for that in this case.

Coach. By rule, your 14 year old catcher is allowed to make that decision. Sorry you just put the winning run on base. Nothing I can do about it... Yeah right, whatever helps you sleep at night smh

As far as the illegal sub example...It's not illegal until it's appealed by the defending team. It may be a strategic move on a coach's part to put an illegal sub in with the notion that the Penalty isn't any worse than what the 'normal' outcome could be, but we are still taught to disallow the move as good 'preventive officiating' ... And this is at every level of ball.

Coaches can make 'illegal' moves by rule. They're not illegal until their caught. This is all under the 'preventive officiating' umbrella. You just don't want to admit it at this point.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ElkOil]

26 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

(1) Coach. By rule, your 14 year old catcher is allowed to make that decision. Sorry you just put the winning run on base. (2) Nothing I can do about it... Yeah right, whatever helps you sleep at night smh

As far as the illegal sub example...It's not illegal until it's appealed by the defending team. It may be a strategic move on a coach's part to put an illegal sub in with the notion that the Penalty isn't any worse than what the 'normal' outcome could be, but we are still taught to disallow the move as good 'preventive officiating' ... And this is at every level of ball.

Coaches can make 'illegal' moves by rule. They're not illegal until their caught. This is all under the 'preventive officiating' umbrella. (3) You just don't want to admit it at this point.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

*sigh*

This is getting tiresome because you obviously have been cherry-picking from my responses.

1. Yep! Exactly. You have a rule you can hang your hat on. And nobody should fault you for upholding the rules in the book. That's why they pay us. You get in trouble when you decide to do things outside of the rules, not when you do things within them. I agree that we should use the rules to solve problems, not create them, and the IBB example in the OP is of the former.

2. I have clearly said on a couple of occasions in this thread that I would rescind the IBB if I believed it was a simple miscommunication and brought to my attention immediately.  So please... for the love of all that is right and good... read my responses in their entirety lest you put words in my mouth.

3. I think you're making gray issues black and white. There is latitude for judgement in any of these circumstances and how we choose to apply preventive umpiring differs form one of us to another.

[ALStripes17]

*sigh*

This is getting tiresome because you obviously have been cherry-picking from my responses.

1. Yep! Exactly. You have a rule you can hang your hat on. And nobody should fault you for upholding the rules in the book. That's why they pay us. You get in trouble when you decide to do things outside of the rules, not when you do things within them. I agree that we should use the rules to solve problems, not create them, and the IBB example in the OP is of the former.

2. I have clearly said on a couple of occasions in this thread that I would rescind the IBB if I believed it was a simple miscommunication and brought to my attention immediately.  So please... for the love of all that is right and good... read my responses in their entirety lest you put words in my mouth.

3. I think you're making gray issues black and white. There is latitude for judgement in any of these circumstances and how we choose to apply preventive umpiring differs form one of us to another.

I didn't make it a gray issue at all. At this point, I used sarcasm to display the potential outcome of the variable and the more negative potential your decision shows.

The rules also say we don't have to appeal on a check swing in HS (different from OBR and NCAA where the rules say 'shall'), but the odds are you ask anyway for game management purposes (why wouldn't you ask?). Same thing here. Nothing wrong with ensuring a coach is on board before giving a base to a runner. Ya know, that runner thing where they may get only 10-15 per game. A runner on base is a big deal.

You've developed a lot over the time we've been in this forum together. A situation like this is an easy thing to handle and your method has a much higher potential of blowing up. I wouldn't have brought it up if I thought it was something that was just a 'to each his own' sort of thing. Logic can (and should) most definitely prevail here. Your answer to the question "Why would you do that" is a good answer by the book bc the rules allow it, but it's not a great answer by logic's sake bc there's no downside to making sure the ADULT in charge of making team decisions is the one that is ultimately making the call.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[conbo61]

Don't mean to stir the pot, but I would see that warning F2 or the OHC of an illegal substitute would invite the wrath of the DHC as there is a penalty associated with that violation that could be beneficial to the defense.  In this instance, I am most likely saying nothing.  OHC is responsible for lineup management.

