here we go

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by alphaump

Sitch; runners on 1st and 3rd, 2 outs, bottom of last inning, batting team down 1 run - batter hits home run, runner on 3rd scores, as batter and runner on 1st are rounding bases, they high five each other and in the excitement of the imminent win, the batter touches home first - the opposing team appeals - whats the call?
I witness this and it toke over 2 hours for the officials to make a call - they called the batter out, scored the runner on 1st and went to extra innings.
This is asa men only.

"...it toke over 2 hours.."

Taking a 'toke' would naturally slow things down.

Bob

[rwest]

Please note, no offense was intended by any of my comments below.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Randall, using your logic, we should refuse to accept anything not spelled out in the rulebook or casebook, even if it is correct, clearly understood and accepted? Where in the rulebook does it say home plate shall be white? Or that the pitchers plate shall be white? I think they should be purple; I will change my opinion and ruling if you can show me where it says they shall be white.

The color of the bases has no bearing on the game. This example is not on point.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

And, where does it say we should stop playing in heavy rain? What defines rain heavy enough to stop the game, or conditions bad enough to cancel play for the day? My field will play through any condition; if you can find a written ruling from the NUS, I will change my opinion and rulings.

Do you realize how foolish that sounds? And that is exactly how you sound when you approach issues that way.

Oh, I'm foolish when I say show me the rule to support your position. Ok, so I'm foolish. I actually believe we should have rule support for our positions. And I seem to recall others who have asked for people to back up their positions with a rule reference.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

On this board, we discuss rules, intent, interpretations, and (when necessary or appropriate) address NUS and other resources to get the best understanding of the rules; we don't insist that every ruleset publish a 16 volume encyclopedia of any and everything that may eventually happen. We have members with access to the movers, shakers, and decision makers, and many with experience at the highest levels of softball.

Fine. I agree the rules can't cover every situation. I also agree that if the decision makers decide this is how it should be ruled, then so be it. However, I haven't heard any official ruling on this at any clinic.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Sometimes, you just need to accept the obvious and the inevitable. We won't all always agree; but this is one where you are hanging on your own. That doesn't make you unique; in other threads, others insist on their homegrown ways.

I'm the one asking for a rule reference to back up your position and I"m the one with a "homegrown" way? I don't think so. That's not how I operate. I study the rulebook constantly. I come here to get a better understanding. I read where Mike and others say "That's not supported by the rules" when arguing a point and then I make the same argument, and I'm accused of "homegrown ways". So when am I suppose to have rule support for my interpretation? That's not a flippant question, by the way. It seems that some of the posters on this forum are not consistent. In one thread they say "Show me the rule to support your position", then the next thread they dont need a rule to base their interpretation on.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

But, sometimes, stop, read, and consider the prevailing thought process. This one, you are in left field; if R3 touches home before R2, R2 cannot legally touch it afterward. This requires an appeal for a missed base, and that's what happened. Correct call made.

If we are not going by the rulebook, if there is no written or verbal instructions from the national office, then anything the umpires decided to do here was based on their interpretation.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No problem. I'll show you one when you show me a rule that says the runner must touch all the bases in the order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd & home.

Good point. I'll show you one when you show me a rule that says a R2 can't touch home before R1.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Good point. I'll show you one when you show me a rule that says a R2 can't touch home before R1.

This can go on all year.

How can you enforce 6FP.1.D when there is no rule requiring any player to wear a glove? Does that mean if the pitcher isn't wearing a glove, s/he cannot simulate taking the signals unless the ball is in the pitching hand? What if the pitcher is ambeidestrous? How would you know with which hand the pitcher is going to throw the ball?

How about 6FP.2? "The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball afther the hands have been placed together". Does this mean that a pitcher who does wear a glove cannot possible legally deliver the ball? After all, if they meant hands or glove, it would have been specifically mentioned in the rule book, right?


There are multitudes of assumptions made in this game by everyone, including you, that are not covered in the book, casebook or clinic. Does that mean as an umpire we ignore the obvious or do we apply a little common sense to the rules? I'm sure you have heard clinicians mention "common sense" during clinics, schools, etc.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This can go on all year.

How can you enforce 6FP.1.D when there is no rule requiring any player to wear a glove? Does that mean if the pitcher isn't wearing a glove, s/he cannot simulate taking the signals unless the ball is in the pitching hand? What if the pitcher is ambeidestrous? How would you know with which hand the pitcher is going to throw the ball?

How about 6FP.2? "The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball afther the hands have been placed together". Does this mean that a pitcher who does wear a glove cannot possible legally deliver the ball? After all, if they meant hands or glove, it would have been specifically mentioned in the rule book, right?


There are multitudes of assumptions made in this game by everyone, including you, that are not covered in the book, casebook or clinic. Does that mean as an umpire we ignore the obvious or do we apply a little common sense to the rules? I'm sure you have heard clinicians mention "common sense" during clinics, schools, etc.

I see your point. I understand that the rulebook can't cover ever possible scenario. However, we do have guidelines to go by. In those scenarios where we don't have specific rule coverage we follow them. For example, if I call time and then a runner is tagged off of the base, the runner is not out. The rule book doesn't say this, but its obvious nothing can happen when time has been called by the umpire. That's common sense. However, in this scenario it doesn't make sense to call R2 out on appeal for missing a base he touched.

What makes sense to one umpire may not make sense to another. One reason for rules is so that everyone is on the same page and to ensure that everyone plays on a level playing field.

One more question... When do we decide to use "common sense" and enforce something not clearly defined by the rules and when do we say there's no rule to prevent this so its legal?

[IRISHMAFIA]

However, in this scenario it doesn't make sense to call R2 out on appeal for missing a base he touched.

Why not? There is an entire rule for "Touching bases in legal order" even though that order isn't offered. The rules clearly note that when a succeeding runner scores, preceding runners may not return to the basepath.

A runner cannot return to a missed base or one left too early once they pass the first awarded base. However, as umpiires we do not stop them from returning and touching the bases, but we still honor the appeal even though the runner touched the necessary bases.

Don't get me wrong, this is a strange scenario and I doubt any of us would be able to make it instantaneously without thinking about it, but I doubt it would take two hours

This may be a good question for the NUS.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This may be a good question for the NUS.

If it comes to that, I hope
- a clearly defined, broad based, rule is added and not just an ambiguous case ruling or POE
- it doesn't end up on the test

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

For example, if I call time and then a runner is tagged off of the base, the runner is not out. The rule book doesn't say this,...

ASA 8-7-B says it pretty clearly.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

...However, in this scenario it doesn't make sense to call R2 out on appeal for missing a base he touched.

What makes sense to one umpire may not make sense to another. One reason for rules is so that everyone is on the same page and to ensure that everyone plays on a level playing field.

One more question... When do we decide to use "common sense" and enforce something not clearly defined by the rules and when do we say there's no rule to prevent this so its legal?

As has been stated numerous times in this thread...

In making a ruling, the umpire may apply principles from other rules (not qute the same as "common sense").

Since this exact situation is not covered in the rules, 10-1 comes into play.

A runner is not allowed to retouch a base missed or left to soon after a succeeding runner has scored. That can be extended to a principle that a runner cannot touch home to score after a succeeding runner has scored. That princple can be used in the ruling on this play with the authority of 10-1.

Any time a game umpire applies 10-1 to a situation, it is clearly not expected that every game umpire would come to the same conclusion given the same situation. That is kind of the nature of 10-1.

[alphaump]

Wow, what a simple sitch turned into. Thats why I luv this furum. May not post much, but you gotta luv it.