Do the umpires ask or not?

[Little Ott]

NFHS rule set.  A casebook situation contains the words, "RULING: The coach of the team at bat, after being informed of F2's obstruction, elects to have the penalty for defensive  obstruction enforced. Therefore, B4 is awarded first base and R2 is awarded third base. (8-1-1 e)" 

Does that mean U1 lets the coach know that he has an option on the play... or just that he tells the coach that he called obstruction?  We all know that FED wants to simplify the game.  How much information does FED want the umpire to give?

Thanks.

[noumpere]

I would always just say, "Do you want the play or the penalty?"

[Kevin_K]

4 hours ago, Little Ott said:

NFHS rule set.  A casebook situation contains the words, "RULING: The coach of the team at bat, after being informed of F2's obstruction, elects to have the penalty for defensive  obstruction enforced.

The case play does not suggest that the umpires should offer the option that exists. The reality, however, is that many coaches are not aware that there is an option.

There have been many lively discussions here about what we "should" do with the consensus falling somewhere along the continuum of it depends.

Is it amateur ball where there are few who are fully aware? Is it high level organized ball such as top level HS programs? Are the players adults with coaching staffs who are properly compensated for their efforts?

Most of the time it's probably in your best interest to let them know there is an option. It does no real harm and demonstrates you have a grasp of the rules, which will probably be beneficial to you in the long run and for the rest of the game, especially if the coaching staff discovers later in the game that the option was not offered.

[Senor Azul]

As far as I know, FED has never issued any guidance on this matter. There are several case plays for catcher obstruction and none say anything about the umpire offering any additional information to the coach. 

There is, however, a recommendation from Carl Childress in his 2016 BRD. It is supported by a couple of well-known college umpires. They recommend that when an option exists, offer it to the coach.

The full quote has been posted several times and can be found easily by searching the word "willy-nilly." Here are two examples 

Ask the Umpire forum--screwy ending to a game needs clarification--4/14/22

Rules forum--"Declining the Penalty" in baseball--11/3/23

[JonnyCat]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Most of the time it's probably in your best interest to let them know there is an option. It does no real harm and demonstrates you have a grasp of the rules, which will probably be beneficial to you in the long run and for the rest of the game, especially if the coaching staff discovers later in the game that the option was not offered.

This! 100%. Thanks Kevin.

[SH0102]

I myself, the couple times it has happened and mattered, informed the coach of their options.  One time the coach had to decide whether to take a run off the board to enforce it or keep the run and out made on the play.

Anyways, oftentimes there isn’t much of a decision to be made.  It’s like in the NFL, defender is offsides and offense runs for 2 yards.  They don’t bother asking “do you want 2nd and 8 or 1st and 5?” You just enforce it.

Most of the time the ball isn’t even put into play (enforce) or everyone advances (ignore) or the result is obvious (batter got out, runner got to second, obviously just put batter on first and runner on second)

The times it’s goofy, give the coach the option.  I’ve never had defensive coach complain.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, SH0102 said:

I myself, the couple times it has happened and mattered, informed the coach of their options.  One time the coach had to decide whether to take a run off the board to enforce it or keep the run and out made on the play.

Anyways, oftentimes there isn’t much of a decision to be made.  It’s like in the NFL, defender is offsides and offense runs for 2 yards.  They don’t bother asking “do you want 2nd and 8 or 1st and 5?” You just enforce it.

Most of the time the ball isn’t even put into play (enforce) or everyone advances (ignore) or the result is obvious (batter got out, runner got to second, obviously just put batter on first and runner on second)

The times it’s goofy, give the coach the option.  I’ve never had defensive coach complain.

Sometimes you would know the decision on a rare play which just actually happened in a scrimmage. But do you go though the motions of enforcement before asking the coach? R2, R3, fly ball to short LF with CI. F7 drops it so R2 holds up and R3 makes it home while batter is safe at 1B. Do we send R3 back knowing that the coach will take the play when offered. I'm assuming those that require the coach to know he has an option would enforce. 

[SH0102]

13 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Sometimes you would know the decision on a rare play which just actually happened in a scrimmage. But do you go though the motions of enforcement before asking the coach? R2, R3, fly ball to short LF with CI. F7 drops it so R2 holds up and R3 makes it home while batter is safe at 1B. Do we send R3 back knowing that the coach will take the play when offered. I'm assuming those that require the coach to know he has an option would enforce. 

Every situation obviously can be looked at differently but yours falls in the category I mentioned where the “choice” is obvious.  In your scenario, does offensive HC wants bases loaded and take the run off the board or 1st and 2nd and keep the run?  I’d just move on as CI is ignored, if HC wants to ask a question, I will answer and can inform him of his choices, but I’m not going out of my way to ask him a “dumb” question (you want to send the guy who scored back or not?)

^ This was not a blanket statement; in my original post I mentioned a play where run scored and out was made on batter, so “unscoring” the run is a legit option to consider

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

Every situation obviously can be looked at differently but yours falls in the category I mentioned where the “choice” is obvious.  In your scenario, does offensive HC wants bases loaded and take the run off the board or 1st and 2nd and keep the run?  I’d just move on as CI is ignored, if HC wants to ask a question, I will answer and can inform him of his choices, but I’m not going out of my way to ask him a “dumb” question (you want to send the guy who scored back or not?)

^ This was not a blanket statement; in my original post I mentioned a play where run scored and out was made on batter, so “unscoring” the run is a legit option to consider

Not your job to decide baseball strategy.

Just be careful how far you determine what is "obvious".  In slightly different plays where there is a decision to keep a run and accept an out to some it's "obvious" to take the run and accept the out.   Don't assume the coach will take the run and accept the out...some will, some won't.  Most of the time it's "wrong" to trade the run for the out.