There is no penalty for confirming with the OHC the statement of F2 to put the batter on.  In fact, if you rescind the IBB there is a good possibility that the DHC is coming out for a conversation.  Similar to a reversed call.  At least in that case the call was reversed based upon consultation between the officials, this was "reversed" based upon input from a coach.

[ALStripes17]

Don't mean to stir the pot, but I would see that warning F2 or the OHC of an illegal substitute would invite the wrath of the DHC as there is a penalty associated with that violation that could be beneficial to the defense.  In this instance, I am most likely saying nothing.  OHC is responsible for lineup management.

There is no penalty for confirming with the OHC the statement of F2 to put the batter on.  In fact, if you rescind the IBB there is a good possibility that the DHC is coming out for a conversation.  Similar to a reversed call.  At least in that case the call was reversed based upon consultation between the officials, this was "reversed" based upon input from a coach.

Illegal substitutes should only happen when they are unannounced if we are managing our lineup card diligently.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[conbo61]

1 minute ago, ALStripes17 said:

Illegal substitutes should only happen when they are unannounced if we are managing our lineup card diligently.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Not trying to be a problem child, just asking a game management question.  If you pick up on an illegal substitute, before he is "officially" illegal, do you alert the OHC?  As I noted above, I can see where that would anger the DHC.  You are warning the OHC of a possible penalty that would be advantageous to the DHC.

As you noted before regarding conferences, if the coach used his second conference and as he is returning to the dugout, you tell him THEN that he has one conference remaining, then the decision to use the third is on him down the road.

My concern is providing "guidance" to a coach AFTER he has made a decision.  That is where I can see the umpire getting into trouble.

 

[ALStripes17]

Not trying to be a problem child, just asking a game management question.  If you pick up on an illegal substitute, before he is "officially" illegal, do you alert the OHC?  As I noted above, I can see where that would anger the DHC.  You are warning the OHC of a possible penalty that would be advantageous to the DHC.

As you noted before regarding conferences, if the coach used his second conference and as he is returning to the dugout, you tell him THEN that he has one conference remaining, then the decision to use the third is on him down the road.

My concern is providing "guidance" to a coach AFTER he has made a decision.  That is where I can see the umpire getting into trouble.

 

I have no problem telling a coach "I need a different sub/courtesy runner Coach."

The courtesy is provided both ways and I have never had a problem in the few times this issue has come up.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

15 hours ago, ElkOil said:

F.

You yourself also gave an ambiguous answer, correctly citing that there are dependencies that make it difficult to determine absolutely. You're correct that all answers aren't equally good, but many of them are. I'd take issue with an umpire revoking the award after the ball has been put back in play, because that means the next batter is now at-bat and it's not a good idea to reverse a decision at that point since one, there's not a precedent that I can think of off the top that allows us to reverse game progress in any other situation. And two, the coach had adequate time to bring the issue to your attention. And for that, there is precedent.

The next batter is "at bat" as soon as B become BR.  (Okay, I'm not sure if that wording is in FED; it is, I am reasonably certain, in OBR and NCAA.)

 

I don't know of any other situation (other that a "ruling in error") where a BR can go back and be a B.

 

I do recognize the "game management" considerations surrounding Maven's response -- and IRL if the coach's objection was immediate, I might grant it.

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

I don't know of any other situation (other that a "ruling in error") where a BR can go back and be a B.

Sure you do: a roller down the line that ends up foul.

Totally irrelevant, but true.

[noumpere]

42 minutes ago, maven said:

Sure you do: a roller down the line that ends up foul.

Totally irrelevant, but true.

In FED, B becomes BR only when he hits a fair ball. 

