Jump to content
  • 0
Guest TimM

Intentional walk rule

Question

Guest TimM

League has a time rule - cannot start a new inning once 105 minutes are on the clock (1hr 45 min)

League also has a minimum 4 inning rule to be an official game but the time rule supercedes this (haven't seen a game in our league in 6 years where it mattered) 

League rule - Each team may score a maximum of 5 runs per inning for the first 4 innings, innings 5+ are open.

Situation:

Home team at bat in bottom of the 3rd inning, score tied 10-10 with nobody out, bases empty, 4 runs scored so far in the bottom of the inning and 1hr 44 minutes expired on the clock.  

Immediately following the fourth run scored by the home team in the bottom of the 3rd inning, the Away team manger calls Time Out and requests the umpire to intentionally walk the next four batters in a row without the batters approaching the batters box or taking their base. The umpire awards the Away team 4 automatic intentional walks, thereby automatically scoring the 5th run making the score 11-10 for the Home team AND, allowing the Away team to begin the 4th inning prior to the clock expiring. 

My understanding of the intentional walk rule is that a batter must approach the plate and he must be awarded his base. Therefore, at least 4 batters would have had to come to the plate and at least 4 batters would have had to proceed to their bases, easily eliminating the minute that remained on the clock.

Nobody, including the umpire had heard of this before so he granted the Away team Manager's request and told the Home team to protest the game if they didn't like his decision. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

My prediction is that whatever the umpire did would win a protest. There are no case plays or precedents to be seen on home-grown rules. Sounds like a smart decision by the visiting head coach to give his guys another chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 minute ago, kylehutson said:

My prediction is that whatever the umpire did would win a protest. There are no case plays or precedents to be seen on home-grown rules. Sounds like a smart decision by the visiting head coach to give his guys another chance.

And the umpire was willing to call another half or full inning. He could have taken his money and run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What rule set was the game played under?  (So help me if he says “Atlantic League ... )

I am fairly confident in saying what the coach was asking should not have been granted under any rule set.

Applicable NFHS rules:

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definitions

SECTION 4 BALL, BASE ON BALLS, INTENTIONAL BASE ON BALLS

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.

Rule 5 Dead Ball—Suspension of Play

SECTION 1 DEAD BALL

ART. 3 . . . The ball becomes dead when time is taken to make an award when a catcher or any fielder obstructs a runner, when an intentional base on balls is to be awarded, or when baserunning penalties are imposed.

ART. 4 . . . After a dead ball, the ball becomes live when it is held by the pitcher in a legal pitching position, provided the pitcher has engaged the pitcher’s plate, the batter and the catcher are in their respective boxes, and the umpire calls “Play” and gives the appropriate signal.

Strictly from a “saving time” perspective, the implications of the above rules indicate the ball must be “made live” and then “made dead” (TIME!) each time.  That means the umpire should call time and award the batter first base.  The ball must be “made live” again by the pitcher assuming his pitching position on the pitching rubber with both the catcher AND the batter prepared to receive a pitch.  Rinse and repeat.

From a base running perspective, NO.  Baserunners are still required to touch the bases they are awarded.  I can post all those rules if needed, but I don’t think they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
52 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

What rule set was the game played under?  (So help me if he says “Atlantic League ... )

I am fairly confident in saying what the coach was asking should not have been granted under any rule set.

Applicable NFHS rules:

Rule 2 Playing Terms and Definitions

SECTION 4 BALL, BASE ON BALLS, INTENTIONAL BASE ON BALLS

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.

Rule 5 Dead Ball—Suspension of Play

SECTION 1 DEAD BALL

ART. 3 . . . The ball becomes dead when time is taken to make an award when a catcher or any fielder obstructs a runner, when an intentional base on balls is to be awarded, or when baserunning penalties are imposed.

