here we go

[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.