 

 

[ElkOil]

6 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I didn't make it a gray issue at all. At this point, I used sarcasm to display the potential outcome of the variable and the more negative potential your decision shows.

The rules also say we don't have to appeal on a check swing in HS (different from OBR and NCAA where the rules say 'shall'), but the odds are you ask anyway for game management purposes (why wouldn't you ask?). Same thing here. Nothing wrong with ensuring a coach is on board before giving a base to a runner. Ya know, that runner thing where they may get only 10-15 per game. A runner on base is a big deal.

You've developed a lot over the time we've been in this forum together. A situation like this is an easy thing to handle and your method has a much higher potential of blowing up. I wouldn't have brought it up if I thought it was something that was just a 'to each his own' sort of thing. Logic can (and should) most definitely prevail here. Your answer to the question "Why would you do that" is a good answer by the book bc the rules allow it, but it's not a great answer by logic's sake bc there's no downside to making sure the ADULT in charge of making team decisions is the one that is ultimately making the call.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And I'll tip my hat to you. I appreciate your input and sticking with your perspective on this. This kind of discourse is why we grow and get better because we can consider things from different angles.

[ElkOil]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

The next batter is "at bat" as soon as B become BR.  (Okay, I'm not sure if that wording is in FED; it is, I am reasonably certain, in OBR and NCAA.)

 

I don't know of any other situation (other that a "ruling in error") where a BR can go back and be a B.

 

I do recognize the "game management" considerations surrounding Maven's response -- and IRL if the coach's objection was immediate, I might grant it.

FED 2-39:  Time at bat is the period beginning when a batter first enters the batter’s box.

[noumpere]

Thanks for the cite.  That's a difference I didn't know.

[Senor Azul]

From the 2014 BRD:

Batter: Definition

FED: The batter is the player of the offensive team who is “entitled to occupy either of the two batters’ boxes. (2-7-1)

Note 62: The implications of the definition match the official language of the NCAA.

NCAA: A player on-deck is a “batter” when the previous batter is put out or reaches a base: The new batter does not have to enter the batter’s box to be considered the batter. (9-4a AR 3)

[Replacematt]

12 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I didn't make it a gray issue at all. At this point, I used sarcasm to display the potential outcome of the variable and the more negative potential your decision shows.

The rules also say we don't have to appeal on a check swing in HS (different from OBR and NCAA where the rules say 'shall'), but the odds are you ask anyway for game management purposes (why wouldn't you ask?). Same thing here. Nothing wrong with ensuring a coach is on board before giving a base to a runner. Ya know, that runner thing where they may get only 10-15 per game. A runner on base is a big deal.

Here's the thing...you're actually arguing to do things inconsistently in the name of game management.

We all know that by rule, we have discretion (in FED) to ask or not on a check-swing appeal. We all know that in reality, we don't have that discretion; we just do it.

One could make the case that by rule, we have discretion to award an IBB (the words "may" and "request" could lead one to that conclusion.) If you go with that, then you are actually saying that you should use discretion instead of just doing it. Also, by that logic, we have the authority not to award the base.

That being said, I'm of the opinion that we are mandated to grant the request. Thus, once F2 asks, you don't have the discretion to say no.

<et remove my own brain fart>

[ElkOil]

9 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2014 BRD:

 

Batter: Definition

 

FED: The batter is the player of the offensive team who is “entitled to occupy either of the two batters’ boxes. (2-7-1)

Note 62: The implications of the definition match the official language of the NCAA.

 

NCAA: A player on-deck is a “batter” when the previous batter is put out or reaches a base: The new batter does not have to enter the batter’s box to be considered the batter. (9-4a AR 3)

 

Yes, but the question was when the at-bat officially begins. That's defined per my citation in 2-39.

[maven]

The OP's question was: when is an IBB "irrevocable." Like a lot of our threads lately, this one has seen some mission creep.

[basejester]

Maybe we could invent a rule so that the defense could use some sort of physical act that unambiguously defines the point when the IBB is issued.

