Award after throw goes dead

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
[/B]It's not a coincidence. [/B]

Ofcourse not Carl - My sarcasm must of went right passed you

[nine01c]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

You need a copy of the 2005 BRD. (grin) The NCAA rule is the same as the OBR interpretation. See NCAA 8-6a AR 3.

Thanks Carl:
I was using the word "ruling" to mean "interpretation" in both cases. Although I am curious and interested in different codes, I have been reluctant to purchase the BRD because my state does not use FED for high school. I do not umpire college, so OBR is pretty much it for me (at least for now). Is it a good resource if one is NOT seeking rules differences?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by nine01c

Thanks Carl:
I was using the word "ruling" to mean "interpretation" in both cases. Although I am curious and interested in different codes, I have been reluctant to purchase the BRD because my state does not use FED for high school. I do not umpire college, so OBR is pretty much it for me (at least for now). Is it a good resource if one is NOT seeking rules differences?

I think so, but you should ask some of your friends on the internet what they think.

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by nine01c
Although I am curious and interested in different codes, I have been reluctant to purchase the BRD because my state does not use FED for high school. I do not umpire college, so OBR is pretty much it for me (at least for now). Is it a good resource if one is NOT seeking rules differences? [/B]

I also was reluctant to purchase the BRD, because OBR is the only set of rules which have practical value for me. I did buy it this year, and have found it to be valuable in better understanding OBR. Here's why:

The OBR has a number of deficiencies. Rules are
1) vague, or
2) precisely written, but inconsistent with other rules
3) precisely written, but rejected in current umpiring practice.
And, for some baseball situations, OBR has no applicable rule.

But these defective rules are precisely the ones which are likely to be handled differently (and typically more carefully) by FED and NCAA. So there is a pretty good chance that BRD comments on any particular ambiguity in the OBR. The BRD generally lists an illustrative example for each rule difference, and frequently quotes an authoritative opinion for each of OBR, FED, and NCAA. I find that seeing the rule differences seeds my thinking about the OBR ruling, and improves my understanding of it.

The BRD organizes the cited rules differently than either OBR or Jaksa/Roder, and that is valuable in itself when looking for the applicable rule.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Dave Reed

I also was reluctant to purchase the BRD, because OBR is the only set of rules which have practical value for me. I did buy it this year, and have found it to be valuable in better understanding OBR. Here's why:

The OBR has a number of deficiencies. Rules are
1) vague, or
2) precisely written, but inconsistent with other rules
3) precisely written, but rejected in current umpiring practice.
And, for some baseball situations, OBR has no applicable rule.

But these defective rules are precisely the ones which are likely to be handled differently (and typically more carefully) by FED and NCAA. So there is a pretty good chance that BRD comments on any particular ambiguity in the OBR. The BRD generally lists an illustrative example for each rule difference, and frequently quotes an authoritative opinion for each of OBR, FED, and NCAA. I find that seeing the rule differences seeds my thinking about the OBR ruling, and improves my understanding of it.

The BRD organizes the cited rules differently than either OBR or Jaksa/Roder, and that is valuable in itself when looking for the applicable rule. [/B]

Dave: You said it just like I told you to. (grin)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by nine01c
Last year when we were all scrutinizing this play, I researched (asked) the OBR and the NCAA ruling. The OBR explanation agreed with what Carl is saying here. The NCAA ruling was different (if I remember correctly, no retouch of 1B was allowed). Do they actually differ, or not?

It's the FED rule that's different.

And, on your question, "Should I buy the BRD?" I'd answer, "Yes."

1) It's always good to have more resources / reference materials

2) You can answer coaches' / players' questions with "That's the NCAA rule / FED rule in other states, but in this league the rule is ...."

[nine01c]

OK, OK, you've convinced me. Not hard to do since I am a gear and resource (book) junkie. Thanks for the input.

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Here's another problem I'd like comments on before I ship off the BRD:

Play: R1 leaves early on a caught fly ball and is between second and third when the throw to first goes dead.

The usual interpretation is: He gets two bases measured from his original base. He goes to third. OBR: When a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch, he must retouch his original base before receiving his award, which is measured from his original base. (7.05i CMT 2)

Pretty standard stuff. J/R puts it this way: "If a runner has obviously left early or failed to retouch his base, his attained base at the time of the throw is not used to measure the award. Rather, his award is measured from his occupied base — where he was at the time of the pitch." (non-italicized explication [standard pro interpretation], p. 57)

Now comes this from the MLBUM:

When a runner leaves his base early and is beyond a succeeding base at the time of a throw that goes dead, he will be awarded two bases measured from the TOT. If he retouches his original base, he will receive two bases from the TOP. (5.10)

Here's the relevant MLBUM ruling to the play in question:

The umpire will initially award R1 home (two bases from his position at the time of the throw). But if the runner retouches first, the award becomes two bases from the time of the pitch. If after the ball becomes dead the runner touches third before returning to first, he is subject to appeal.

