NHFS - Called Time, Should I have? and Bench Restriction

[Hendy11]

Whats up everyone

Had a situation in my JV game yesterday that I wanted to pick people's brains on and see what you think.

Bottom 4, runners on first and second, one out. It's a 2-2 count, I call a ball on a pitch, and the batter starts running down to first base like it's ball four.

I immediately call time, tell the batter to get back to the box, it's 3-2. The visiting coach isn't happy, coming out of the dugout to say, "You can't do that; we had a chance to get an out on the runners."

I tell him it's a dead ball, the play's dead, and there's nothing to change or do. I warned him to return to the bench, and finally restricted him to the bench.

The next inning, the coach tries to go out and coach third base, which I do not allow. He states, "There has to be a coach on the field." (It's JV, so it's a one-coach team). I tell him that it doesn't matter; you're restricted to the bench, so send a kid out there with a helmet on, like you do at first base. He disagrees, but goes back to the bench, and we move on with the game.

My two questions are as follows.

1) Was I correct in calling time on the batter running down to first on ball three? My reasoning was to avoid a cluster F*#K of a situation, and it seemed like the fair call at the time.

2) Does your state association have a rule that requires a coach to be on the field? AFAIK, my state does not, and my Supervisor of officials agreed with my decision. I was well within my rights to toss the coach, but I honestly did not want to end the game on such a trivial matter. In my mind, it's JV. We're there to give those kids a chance to play baseball.

I appreciate the feedback. I've been at this off and on for 20 years, but I always want to know what other umps think.

Thanks in advance

[Velho]

Situations and situational. Which is to say that it depends on the level of play and tenor of your specific area.

IMO, JV is developmental so I don't have an issue with killing the play*. Varsity (again speaking generally), let it play*.

There may have been a middle ground of "That's 3. Ball 3!"

* Especially/unless the defense or you had done something that went uncorrected to make the batter think it was ball 4

[MadMax]

Concur and agree with most of what @Velho advises, but I have one thing to nitpick. Believe me, it will benefit your future games... 

1 hour ago, Hendy11 said:

I immediately call time,

Don't. Refrain from calling time immediately, if at all. Think this through... Does the 4th Ball (BB) bring with it a call of "Time!"? Is a BB a Dead-ball Event? No. In fact, it is the only* Live Ball Award. There's nothing wrong, or improper with you (the PU) interacting with the Batter, or the ODB, or the catcher (if he doesn't have the ball) with the ball being/remaining Live. 

Instead of calling "Time", just leave the ball Live. If you speak clearly and directly, "That's only (Ball) 3", trust me, everyone will stop. The Batter may look perplexed. Big deal, and if the Runners are enticingly off their bases, and the Catcher (F2) sees an opportunity to attempt a throw, you (as umpire) haven't hindered or prevented that. 

* - Yes, yes... there are such penalties such as detached equipment, or OBS, where the ball is kept Live unless-or-until the Runner(s) is prevented from doing so (tagged or forced Out, physically injured or accosted, etc.). If this interdiction occurs prior to the awarded base, (here's where) we call "Time!" and perform the award. Thus, it is a Dead ball award, and therefore, the BB (on 4 Balls) is the only Live ball award. HBP, IBB, and Ball 4 on a (Live) Balk or Action Clock Violation are all examples of Dead ball awards. 

Call Time a lot less. Only when required / necessary. 

[Kevin_K]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Call Time a lot less. Only when required / necessary. 

I might suggest this to almost every partner I have had or ever will have. For every situation. At every level.

[noumpere]

You can "always" go back and have "time" retroactively and reset.  It's a lot harder if you call "time" prematurely and have to figure out what would have happened, of shut things down -- at least one team is going to be upset.

[The Man in Blue]

 . . . yes coach, and your catcher could have airmailed it into left field, in which case I just saved you two runs.

As others have said, at this level in this circumstance, I see no big problem here.

Wait . . . maybe I see one big problem here:

What was your partner's reaction?

 

[Thatsnotyou]

I would do what was mentioned above, a quick “that’s ball 3” and that’s it. Rest of the play, whatever happens, happens. 
 

Furthermore, as far as what I do, I would have just said the count was 2-2 before that pitch. Every time. If the batter takes off and causes and out, so be it. If the batter takes off and the baserunners acquire a base, so be it. Both parties had the correct information immediately before that pitch. We don’t bail out runners that run out fly balls with one out, after all. 
 

The only way I’m “correcting” this is if I had the count wrong, or said the wrong count, didn’t say the count and the board was wrong - some sort of legit error or confusion that I feel would unfairly punish a side. 
 

Related…I work with an umpire that when he played in HS, they actually had a sign for a ball 3 walk. All runners knew it as well as the batter. If ball 3 came, it was an immediate bat toss and all jog to their bases. 