ART. 4 . . . After a dead ball, the ball becomes live when it is held by the pitcher in a legal pitching position, provided the pitcher has engaged the pitcher’s plate, the batter and the catcher are in their respective boxes, and the umpire calls “Play” and gives the appropriate signal.

Strictly from a “saving time” perspective, the implications of the above rules indicate the ball must be “made live” and then “made dead” (TIME!) each time.  That means the umpire should call time and award the batter first base.  The ball must be “made live” again by the pitcher assuming his pitching position on the pitching rubber with both the catcher AND the batter prepared to receive a pitch.  Rinse and repeat.

From a base running perspective, NO.  Baserunners are still required to touch the bases they are awarded.  I can post all those rules if needed, but I don’t think they are.

If the rule set can finish an inning by the number of runs, rather than 3 outs,  and has a time limit on games who knows whether they can award runs without the runners advancing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There was a similar gamesmanship discussion recently. If played under MLB rules, OBR 7.03(a)(2) might have applied: "A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team... employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I'm not granting the manager's request to IBB four batters. 

Who knows, maybe the other manager wants to sub in a batter.

So, when the first batter steps in the box the defensive manager can request the IBB. 

Same for the next batter. 

At that point I would think the offensive manager would catch on to what was going on and ask for "Time" and take a little while to put up a sub for the next batter or talk to the next batter before he walks to the batter's box.

By that time "game ovet"!

It takes two to Tango. :)

 

It was 1:44 and still in the bottom of the third inning!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If the rule set can finish an inning by the number of runs, rather than 3 outs,  and has a time limit on games who knows whether they can award runs without the runners advancing. 

Well ... I’m operating under the assumption that all other things exist in our normal world.  In the absence of anything to the contrary, I say apply the same rules to ending the inning whether it is by runs or outs and the same rules for ending the game whether it is by time or by innings.  (Then I’m going to tell the unhappy coach to go back to his league and tell them to fix the rules they messed with.)  A few small bits of chicanery don’t necessarily equal total lawlessness. :beerbang

 :notworthy:  You are right in this regard: if your house league is going to modify rules, you better take a look at what other rules you are impacting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, LRZ said:

There was a similar gamesmanship discussion recently. If played under MLB rules, OBR 7.03(a)(2) might have applied: "A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team... employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game...."

I was considering this when I was writing my earlier reply ... I’m not against it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There's a reason baseball doesn't use a clock...

If we have to use a clock, I'd treat it as football does: if a team illegally attempts to conserve or consume time, we can disallow it by rule.

We can't issue 4 walks in 5 seconds, because the offense must have the opportunity to substitute for any given batter. We can't walk a batter until he makes his plate appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

That "delay or hasten" rule works great for the situations where it was intended: Games that might involve approaching bad weather or darkness. Stalling with darkness coming, when the home team is threatening to take the lead, or purposely making outs to end the fifth inning and make the game official when you have the lead and it's about to rain are good examples of either delaying or hastening the game.

But when you throw in a game clock- which is NOT what this rule was meant to address- then things get a little stickier.

On this one, does intentionally walking four batters delay the game? No, it does not. The game would still progress at a normal pace expected for typical game play. Nothing is being stalled or delayed.

Then does it hasten the game? That is, does it cause the game to come to a conclusion sooner than it would under normal game play. No, it actually will make another inning be played. How can you say that is ending the game sooner than normal? It not hastening the game. It's lengthening it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My son and i worked a game that required an intentional walk to have the pitcher/catcher go through the motions and not simply apply 4 pitches to the count and then walk the batter.
I suppose it was to avoid such issues.
But yes, have the batter take his position in the box, grant time to the coach, turn to the book and tell them to apply 4 balls and 4 pitch counts to the pitcher, instruct the batter to take 1st base. Repeat the process.
This will avoid making the game what it is not indended to be, a circus.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, Lou B said:

I'm not granting the manager's request to IBB four batters. 

Who knows, maybe the other manager wants to sub in a batter.