[Little Ott]

Thanks all.  Much appreciated.  

[834k3r]

I realized I'm in the minority, but last year our association instructed the umpires to not offer the option. Not a direct quote, but the general tone from the evaluation committee instructors was that if the coach didn't know the rule, we weren't going to offer the option; we just enforce the penalty.

Personally, I had exactly one coach who asked for time and then asked about the option. I felt it made me look like we didn't know the rule, but I felt I needed to follow what the association had decided.

I'm definitely bringing it up at tonight's clinic.

[Mudisfun]

Had a game a few years back where the coach told the batter to take the pitch... batter failed to listen. He swung and got thrown out at 1st, but R2 did more to 3rd... coach kept the result of the play since he was ticked his batter didn't listed to him.

Point is... just enforce and let the coaches tell you what they want. If I pull a run off the board to put the B/R back on, I'll know rather quickly what option the coach wants when he starts sputtering about that run going away. Then I have the conversation and determine what exactly they want.

[mw94]

9 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I realized I'm in the minority, but last year our association instructed the umpires to not offer the option. Not a direct quote, but the general tone from the evaluation committee instructors was that if the coach didn't know the rule, we weren't going to offer the option; we just enforce the penalty.

Personally, I had exactly one coach who asked for time and then asked about the option. I felt it made me look like we didn't know the rule, but I felt I needed to follow what the association had decided.

I'm definitely bringing it up at tonight's clinic.

This is the philosophy in Pro Baseball Milb or MLB level. The belief is professional baseball managers  should know the rules.  

[beerguy55]

21 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I realized I'm in the minority, but last year our association instructed the umpires to not offer the option. Not a direct quote, but the general tone from the evaluation committee instructors was that if the coach didn't know the rule, we weren't going to offer the option; we just enforce the penalty.

Personally, I had exactly one coach who asked for time and then asked about the option. I felt it made me look like we didn't know the rule, but I felt I needed to follow what the association had decided.

I'm definitely bringing it up at tonight's clinic.

Christ - these associations are expecting amateur coaches to know what many of their own umps don't.

This is only appropriate for pro and perhaps NCAA levels where the coaches are actually paid...nothing below that.

[lawump]

I know for a fact that we (the NFHS Rules Committee) discussed this very topic.  You are to offer the coach the choices.  We even discussed the fact that this is not pro ball (nor even NCAA).

Now I just have to find where we published it.  Might be the Umpire's Manual.  I'll see if I can find it.

[BigBlue4u]

29 minutes ago, lawump said:

Now I just have to find where we published it.  Might be the Umpire's Manual.  I'll see if I can find it.

lawump,

So, if you can't find it, now is the time to step up to the plate and make a suggestion to add the information to the rulebook.  nfhs.org/ruleproposal 

[beerguy55]

16 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

lawump,

So, if you can't find it, now is the time to step up to the plate and make a suggestion to add the information to the rulebook.  nfhs.org/ruleproposal 

Why would it go in the rulebook?  It's a mechanic/instruction for the umpire, not a rule, per se.

The rulebook defines the ability to take the result of the play.  The manual tells the umpires how to administer it, no?

You make a rule on what the umpire MUST do then you're opening a protest can of worms.

Does the NFHS football rulebook say that a team may decline any penalty...or does it say that the referee must ask/notify the coach on each penalty.  The latter would be in a ref's manual wouldn't it?

I know the NFL rulebook only talks about the ability to decline a penalty...I don't think it tells the ref how to go about finding out the coach's wishes, and doesn't instruct the ref on what to do (except for auto-declines on concurrent fouls)

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Why would it go in the rulebook?  It's a mechanic/instruction for the umpire, not a rule, per se.

 

beerguy55,

Good catch! My bad.  I should have said umpire manual.  It could go somewhere in section VI THE PLATE UMPIRE.  I agree at the MLB or D1 level, a coach or manager would be expected to know the rule.  At the high school varsity level or lower, maybe, but probably not.

And, looking at it from another perspective, the coach, by rule, is entitled to a choice.  I would just say we are alerting him to the fact.  And, now that I think about it, over the years, I have told a D1 coach or two, about giving them a choice.  So, without specific instructions otherwise, it just seems to be the right thing to do.  

 

[MadMax]

Guys, I realize you are discussing one of the branches on the tree, but I'm going to go to the roots, because I think this affliction not only affects this situation, but affects another one near-and-dear to many of our (umpires) hearts... 

Would the NFHS Rules Committee please, for the love of baseball, reconstruct the vernacular, nomenclature, and language of the Rules so that there is consistency between the three primary rulesets? Please?! 

"F2 Obstruction" ? Which is that? Is that F2's obstruction of the plate during a play at the plate, or is that what everyone knows as "Catcher's Interference"? If OBS, then we know, with Fed Rules, there is only 1 type of OBS, and the penalty must be enforced of 1 base award. There are no options. 

Catchers Interference (CI) has that option. We as umpires are directed to let the play play out, and if the penalty has been satisfied or superseded by the results of the play, the CI is ignored. If the penalty is not satisfied, then it is enforced. Only after the enforcement (awards and placements), then (in OBR) does a manager inquire about an option. However, understandably, in the amateur game, we cannot expect every head coach to know that an option exists. Especially when we give it a term that any layman in baseball refers to it as something else! "F2 Obstruction"???  

The reason I'm so vociferously pointing this out, is the NFHS Rules Committee still, will not allow us to adjudicate a "Live Balk"! Why? Because they don't think we can apply the penalty correctly (or worse, that we will create an option when there isn't one).