==========

Ok, what do you think?

Boy it's good to see some baseball talk! Can't wait til season starts here!

I am late on this topic, so please forgive my ignorance if my comment is off-track.

It was my understanding that once a runner touched the succeeding base and the ball became dead, he could not return to retouch the preceeding base.

I agree with Rich to a point that the runner forfeits his right to retouch since he left early, but got me thinking that it would be penalizing the offense not to allow runner to retouch considering it was a defensive error.

Could we just assume that the player has retouched and award bases accordingly without being liable to be put out on appeal?

As far as TOP or TOT is concerned, I am a bit confused!

The runner left early at TOP, so why allow TOT to be a consideration?

Like I said, without reading all the post on this subject, I am giving my opinion blindly. (not a first I might add)lol

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Carl Childress My only point in this thread was: How in the world did those guys of the MLBUM ever get away with saying that R1 between second and third should get home unless he returns to first, when he now gets third.

Imagine this situation occurring in your American Legion game:

"You - home!" (To R1 between second and third)
Assistant coach at first: "Bubba, you've got to tag up."
So Bubba touches second, retouches first, touches second, touches third and heads home.
Cleverly, following the MLBUM ruling, you stop him with: "You - third."

About two minutes later, you're going to turn to the assistant offensive coach and say, just as cleverly: "You - showers!"[/B]

This is, indeed, the crux of the biscuit. This thread has gone into all kinds of spinoffs, but the key is that the MLBUM is making new law by instructing umpires to make an award, and then REVISE that award while the runner is accepting it. It's nuts.

[Rich Ives]

I don't buy the MLBUM interp as "new law."

I think the award of third only was "practical law" and, as Carl points out, probably the best way to manage such a situation.

The actual law though, does say two bases from the time of the throw, so, problematic as it is, it probably is a more accurate interpretation.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
I don't buy the MLBUM interp as "new law."

I think the award of third only was "practical law" and, as Carl points out, probably the best way to manage such a situation.

The actual law though, does say two bases from the time of the throw, so, problematic as it is, it probably is a more accurate interpretation.

PBUC (formerly NAPBL) 3.11 Example 2 has been the published "law" on the play in question, for OBR, since long before the MLBUM ruling was authored. The MLBUM ruling very clearly contradicts PBUC 3.11 Example 2, and therefore constitutes "new law."

[Rich Ives]

Please don't take this personally, it is meant to be comments in general.

MLBUM ruling is "new law"

Nope, just an overturned ruling by a higher court.

Another one is the "overrun on a walk" which was in dispute. MLBUM says legal.

Both bring the "final" ruling in line with the published rule.

I think too often people have looked on some rules as "that doesn't seem necessary/right" and looked for a reason to not call it as written.

Another is the "throw has to be from the plate area" in the running lane violation interference. Fitzpatrick, to Carl's (and others) amazement, said it can be from anywhere - just as the rule says (OK it says it because it doesn't limit the source of the throw).

This one can still be overtutned I suppose, but JEA says the history is really to protect F3 (or whoever) from a deliberate crash or being screened on the throw. While being screened would generally have to be on a throw from the plate, the deliberate crash part could happen on a throw from anywhere. This fits with the Fitzpatrick ruling Carl published.

[Edited by Rich Ives on Jan 7th, 2005 at 08:04 PM]

[MrUmpire]

This one can still be overtutned I suppose, but JEA says the history is really to protect F3 (or whoever) from a deliberate crash or being screened on the throw. While being screened would generally have to be on a throw from the plate, the deliberate crash part could happen on a throw from anywhere. This fits with the Fitzpatrick ruling Carl published.


However, at the Academy Evans teaches that the throw needs to come from behind. He and many ML umpires disagree with Fitzpatrick's minor league ruling on this.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Please don't take this personally, it is meant to be comments in general.

MLBUM ruling is "new law"

Nope, just an overturned ruling by a higher court.

If you're only arguing semantics, fine, call it a higher court ruling instead of new law.

But the difference between the ruling under discussion and your additional examples is that the MLBUM ruling directly and explicitly contradicts a BLACK LETTER ruling contained in another published, authoritative reference. Your other examples merely clarify/contradict matters of custom and practice that had not previously been ruled on in writing, in published sources.

Consequently, the MLBUM ruling that contradicts the written PBUC ruling constitutes a new ruling, i.e. "new law," that is an order of magnitude higher than any ruling that simply settles or clarifies a point of ambiguity that has not previously been addressed in the literature.

[cowbyfan1]

Let's see not only renewed paid site membership for 2 years, got 2005 BRD and 101 ways to ruin a baseball game pretty darn cheap as a result. now to find the time to read it. Carl I swear this one is 2 times thicker than a few years ago..