To allow or to not allow a catcher/pitcher meeting .... after a cross up

[HumblePie]

OK ... so we have a new FED rule ... for addressing "pace of play" concerns ... and they F*&(!ed it up again.  EDUCATORS. WOW.

NFHS 3-4-6     Each team, when on defense, may be granted not more than one player-to-player meeting during an inning to permit players to confer with defensive personnel.  The umpire shall deny any subsequent player-to-player defensive team requests for meetings for that half-inning.

So ... Inning 5, F2 confers with F1, F1 throws 4 pitches in the dirt and is pulled.

New F1 comes in and crosses up F2 right away.

F2 understandably says, "Blue, can I have time?"

I'm following the sage advice of Patrick Faerber, and I'm saying, "YES SIR ... Let's go!"

I'm walking out to the mound with him, not allowing other infielders to join, and getting the battery on the same page.

I have NO IDEA (or concern about) what rule I'm invoking.  I can't even invoke OBR 9.01(c), (or now OBR 8.01(c)), or FED 10-2-3(g) ... because there is a rule that says I must disallow the meeting.  There will, no doubt, be a test question on it next week.  And ya know what's funny?  NO HEAD COACH who has a working brain will ever complain about this.

HOGWASH. 

If FED is all about safety ... which includes the catcher and ... well ... ME ... I'm not only allowing the meeting, I'm insisting on it.

Mr. Hopkins ... you're better than this ... fix it now.  Don't wait until 2027.

I'd suggest:

INCOMPETENCE ALERT!!!!!!

"Due to our committee's not being able to see the forest for the trees,

In the name of safety, we have now given all baseball officials the discretion to allow,

after a team has used its one allowed player-to-player meeting in an inning,

an unlimited number of "battery meetings" which must include at least one umpire (plate or base)

and only F1 and F2.  If a coach joins for any reason other than injury or illness,

this meeting will be charged as a defensive conference."

 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, HumblePie said:

OK ... so we have a new FED rule ... for addressing "pace of play" concerns ... and they F*&(!ed it up again.  EDUCATORS. WOW.

NFHS 3-4-6     Each team, when on defense, may be granted not more than one player-to-player meeting during an inning to permit players to confer with defensive personnel.  The umpire shall deny any subsequent player-to-player defensive team requests for meetings for that half-inning.

So ... Inning 5, F2 confers with F1, F1 throws 4 pitches in the dirt and is pulled.

New F1 comes in and crosses up F2 right away.

F2 understandably says, "Blue, can I have time?"

I'm following the sage advice of Patrick Faerber, and I'm saying, "YES SIR ... Let's go!"

I'm walking out to the mound with him, not allowing other infielders to join, and getting the battery on the same page.

I have NO IDEA (or concern about) what rule I'm invoking.  I can't even invoke OBR 9.01(c), (or now OBR 8.01(c)), or FED 10-2-3(g) ... because there is a rule that says I must disallow the meeting.  There will, no doubt, be a test question on it next week.  And ya know what's funny?  NO HEAD COACH who has a working brain will ever complain about this.

HOGWASH. 

If FED is all about safety ... which includes the catcher and ... well ... ME ... I'm not only allowing the meeting, I'm insisting on it.

Mr. Hopkins ... you're better than this ... fix it now.  Don't wait until 2027.

I'd suggest:

INCOMPETENCE ALERT!!!!!!

"Due to our committee's not being able to see the forest for the trees,

In the name of safety, we have now given all baseball officials the discretion to allow,

after a team has used its one allowed player-to-player meeting in an inning,

an unlimited number of "battery meetings" which must include at least one umpire (plate or base)

and only F1 and F2.  If a coach joins for any reason other than injury or illness,

this meeting will be charged as a defensive conference."

 

Off topic: You have not clarified your cite of coach ejection for illegal sub in the Overturning Ejection thread.

On Topic: The casebook allows discretion without the ump monitoring for dead ball meetings, sub pitcher - catcher meeting, even a catcher walk out to pitcher to give a HBP ump some time. For some reason FED likes to keep the rule verbiage to a minimum and use caseplays.

[HumblePie]

You were right, I was wrong, on the Illegal sub ejection.  Plz read my comment on that thread in a few minutes.

What casebook play supports having more than one player meeting per inning when it is, in fact, delaying the game?  When no other activity is going on that would allow for it?

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

You were right, I was wrong, on the Illegal sub ejection.  Plz read my comment on that thread in a few minutes.

What casebook play supports having more than one player meeting per inning when it is, in fact, delaying the game?  When no other activity is going on that would allow for it?

A bunch: 2.10.2-B, 2.10.3-c, 3.4.6-A, 3.4.6-B, 3.4.6-C, 3.4.6-D

[HumblePie]

Jim, those plays specify what is defined as a meeting and what is not.

You blew right past 2.10.3-A   This is defined as a meeting.  If the catcher gets crossed up after such a meeting, he cannot meet again with the pitcher.  Question 87 on the Rules Study Guide asks this very question:

87.  In the fifth inning, F1 allows three straight hits to begin the inning.  F6 asks for time to go to the pitcher and give his teammate a pep talk.  After the meeting, the first pitch to the next hitter crosses up F2, who asks for time to chat with the pitcher about their signals.

ANSWER:  b) Time should not be granted, as this would be the second player-to-player meeting during the same inning.

Patrick Faerber spends significant time explaining on the Umpire Classroom video why he disagrees with this ... it goes against other language FED uses on the same Study Guide as placing safety above all else.  It is his suggestion to handle the situation by going to the mound, and allowing a battery meeting.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

54 minutes ago, HumblePie said:

Jim, those plays specify what is defined as a meeting and what is not.

You blew right past 2.10.3-A   This is defined as a meeting.  If the catcher gets crossed up after such a meeting, he cannot meet again with the pitcher.  Question 87 on the Rules Study Guide asks this very question:

87.  In the fifth inning, F1 allows three straight hits to begin the inning.  F6 asks for time to go to the pitcher and give his teammate a pep talk.  After the meeting, the first pitch to the next hitter crosses up F2, who asks for time to chat with the pitcher about their signals.

ANSWER:  b) Time should not be granted, as this would be the second player-to-player meeting during the same inning.

Patrick Faerber spends significant time explaining on the Umpire Classroom video why he disagrees with this ... it goes against other language FED uses on the same Study Guide as placing safety above all else.  It is his suggestion to handle the situation by going to the mound, and allowing a battery meeting.

 

 I don't see in the caseplays where FED doesn't allow a second visit by the catcher alone to discuss signals. Does the test question cite rule and caseplay when it grades the test. We use our own test in Texas.

[BigBlue4u]

3 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

 I don't see in the case plays where FED doesn't allow a second visit by the catcher alone to discuss signals. Does the test question cite rule and case play when it grades the test. We use our own test in Texas.

I can't begin to count the number of times I've said this:  "The rules committee can give you a hundred reasons for putting a rule in the book.  It can also give you a hundred reasons for taking it out." The new player-to-player meeting rule is another example of a rule that begs for a common-sense application.  What usually happens when a PU takes a hard shot on a foul ball?  The catcher goes out to the mound to talk with the pitcher to give the PU some extra time to recover.  Are we going to charge a meeting for that?  Please God, tell me no.

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

 What usually happens when a PU takes a hard shot on a foul ball?  The catcher goes out to the mound to talk with the pitcher to give the PU some extra time to recover.  Are we going to charge a meeting for that?  Please God, tell me no.

That's a specific caseplay and the answer is no. 3.4.6-D

[HumblePie]

And neither of you guys are addressing my point and my question. 

The catcher wants to have a meeting because he just got crossed up.

The PU did not get hurt or hit.

There is no offensive conference going on. 

There is no illness or injury or loud music coming from the soccer field or any other reason that play has been delayed. 

The catcher wants a meeting. 

Common Sense says, LET HIM HAVE A MEETING. 

Whether you guys have read the NFHS study guide or not, you'll have to trust me, FED says "ALLOW NO MEETING."

That is not COMMON SENSE, that is bull----.

[The Man in Blue]

Well, the thread title isn't exactly Shakespeare . . . 😋

 

What the case plays (3.4.6 Situations A - E) are telling us is that the rule says we do not allow additional player-to-player conferences once one has happened in an inning.  What the case plays (3.4.6 Situations A - E) are telling us is that a player-to-player conference does not occur if time is called for a different reason, and they meet within that time without causing added delay.

So, @HumblePie . . . if you need to clean the plate, get more baseballs, check a line up issue, converse with the coach . . . In fact, 3.4.6 Situation B is a different application, but it does state "It is in the best interest of all that the catcher and new pitcher get aligned."  (No, it does not say allow an added conference.)

This is what case plays should do.  Show umpires how to use the rules.

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I can't begin to count the number of times I've said this:  "The rules committee can give you a hundred reasons for putting a rule in the book.  It can also give you a hundred reasons for taking it out." The new player-to-player meeting rule is another example of a rule that begs for a common-sense application.  What usually happens when a PU takes a hard shot on a foul ball?  The catcher goes out to the mound to talk with the pitcher to give the PU some extra time to recover.  Are we going to charge a meeting for that?  Please God, tell me no.

 

Herein lies the problem, @BigBlue4u . . . the lack of common sense is what led us to this rule.  Umpires who failed to use common sense and develop their game management skills are what resulted in this codification of "get yo' @$$ moving."  Depending on how you look at it, this rule was either wholly unnecessary OR it gave teeth to the umpires who were trying to manage their games properly and were getting pushback.