[Thatsnotyou]

6 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

I might suggest this to almost every partner I have had or ever will have. For every situation. At every level.

I want to eject my base umpire when the defense frantically calls time with runners on base and he grants it. My biggest umpire pet peeve on the field. 

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Thatsnotyou said:

I would do what was mentioned above, a quick “that’s ball 3” and that’s it. Rest of the play, whatever happens, happens. 
 

Furthermore, as far as what I do, I would have just said the count was 2-2 before that pitch. Every time. If the batter takes off and causes and out, so be it. If the batter takes off and the baserunners acquire a base, so be it. Both parties had the correct information immediately before that pitch. We don’t bail out runners that run out fly balls with one out, after all. 
 

The only way I’m “correcting” this is if I had the count wrong, or said the wrong count, didn’t say the count and the board was wrong - some sort of legit error or confusion that I feel would unfairly punish a side. 
 

Related…I work with an umpire that when he played in HS, they actually had a sign for a ball 3 walk. All runners knew it as well as the batter. If ball 3 came, it was an immediate bat toss and all jog to their bases. 

 

An ejectable offense.

[Thatsnotyou]

28 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

An ejectable offense.

The thing is, how would you know it was intentional? Unless you had inside info or had seen it before, you’d have no idea. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s smart if you can catch the catcher/defense off guard. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

An ejectable offense.

No (unless FED has some specific, idiotic case play that address this exact thing.)

[The Man in Blue]

 

16 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

Related…I work with an umpire that when he played in HS, they actually had a sign for a ball 3 walk. All runners knew it as well as the batter. If ball 3 came, it was an immediate bat toss and all jog to their bases. 

Maybe I am mixing up my memories and it was another forum . . . but I thought we had had this discussion before.

"[A]n unsportsmanlike act."  Sure you may need some prior experience with the team or a HUR from another umpire, or you could be able to interpret what is happening if their signals are obvious.  

NFHS rules provide space for a warning unless the umpire deems the offense to be major.  Routinely doing this, or being known to do this, is major enough for me.  You shouldn't get a warning every game.  A pattern of behavior over time is a indication.

Of course, I am going to give leeway for a legitimate error and am not running every kid for this, but a team that does this intentionally or regularly with a signal is committing offensive interference.  Coming in with the intent to flout the rules bumps it up to "major", IMO.

No, ejection is not an immediate reactionary call . . . but it is justifiable in cases.

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, Thatsnotyou said:

The thing is, how would you know it was intentional? Unless you had inside info or had seen it before, you’d have no idea. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s smart if you can catch the catcher/defense off guard. 

Is it smart to keep running over the catcher if they aren't expecting it?  Is it smart to keep using an illegal bat as long as you don't get caught?  How about a pitcher using an illegal substance on the ball?

I do not understand why we look for ways to allow unsportsmanlike behaviors on the field.

[Thatsnotyou]

8 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Is it smart to keep running over the catcher if they aren't expecting it?  Is it smart to keep using an illegal bat as long as you don't get caught?  How about a pitcher using an illegal substance on the ball?

I do not understand why we look for ways to allow unsportsmanlike behaviors on the field.

Who said I was allowing unsportsmanlike behavior? You’re just making things up. My point is that if a team did this once, it likely appears to be an error. How are you calling anything? How do you know it’s unsportsmanlike? 

[The Man in Blue]

You said it was smart as long as you can keep getting away with it.  You stated in a previous post a team was known to be doing this on purpose.  Maybe I am misreading what these points mean.

 

Agreed, one time . . . chalk it up and manage it.  

 

That was a bigger comment than just you and this one issue.

[Thatsnotyou]

I didn’t say that. I said I had heard of a team having a sign for it 20+ years ago. I’ve never seen it executed. I don’t even know which school it was. 
 

Regardless, point stands. You likely wouldn’t know it was intentional. 
 

Plus it’s not risk free. It’s not anything like running over a catcher or whatever. If the catcher/D is aware, they likely just ran into an out. 

[Replacematt]

On 4/19/2025 at 12:25 PM, The Man in Blue said:

 

Maybe I am mixing up my memories and it was another forum . . . but I thought we had had this discussion before.

"[A]n unsportsmanlike act."  Sure you may need some prior experience with the team or a HUR from another umpire, or you could be able to interpret what is happening if their signals are obvious.  

NFHS rules provide space for a warning unless the umpire deems the offense to be major.  Routinely doing this, or being known to do this, is major enough for me.  You shouldn't get a warning every game.  A pattern of behavior over time is a indication.

Of course, I am going to give leeway for a legitimate error and am not running every kid for this, but a team that does this intentionally or regularly with a signal is committing offensive interference.  Coming in with the intent to flout the rules bumps it up to "major", IMO.

No, ejection is not an immediate reactionary call . . . but it is justifiable in cases.

This is NOT USC nor interference.

[beerguy55]

On 4/19/2025 at 11:25 AM, The Man in Blue said:

Maybe I am mixing up my memories and it was another forum . . . but I thought we had had this discussion before.

"[A]n unsportsmanlike act."  Sure you may need some prior experience with the team or a HUR from another umpire, or you could be able to interpret what is happening if their signals are obvious.

I agree with the premise, and if I was in charge I would be fine with it, but I thought the general consensus here was plays like that were legal, if unethical.

Along the same lines, having your batter run on a dropped strike two to induce a throw, reprehensible the play would be, is legal.

In both cases, even if the coach publicly discussed the play call, and you were 100% certain it was intentional, there was no call to make.

In either scenario players are expected to know the count, and if they get tricked that's on them.

NOTE - this, IMO, is different than the bunt play where R2 cuts third base by 20 feet - that is a play designed to deceive the umpires, as opposed to the other team.

[Velho]

Did we have a past discussion for NFHS of verbal interference such as telling R1 after a steal that it was foul so he'd come off the base (I don't recall if that example crossed into capital-I Interference)? Or did I imagine it? (don't have time to search right now)

How do we compare/contrast BR/Rs moving on Ball 3 or U3K with full throated engagement by the offensive team (i.e. not just done in silence) to interps/guidance situations deemed to qualify for illegal NFHS verbal Interference?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Did we have a past discussion for NFHS of verbal interference such as telling R1 after a steal that it was foul so he'd come off the base (I don't recall if that example crossed into capital-I Interference)? Or did I imagine it? (don't have time to search right now)

Not sure how much conversation we had, but I will admit I brought that one up here in the last year or two … and I did so because I knew I kicked it.  It took me by such surprise, I didn’t stop and process it.  The coach yelled at the kid, not me, so again, it slipped right on down the road.

I’ll also admit I half comprehended and had it in mind that we were talking about a faked U3K, not a faked walk.

Regardless, dumb things happen.  Intentionally trying to skirt that courtesy so you can get one over is, IMO, unsporting conduct.  Prove it when you can.  

To take it back to the OP, I would like to see the rules kill it when a batter erroneously takes off.  Sadly, they don’t.  

[834k3r]

On 4/18/2025 at 10:52 AM, MadMax said:

Call Time a lot less. Only when required / necessary. 

This. 💯

Had a JV game where F2 asked for time, and I granted it, assuming he wanted to go talk to F1 (they had just walked the batter making it R1/R3 with 1 out).

Nope.

Instead, he steps in front of the plate and gives the pickoff signs to the infield--much to my chagrin. When he got back behind the plate I told him "I'm not doing that again."

[The Man in Blue]

I had a shortstop ask last week.  I simply asked him, "Do you need to talk to him, or are you just getting the ball to him?"  SS said, "Nah, he's rattled, I need to talk to him."

OK.  TIME!

I don't know why I never thought to just ask.

[MadMax]

Humor me… 

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I would like to see the rules kill it when a batter erroneously takes off.  Sadly, they don’t.

Which of the 4 predominant rulesets (OBR, NCAA, NFHS, LL) do you propose include it? 

OBR wouldn’t even entertain it, NCAA would laugh it right out the room, and even if it would crack the itinerary of a NFHS Rules Committee meeting, it’d be so far down the list that by the time it’d reach a quorum, we’d all be dust. 

🤔 Although, less poignant and impactful rulings have been thrust forward as POEs before… eg. Eye black. 🙄 

Besides, where it would be most likely employed – youth, amateur, learnin’ ball – would also where it would be most abused. If ya think we have time-delayin’ shenanigans now, just wait until a “smart”(a$$) coach tells his boys to head towards 1B (on Ball 2) thereby killing Live ball play, and then feign the whole puppy-dog-eyed naïve-youth thing, slow walk back to the plate (and bases) thing… 

How to “fix” this? Stay attentive to the count, stay attentive to the game, and use your mouth mechanics… ie. Say, “Where ya going? That’s only ball ___ (< 4)!” Don’t say, “Time!”

[The Man in Blue]

I was going to comment, but you beat me to the eye black punchline.

Once we have the lawlessness, debauchery, anarchy, and civil rights violations being caused by eye black under control . . . 

Any.  All?  Sure, big boys are big boys and probably not, but I would like to see NFHS (and anything below) add it.

However, we have more important fish to fry . . .  IS THAT A WRISTBAND ON YOUR BELT?!?!?!  

[834k3r]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I was going to comment, but you beat me to the eye black punchline.

Once we have the lawlessness, debauchery, anarchy, and civil rights violations being caused by eye black under control . . . 

Any.  All?  Sure, big boys are big boys and probably not, but I would like to see NFHS (and anything below) add it.

However, we have more important fish to fry . . .  IS THAT A WRISTBAND ON YOUR BELT?!?!?!  

Don't know if I should laugh or cry at this.