So, when the first batter steps in the box the defensive manager can request the IBB. 

Same for the next batter. 

At that point I would think the offensive manager would catch on to what was going on and ask for "Time" and take a little while to put up a sub for the next batter or talk to the next batter before he walks to the batter's box.

By that time "game ovet"!

It takes two to Tango. :)

I'm with Lou on this. I'm telling DC that he can't project IBBs. And, once the IBB is awarded, the batter and any runners have to advance their base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And did the HT protest?   The umpire gave made a decision, right wrong or indifferent, and gave the HT clear instructions on what to do if they didn't like it?

So, did they?

You can't score a run without crossing the plate.   The HT players must run their bases.  And, as stated, the OHC must have an opportunity to sub in batters or runners.  Protest upheld (assuming VT ended up winning)...game replayed from that point, and see if VT can shutdown HT to get a tie.

Frankly - the kids would rather play another inning - though I'm sure this game is killing pitch counts for half a dozen players....and that's the real ramification of letting this game go one more inning than it should have.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest BeerGuy55

No... HT won the game, shutout VT in the top of the 4th to win 11-10 so no official protest was required. Just wanted to be clear that I understood the rules correctly and moving into playoffs next week so wanted to be sure it never happens again.

Thanks all for your input

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
34 minutes ago, Guest BeerGuy55 said:

No... HT won the game, shutout VT in the top of the 4th to win 11-10 so no official protest was required. Just wanted to be clear that I understood the rules correctly and moving into playoffs next week so wanted to be sure it never happens again.

Thanks all for your input

Just tell me in your playoffs that there are no run limits or time limits. Then tell me that all teams make the playoffs because if you have run limited innings who knows who would have really won the game. Some games you could say the run limit didn't matter and others it might. I also couldn't make sense of this statement:  "League also has a minimum 4 inning rule to be an official game but the time rule supercedes this..."  Does that mean your OP game would be considered an official game in 3 innings due to the time limit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Just tell me in your playoffs that there are no run limits or time limits. Then tell me that all teams make the playoffs because if you have run limited innings who knows who would have really won the game. Some games you could say the run limit didn't matter and others it might. I also couldn't make sense of this statement:  "League also has a minimum 4 inning rule to be an official game but the time rule supercedes this..."  Does that mean your OP game would be considered an official game in 3 innings due to the time limit?

You over estimate rec leagues. You're lucky if the championship game doesn't have a time limit.

Scratch that, you're unlucky if it doesn't. I did a championship game this year that went like, 3 innings, 20-5. Woo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Does anybody realize what they are dealing with?  Rec leagues with what should be “ let’s get  some at bats and some defense and go home”. Who won who cares. 

How can you think you won a game that limited any previous innings run by 5 or perhaps 6 because the 6th run kept running. But I’m thinking that mangers actually trying to win these games, scrimmages, these whatever you call them, might be candidates for an MLB job 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
45 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Does anybody realize what they are dealing with?  Rec leagues with what should be “ let’s get  some at bats and some defense and go home”. Who won who cares. 

How can you think you won a game that limited any previous innings run by 5 or perhaps 6 because the 6th run kept running. But I’m thinking that mangers actually trying to win these games, scrimmages, these whatever you call them, might be candidates for an MLB job 

 

I've coached everything from club teams in National championships to community rec ball where the only way an inning ends is if there is a run limit (and the only way you'll get an umpire is if there is a time limit).

And at all levels the kids spell fun W - I - N.

The kids want to win...the coaches try to help make it happen.   No different than the school yard or the sandlot.   In the end it doesn't matter, and nobody is heartbroken if they lose...but they absolutely want to win.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
56 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I've coached everything from club teams in National championships to community rec ball where the only way an inning ends is if there is a run limit (and the only way you'll get an umpire is if there is a time limit).

And at all levels the kids spell fun W - I - N.