 

 

[Radwaste50]

On 3/7/2016 at 11:29 AM, FleasOf1000Camels said:

Tie game, late innings.  1 out, R1 on 3rd R2 on 1st.  On the first pitch, R2 takes 2nd without a play.

F2 glances toward dugout and makes a questioning gesture towards first base, coach nods his head.

F2 turns to me and says "we're gonna put this guy on."

My hands go up, and I shout "TIME", then point to first and say "batter, take your..."

DC comes jumping out of dugout, shouting "NO, NO, we DONT want to walk this guy."

Is it too late to "cancel" the IBB?

I know this sounds nit-picky, but I can't find any guidance from rule or case book.  Logic tells me that there must be SOME point at which an IBB becomes irrevocable, but where might that point be?

a) when DC or F2 requests IBB

b) when umpire calls TIME

c) when umpire awards base

d) when B/R leaves the box

e) when B/R reaches first

f) when ball is put back in play

g) when the next pitch or play is made

Given the rule for IBB I would go with a)

ART. 3 . . . An intentional base on balls may be given by the defensive team by having its catcher or coach request the umpire to award the batter first base. This may be done before pitching to the batter or on any ball and strike count. The ball shall be declared dead before making the award.

F2 requested so it is awarded no take backs 

Just like when a captain in football elects to kick 

[ALStripes17]

Given the rule for IBB I would go with a)

ART. 3 . . . An intentional base on balls may be given by the defensive team by having its catcher or coach request the umpire to award the batter first base. This may be done before pitching to the batter or on any ball and strike count. The ball shall be declared dead before making the award.

F2 requested so it is awarded no take backs 

Just like when a captain in football elects to kick 

Yet when a football captain does that, most R's confirm with the captain that he would like to 'defer per his coach's request.'

We are not the NFL or MLB people. We have discretion to use some preventive officiating in this scenario. Some may disagree with me here and that's ok; however, I see no issue ensuring that the man who's job is on the line has the affirmed say in the process.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[VolUmp]

On 3/7/2016 at 11:56 PM, ALStripes17 said:

As far as the illegal sub example ... It's not illegal until it's appealed by the defending team.

Since this is a FED post:

FED CB 3.3.1 Situation QQ  clarifies your statement is not true.

The scorekeeper or a fan informs the umpire of (a) an illegal substitute or (b) a player batting out of order.

RULING:  In (a), the umpire shall call the illegal substitute out and restrict him to the bench, because once the umpire is aware of the infraction, he shall enforce the penalty.  In (b), the umpire shall remain silent, unless the defense brings the infraction to his attention.  (3-1-1 Penalty, 7-1-2a Note)

 

 

[VolUmp]

This very Intentional Walk Rule/Sitch was debated in our recent Association meetings for FED, and since the consensus among us is that FED is terribly inconsistent with their own imputed safety, speed up, dumbed down, and participation rules, we should (as ALStripes17) has been stating, use common sense, preventive officiating, and double check with the coach before awarding the base.  Any opposing coach who would oppose this "double checking" with the head coach is asking for BAD KARMA, a GODSMACK, or however you want to term it.

I would prefer that FED just make the rule for both appealing a check swing or IBB to rest solely with the HC.  It's not real baseball, but more consistent with their own books.

[ALStripes17]

Since this is a FED post:

FED CB 3.3.1 Situation QQ  clarifies your statement is not true.

The scorekeeper or a fan informs the umpire of (a) an illegal substitute or (b) a player batting out of order.

RULING:  In (a), the umpire shall call the illegal substitute out and restrict him to the bench, because once the umpire is aware of the infraction, he shall enforce the penalty.  In (b), the umpire shall remain silent, unless the defense brings the infraction to his attention.  (3-1-1 Penalty, 7-1-2a Note)

 

 

Semantics. The details of the penalty were not the focus of my point. My generalization still fits the agenda.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk