My First Ever Official Protest

[BretMan]

For the first time in my umpiring career, last night one of my calls was officially protested. The sad part is, due to an oddly written local rule, I might just lose this one!

16U rec league game, using NFHS rules as the "default" and about five pages of "local rules" (pretty standard stuff, like the run rule, continuous batting order, time limits, etc.).

Here is the play: Batter has two strikes, one out, first base not occupied. The next pitch is swung at and missed. The pitch then hits the ground, rebounds off the catcher and rolls up toward the plate.

Batter-runner takes off for first base. F2 retreives the ball near the plate, then steps in front of the plate to make the throw. F3 is positioned on the white base to receive the throw.

But...the throw is a bad one. To catch it, F3 had to move directly over the orange safety base. She catches the ball- well before the B/R gets there- with one foot on the orange base, the other stretched out into foul territory. B/R then touches the orange base as she overruns first.

I called the B/R safe as F3 never touched the white bag. Since the throw came from the fair side of the first base foul line, this is not a play where the defense is entitled to use the orange base to complete the play. (NFHS 8-10-2a).

Defensive coach questions the call and states that the defense may use either base on any dropped third strike play. I explain to him the reason I called the B/R out and that my call stands. He files an official protest, we play on without further problems.

Sounds pretty cut and dried that a protest won't fly here. But there is more to the story...

Last year, this league's local rules included some examples of when the defense can use either base (I guess the ones in the NFHS rule books they distribute aren't good enough). One of the league's helpful hints was that the defense could use the orange base "on any play coming from foul ground".

Last year I pointed out that this was incorrect- or, at least, not in compliance with the NFHS rules. I was told that the wording of the league rule would be revised to reflect the NFHS rule (ie: throw must be coming from the foul side of first base).

Back to last night's game...I make this call and the coach files his protest. I'm sure he's wrong and I'm right.

First thing I do when I get home is pull up their on-line league rules. Yes, the above mentioned rule had been changed...for the worse! Instead of saying that the defense could use the orange base "on any play coming from foul ground", it now reads that they can use the orange base "on any dropped third strike"!

Based on that local league rule- which appears to have been written by someone who really doesn't understand the high school rules and which I was told was going to be revised to match them- this one just might fly.

Guess I'll find out in a few days...

[NCASAUmp]

Fill in the blank: "Local rules are made by _____."

[DaveASA/FED]

Coaches..... board members....... people that don't have a clue about the rules?

Which one is right? Was I even close???


I would say to have the league have their UIC at these writing sessions, but I also know from past experience that might not help!!

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by ncasaump

fill in the blank: "local rules are made by _____." :d

tools

[LIUmp]

This rule was amended and written as such by the OP DC. That's how he knew this silly stipulation.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

This rule was amended and written as such by the OP DC. That's how he knew this silly stipulation.

Actually...even though I didn't even get into all that...you are likely correct!

My understanding is that this coach is on their "rules committee" and he is actually one of the people- if not the person- who crafted this rule.

Also, this whole issue first came up last year, when this SAME call went against this SAME coach!

[Andy]

Originally Posted by BretMan

...Also, this whole issue first came up last year, when this SAME call went against this SAME coach!

Sound like the process that the NCAA uses....

[Little Jimmy]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think Bret Mans' play mirrors one I had last year. I believe I talked about it on this forum, but I definitely had conversations about it with my state Fed rules interpreter.

USSSA game. Almost all rules mirror Fed. Ground ball hit to F6. BR is very slow. The throw to F3 is very high, causing her to jump up off the white bag, catch the ball, but land completely on orange. Slow runner finally gets to 1st and runs through the bag, touching both white and orange. I rule safe because of F3 being on only orange. Offensive coach says this qualifies as an errant throw(8-10-2-b). Super veteran plate partner adamently agrees with coach, feeling this qualifies as an errant throw and runner should be out. He clearly states (in a private conversation by the way) that I should reverse my decision. I feel I'm right and stick with the call. Game and life goes on.

In the subsequent days I ask my Utrip interpreter as well as my state Fed interpretor (who also works lots of Utrip with me)to ask the national Fed office for clarification of what it means to be an errant throw. They say that the play as I described it does count as an errant throw, meaning the fielder could use either bag. I believe someone on this group said ASA has in the past ruled this is not an errant throw.

I think this play has a lot of similarities to the original post. This has become my pain in the behind issue over the last year. It seems that we're rewarding the defense for a poor throw. When I get home I'll search a little more to see if I can find the original thread.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by BretMan

. . .

But...the throw is a bad one. To catch it, F3 had to move directly over the orange safety base. She catches the ball- well before the B/R gets there- with one foot on the orange base, the other stretched out into foul territory. B/R then touches the orange base as she overruns first.

. . .

Try 8-102b

NFHS 8-10
ART. 2 . . .The defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion:

b. On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by marvin

Try 8-102b

Except that one of our ASA experts has apparently said it is not errant if the fielder is still at the base, as opposed to well off it.
Hope someone will correct if that is not the case.

[BretMan]

But if the fielder simply moved from the white to the orange base, then the errant throw did not pull her off the base. It only moved her to another portion of it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by marvin

Try 8-102b

NFHS 8-10
ART. 2 . . .The defense and the batter-runner may use either the white or colored portion:
b. On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground.

As the rule states, off the base into foul ground, so the defensive player would be moving back to the base. It is to prevent the rule from requiring that the players cross paths. If the fielder was still on the base, she was not (obviously) off the base.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Except that one of our ASA experts has apparently said it is not errant if the fielder is still at the base, as opposed to well off it.
Hope someone will correct if that is not the case.

Opening post specified modified NFHS rules.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by Dakota

As the rule states, off the base into foul ground, so the defensive player would be moving back to the base. It is to prevent the rule from requiring that the players cross paths. If the fielder was still on the base, she was not (obviously) off the base.

She moved off the white base into foul ground, the colored base (it is in foul ground, right?). The NFHS interpreters in both states where I work HS would have this as an out.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I think that we can all agree that the concepts and goals of the Safety Base is admirable, BUT!!! How many train wrecks at 1B a season does one have to really need a Safety Base.

MTD, Sr.