The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2016, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
Coach brings rules book on field - NCAA

So a couple weeks ago, I worked a Junior College game in which there was a protest. That may be a topic for another thread, but not this one.

A couple innings after the protest, the head coach (dissatisfied with our rules interpretation) came out between innings with the rules book in hand wanting to talk about it again.

I shut him down immediately. I have no idea what his question this time around was going to be, because I never actually heard him over my own voice.

"Coach, it's not up for discussion....Coach, I'm not talking about it...Go, $Coach_First_Name....$Coach_First_Name, in the dugout, or you're gonna have to go." At that, he finally left. (Irrelevant addendum: I worked some games for his team this week, and he still wanted to rehash it during the pregame "Hi, Coach, we're here" conversation. Also, he never filed the paperwork with the conference for an actual protest review.)

Game management question: Was talking him down and giving him all the rope I could the correct response for bringing the rulebook on-field at this level?
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
I'm missing a huge part of this story.

JUCO game, played under NCAA rules; coach says "I protest"; you are supposed to go get a rule book then and resolve the question on the field, not make a rule interpretation to be addressed by filing a protest after the game. NCAA 7.2.5.1

So did that happen; and THEN he comes out later with the book again, or did you just skip that step? Because if you skipped it, it's YOUR fault it could be rehashed later. If you did address with a rule book immediately, then, yes, shut it down just like any other discussion innings later after a play or ruling.

There is absolutely no rule that says a rulebook on the field is an ejection (in fact, as noted above, you are expected to address any protest with a rulebook; so manage your game, as you did. If he is waving it to show you up, THAT is the ejection, not the book itself.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
I'm missing a huge part of this story.

JUCO game, played under NCAA rules; coach says "I protest"; you are supposed to go get a rule book then and resolve the question on the field, not make a rule interpretation to be addressed by filing a protest after the game. NCAA 7.2.5.1

So did that happen; and THEN he comes out later with the book again, or did you just skip that step? Because if you skipped it, it's YOUR fault it could be rehashed later. If you did address with a rule book immediately, then, yes, shut it down just like any other discussion innings later after a play or ruling.

There is absolutely no rule that says a rulebook on the field is an ejection (in fact, as noted above, you are expected to address any protest with a rulebook; so manage your game, as you did. If he is waving it to show you up, THAT is the ejection, not the book itself.
We "resolved" the issue on the field with the book. The protest happened in the top of the 2nd, and we addressed it with both coaches at that time, although the home HC disagreed. For clarity, a BR was hit with a thrown ball from F2 while in fair territory and I ruled no interference. We ruled on the protest under NCAA 12.25.2: no interference with the fielder making a play, no interference with the fielder catching a thrown ball, and no intentional interference with a thrown ball. She was simply hit with the throw from behind. (I found out later that I could have denied the protest in its entirety under NCAA 7.2.2.9: "Whether or not there was interference or obstruction" is not protestable, but that's a whole different conversation since the coach insisted that the runner could not run to 1B in fair territory, and that's what he protested. It was kind of a CF from the beginning, and I don't mean Center Fielder.)

If the protesting coach does not accept the resolution, he's supposed to send the incident report to the conference just like the umpires have to do. NCAA 7.2.5.2

The head coach came out again with his book between the 3rd and 4th while the pitcher was throwing warmups. He didn't wave it, but he was pointing vigorously at whatever page he was on and really wanted to talk about the play again. I handled it as described above.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."

Last edited by teebob21; Mon Apr 25, 2016 at 10:35pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 08:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Batter-runner was more than halfway up the line (I assume), outside of the three-foot running lane, and got hit with the throw from F2...and that's NOT interference?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan View Post
Batter-runner was more than halfway up the line (I assume), outside of the three-foot running lane, and got hit with the throw from F2...and that's NOT interference?
NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."

Last edited by teebob21; Tue Apr 26, 2016 at 09:22am.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.
So, as a non-NCAA umpire, if there is no running lane and therefore no running lane INT rule; why is there a question, let alone a protest?
Any runner hit by a thrown ball anywhere, not intentional, is just that. DMF.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
I don't disagree Cecil, which is why I said in the OP the protest itself was a topic for a whole 'nother thread. Of course, coaches would need to be up to date on the rule changes for something like this to happen and there not be a question.
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.
It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.
AFAIK, there was never a rule describing where the BR must run. It was a rule describing where the BR can run to avoid the specific interference call. So, now the runner CAN be ruled as interferring if hit in the back with a thrown ball within where the running lane used to be? (I must be missing something... )
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Northeast Nebraska
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve View Post
It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2
12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?
__________________
Powder blue since 1998. Longtime forum lurker.
Umpiring Goals: Call the knee strike accurately (getting the low pitch since 2017)/NCAA D1 postseason/ISF-WBSC Certification/Nat'l Indicator Fraternity(completed)
"I'm gonna call it ASA for the foreseeable future. You all know what I mean."
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Am I the only one who finds it strange that the NCAA has gone through some serious pain creating rules providing and maintaining reference points for umpires (lines for pitching lane and batter's box) and then goes out of their way to eliminate that of the 3' lane which can provide major help to the umpires and players alike?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by teebob21 View Post
12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?
Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 26, 2016, 08:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick View Post
Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.
+1.

If the throw would have retired the runner (timely, a defensive player in position, and an accurate enough throw), then the runner running there interfered with the fielder receiving the throw.

I don't fully grasp the rationale, as no where else on the field is a "receiver" effectively guaranteed a runner won't get in the way; but it is what it is.
__________________
Steve
ASA/ISF/NCAA/NFHS/PGF
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 27, 2016, 09:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 648
Having attended 2 NCAA rules meetings before the section started, it was clarified that nothing about the running lane rules changed, except the requirement for a line to be drawn (it would be nice if they drew a little tic mark at 15', to reduce that aspect of judgement, but I'lll survive).
To avoid being called for INT, the BR must stay in "that running lane area" until the last stride, when they may enter fair territory to contact 1B.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Honestly, from your own description, it sounds like interference.

That said - it's a judgement call, and not protestable. And him coming out 2 innings later needs to be shut down immediately, very much in the manner that you did shut it down.

As to the next games - that's completely inappropriate, and I've seen umpires eject at the plate conference for coaches arguing crap from old games just like you describe.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
coach running down the field to call TO (NCAA) PSU213 Football 3 Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:50am
NCAA Rules Book Online IREFU2 Basketball 25 Thu Sep 10, 2009 05:47pm
NCAA 2007 Football Rules Book tedofacc Football 5 Mon Jun 11, 2007 04:25pm
Coach bringing a rule book on the field.... dsimp8 Softball 11 Tue May 02, 2006 06:22pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1