The kids want to win...the coaches try to help make it happen.   No different than the school yard or the sandlot.   In the end it doesn't matter, and nobody is heartbroken if they lose...but they absolutely want to win.

 

I think the parents want the win.  The kids don’t give a sht at the levels I’m familiar with. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
12 hours ago, Guest BeerGuy55 said:

No... HT won the game, shutout VT in the top of the 4th to win 11-10 so no official protest was required. Just wanted to be clear that I understood the rules correctly and moving into playoffs next week so wanted to be sure it never happens again.

Thanks all for your input

But was a protest lodged at the moment the umpire made up rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 5:07 PM, Guest TimM said:

League has a time rule - cannot start a new inning once 105 minutes are on the clock (1hr 45 min)

League also has a minimum 4 inning rule to be an official game but the time rule supercedes this (haven't seen a game in our league in 6 years where it mattered) 

League rule - Each team may score a maximum of 5 runs per inning for the first 4 innings, innings 5+ are open.

Situation:

Home team at bat in bottom of the 3rd inning, score tied 10-10 with nobody out, bases empty, 4 runs scored so far in the bottom of the inning and 1hr 44 minutes expired on the clock.  

Immediately following the fourth run scored by the home team in the bottom of the 3rd inning, the Away team manger calls Time Out and requests the umpire to intentionally walk the next four batters in a row without the batters approaching the batters box or taking their base. The umpire awards the Away team 4 automatic intentional walks, thereby automatically scoring the 5th run making the score 11-10 for the Home team AND, allowing the Away team to begin the 4th inning prior to the clock expiring. 

My understanding of the intentional walk rule is that a batter must approach the plate and he must be awarded his base. Therefore, at least 4 batters would have had to come to the plate and at least 4 batters would have had to proceed to their bases, easily eliminating the minute that remained on the clock.

Nobody, including the umpire had heard of this before so he granted the Away team Manager's request and told the Home team to protest the game if they didn't like his decision. 

 

:sarcasm:............given the time of year.................    Was this at the tee-ball or coach pitch world series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think the parents want the win.  The kids don’t give a sht at the levels I’m familiar with. 

Surprisingly not always.  The parents who know their kids are weak want the kids to learn, to have fun, to have equal development/play time, with winning a secondary concern.  They want their kid to play no matter the outcome - mainly because they've paid for it.   The parents want whatever is in their or their kids' best interest - whether motivated by the time/money spent, or some vicarious experience.   The real fun parents to deal with as a coach are the parents who mandate you win, and want their kid to play in the gold medal game because they don't see that their kid is the 13th best player on a roster of 11.

Their kids - who usually know they are weak - want to win. (I surveyed many players over the years asking them where they ranked themselves on their team, to measure their self awareness - in surveying about a dozen different teams I only had one player ever whose self-ranking was more than two spots different than mine - the kids know where they stand among their teammates)

They want to work hard, play more, and get better, but they want to win, and though they'd rather be in the gold medal game lineup, if they know the team on the field gives them the best shot at winning, they'll take it...and if the team wins that goes a long way, often all the way, to removing the sting of not playing.   Not always, but certainly the majority.   (and in the moment...over an extended period of time of sitting on the bench kids will change their mind - and that's a coaching failure)

Year in year out I see kids at all ages and skills opt (to the majority) to play on a winning team even if it means they sit more.   Many kids would rather have a gold medal and splinters in their ass than no medal and a dirty uniform.   That's too bad, and not a value I would instill or support, but in the end, kids want to win - whether they're playing in the Olympics, or in a sandlot with no parents or umpires present.  And, conversely to my thoughts about a gold medal with splinters, any part of a winning team, even a small part, is something to cherish and be proud about.

Even the surveys support that - especially surveys conducted without parents present.  With parents around kids will give the "year book" answers of making friends, and being good sports, and getting exercise, and improving themselves, but when alone, they will tell you that they have the most fun when they win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...