unsportsmanlike act

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

My opinion is not germane to the discussion; the state association rules these two plays as unsportsmanlike for softball (and, I would suppose, baseball as well, but I don't work baseball). That's what state associations do.

But a PIAA ruling doesn't apply anywhere else so viewers shouldn't take is as gospel.

[jmkupka]

This weekend...

With R1 on 3B, had F1 & F2 walking together back into the circle, chatting it up (time out was not requested).

If R1 decided to break for home while they were halfway to the circle, and they got the out, I'd've had no problem... good play, dumb move runner.

If R1 stepped off the base once they were in the circle, and DC immediately went nuts wanting an out (which is what I was expecting), he'd be out of luck. I wouldn't have let that happen.


Long story short, R1 didn't move. My partner behind the plate advised F2 (when she returned) to ask for time next time. I didn't hear her reply...

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

This weekend...

With R1 on 3B, had F1 & F2 walking together back into the circle, chatting it up (time out was not requested).

If R1 decided to break for home while they were halfway to the circle, and they got the out, I'd've had no problem... good play, dumb move runner.

If R1 stepped off the base once they were in the circle, and DC immediately went nuts wanting an out (which is what I was expecting), he'd be out of luck. I wouldn't have let that happen.


Long story short, R1 didn't move. My partner behind the plate advised F2 (when she returned) to ask for time next time. I didn't hear her reply...

If time wasnt granted and the runner left the base, how would you not have allowed the out to happen? Just as in your other example, dumb move runner, the ball is in the circle with the pitcher and they cannot leave the base.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If time wasnt granted and the runner left the base, how would you not have allowed the out to happen? Just as in your other example, dumb move runner, the ball is in the circle with the pitcher and they cannot leave the base.

I find it exactly the same as a batter calling time for the sole purpose of causing an illegal pitch.

It's been discussed here, and interped somewhere (can't remember which rulebook), that deceiving a player into performing an illegal act is not to be permitted, and could in itself be considered USC...

The other plays in this thread are not illegal, just dumb moves...

[RKBUmp]

Exactly how are they deceiving the runner? The rule lookback rule clearly states they cannot leave the base when the pitcher is in possession of the ball within the circle. Lets use another example. Runner on 2, pitcher with ball in circle, F5 leaves 3rd and runs into circle to tell pitcher something. Runner sees 3rd uncovered and takes off. You going to consider that deceiving the runner? The runners must be aware of the situation, if the pitcher has the ball in the circle they cannot leave the base.

Reverse it, pitcher and catcher go back to the circle but catcher has the ball. Are you going to call time and protect the defense because they were stupid?

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Exactly how are they deceiving the runner? The rule lookback rule clearly states they cannot leave the base when the pitcher is in possession of the ball within the circle. Lets use another example. Runner on 2, pitcher with ball in circle, F5 leaves 3rd and runs into circle to tell pitcher something. Runner sees 3rd uncovered and takes off. You going to consider that deceiving the runner? The runners must be aware of the situation, if the pitcher has the ball in the circle they cannot leave the base.

Reverse it, pitcher and catcher go back to the circle but catcher has the ball. Are you going to call time and protect the defense because they were stupid?

The difference, as I've seen explained, is that F2 will almost always ask for time before going to talk to F1 (F5 wouldn't do that), so the one time she doesn't (with runner on 3B) could only be interpreted as a deceptive act.

Please note: everything that is good about my umpiring skills and rule interpreting, I have learned from this forum (and experience). I wouldn't have been prepared to make this ruling if I hadn't seen it here first.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

The difference, as I've seen explained, is that F2 will almost always ask for time before going to talk to F1 (F5 wouldn't do that), so the one time she doesn't (with runner on 3B) could only be interpreted as a deceptive act.

Please note: everything that is good about my umpiring skills and rule interpreting, I have learned from this forum (and experience). I wouldn't have been prepared to make this ruling if I hadn't seen it here first.

I have to disagree wit you that they almost always ask for time. It really depends on the situation of the play. Sometimes they do ask for time, otherwise they don't. Since the ball is in possession of the pitcher in the circle, there is already a rule prohibiting the runners from advancing.

Now where I might say it is a deceitful act is if the catcher calls all the infielders into the circle without calling time to have a meeting, and the offense, thinking times has been called has a runner step off the base to talk to a coach, only to have the fielders run out of the circle to tag the runners off base.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

This weekend...

With R1 on 3B, had F1 & F2 walking together back into the circle, chatting it up (time out was not requested).

If R1 decided to break for home while they were halfway to the circle, and they got the out, I'd've had no problem... good play, dumb move runner.

If R1 stepped off the base once they were in the circle, and DC immediately went nuts wanting an out (which is what I was expecting), he'd be out of luck. I wouldn't have let that happen.


Long story short, R1 didn't move. My partner behind the plate advised F2 (when she returned) to ask for time next time. I didn't hear her reply...

Who had the ball at this time, F1 or F2. If F1 has the ball, you have an out. The look back rule does not require the pitcher to be paying attention to what is going on, only to be in possession of the ball. IIRC there is a casebook play in which the pitcher has the ball in the circle, removes her glove and places it between her knees, with the ball inside the glove while she fixes her hair. The runners leaves the base while this is happening. In NFHS this is a LBR violation and an out. She still possessed the ball even if not in a normal fashion.

Under ASA rules I think it is a little different, as I think ASA requires the ball to be securely possessed in the hand or glove. Holding the glove in a "non-normal" position is not considered possession.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

But a PIAA ruling doesn't apply anywhere else so viewers shouldn't take is as gospel.

You are correct. The OP asked if there was rulings, I gave examples of what is not allowed in PIAA. Other state associations have ruled in similar manners or different manners.

My point wasn't to say these play are unsportsmanlike, and I didn't render an opinion either way. My point was that PIAA has said these are not in the spirit of sportsmanship and are not allowed in PIAA contests. They do not speak for other NFHS associations.