Out for removal of helmet after home run

[clodder]

I am a parent and player, but not an umpire.

Girls 10 y old fastball tournament following CSA (Canadian) rules which I believe are essentially the same as ASA. Two out, two on, and batter hits a home run. Rest of team comes to congratulate her at home plate and she removes her helmet just before she enters the bench area. Umpire calls her out for removing her helmet on field of play, and also says "no runs' because she is the third out.

First, calling an out seems overly picky even if in the rules - is it?. Second, even if the out call were technically correct, was not allowing the two runs that crossed the plate before her correct?

[JefferMC]

1) I have a hard time understanding how you call someone "out" after they have successfully touched all four bases (assuming no interference calls, naturally).

2) The BR safely reached first before being called out, so I have a hard time understanding how the first two runs were nullified, even if I accepted #1.

3) Unless the next batter was already in the box ready to bat when the girl removed her helmet "just before she enter[ed] the bench area," I don't understand the out call in the first place.

[mcrowder]

I don't have an out here.

And if I do, I can't nullify the runs.

And if I do, I can't support my actions when the coach protests my misapplication of a rule.

So, what did your coach do? Did he calmly protest that the umpire was misapplying a rule? Or did he go ballistic and eject himself? (And after that, did the new manager calmly protest, or did he eject himself as well?)

[AtlUmpSteve]

Speaking ASA, that would be wrong on every count. The rule relates to removing the helmet during live ball play (this isn't), notes that the ball remains alive and that force plays still remain in affect (thus making the removal a timing play). It further notes this is a safety concern only, and should be so ruled.

Then, a casebook play 3.5-8 is even more to the point. In that play, the runner hits an out of park homerun, and removes the helmet rounding 3B. In the ruling, its states

Although the rule reads that runners are to be called out if they remove the helmet intentionally, the intent of this rule is to prevent the runner from getting hit with a thrown ball. When a ball has been hit over the fence for a home run, no play will be made on any runner until the plate umpire throws another ball into the game. Runners should not be called out for removing a helmet on a home run ball that is hit out of the park.

Play 3.5-9 also rules you should not call out a runner who removes their helmet while standing on a base, nor a runner who removes the helmet prior to touching home when forced on a bases loaded walk. No safety issue, with no danger of a runner being injured by a thrown ball.

Finally, even if the BR is called out for the third out, as long as 1B was reached safely, there is no reason to nullify any runs scored prior to the third out being made.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by clodder

I am a parent and player, but not an umpire.

Girls 10 y old fastball tournament following CSA (Canadian) rules which I believe are essentially the same as ASA. Two out, two on, and batter hits a home run. Rest of team comes to congratulate her at home plate and she removes her helmet just before she enters the bench area. Umpire calls her out for removing her helmet on field of play, and also says "no runs' because she is the third out.

First, calling an out seems overly picky even if in the rules - is it?. Second, even if the out call were technically correct, was not allowing the two runs that crossed the plate before her correct?

Didn't you post this last year??

[SRW]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

Didn't you post this last year??

Yep.

Penalty for Removing Batting Helmet After Home Run

[mcrowder]

Slow learner?

[bkbjones]

Maybe it happened again...

[canump]

Originally Posted by clodder

I am a parent and player, but not an umpire.

Girls 10 y old fastball tournament following CSA (Canadian) rules which I believe are essentially the same as ASA. Two out, two on, and batter hits a home run. Rest of team comes to congratulate her at home plate and she removes her helmet just before she enters the bench area. Umpire calls her out for removing her helmet on field of play, and also says "no runs' because she is the third out.

First, calling an out seems overly picky even if in the rules - is it?. Second, even if the out call were technically correct, was not allowing the two runs that crossed the plate before her correct?

I am a CSA Umpire. I don't have my rule book handy but i do know that there was a big error x 2 on this play.
# 1 - the helmut must be intentionally removed during live ball while running the bases in order to call the runner out, and there is an exception to that. If the runner is running and the helmut has slipped and was covering her/his eyes and she/he tried to fix it and it fell off then most CSA umps will not make an out call.
@ 2 the batter runner had already touch first legally so therefore the out was after the runner touched home plate so therefore the 2 runs should have still counted.

My first time on guys & gals. have been reading this board for a couple months and have enjoyed some of the comments

Will be back RDW

[tcblue13]

Bon Jour
Welcome aboard

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Maybe it happened again...

TWP two years in a row Hmmmm
It must have happened again

[wadeintothem]

Its a lame call in any case.. the only problem as I see it is arbitrarily not enforcing a ISF rule (assuming the rule was technically correct in this case) at this level.. its not rec league, its the World Cup. The same type of lame thing happened this year in NCAA when after a HR, the batter was out for a bad line up card.

Its lame. its stupid, I hate nit picky lame crap.. but the governing body made the rules and if they dont want them enforced they are more than empowered to change them.

Now if it wasnt a rule and it wasnt enforced correctly, surely the game was finished under protest after something like that.

[mcrowder]

wade, methinks you replied to the wrong thread.

[wadeintothem]

LOL me too

Jeez

I give up.