Runner assisted by coach

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by SRW

This is exactly why I hope I never have to work a game with you. You have determined that you are better than the game, and know what's better for everyone else. You are making up rules and dishonoring the sport. You're a detriment to the game.

Why do you umpire, anyway?

Making up rules, no. Making up calls, yes. Like I said if I feel it is out of hand, I am willing to take that hit to my integrity. I feel better me then the kids. So I guess all your points are made.


Like I asked before and getting back to original thread, anyone hear for ASA on a home run being a dead ball?

[robbie]

Dont think its ever a good idea to make a clearly "bad call" for the sake of the game.

If you adjust strikezone in a blow out, so be it. But if then a pitch is beyond that "adjusted limit"... its a ball. Even it it extends an inning, or causes anouter at bat.

Likewise, on a play where you say to your self: Hmm I THINK that runner left early. In "normal" play, I don't call an out on a THINK so, but in a blow out I may do so. But not just because it was close. I gotta really think a replay has at least 50-50 chance of proving correct.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

...Like I asked before and getting back to original thread, anyone hear for ASA on a home run being a dead ball?

Why do you care? Just call it like you feel at the time.

But, to answer your question (it might matter to someone else) ASA Case Book, 2007

PLAY 3.5-8
(FP Only) B1 hits an out of the park home run and, as B1 passes 3B, removes their helmet. The plate umpire calls B1 out.
RULING: When the ball went over the outfield fence, it is no longer a live ball; therefore B1 did not remove their helmet during a live ball and should not be penalized. (3-5E EFFECT)

[WestMichBlue]

But, to answer your question (it might matter to someone else) ASA Case Book, 2007
Quote:

PLAY 3.5-8
(FP Only) B1 hits an out of the park home run and, as B1 passes 3B, removes their helmet. The plate umpire calls B1 out.
RULING: When the ball went over the outfield fence, it is no longer a live ball; therefore B1 did not remove their helmet during a live ball and should not be penalized. (3-5E EFFECT)

SO - after five pages - do we all agree that a home run is not a live ball, thus interference for runner assistance during a live ball cannot be called.

Unless appealed by the defense for missing a base, the B/R will score.

BTW - both NFHS and USSSA specifically rule that a "fair fly ball passing over a fence is a dead ball." Maybe ASA could take a hint.

WMB

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why do you care? Just call it like you feel at the time.

But, to answer your question (it might matter to someone else) ASA Case Book, 2007

PLAY 3.5-8
(FP Only) B1 hits an out of the park home run and, as B1 passes 3B, removes their helmet. The plate umpire calls B1 out.
RULING: When the ball went over the outfield fence, it is no longer a live ball; therefore B1 did not remove their helmet during a live ball and should not be penalized. (3-5E EFFECT)

It took a week for someone to find this? It fits perfect. I will gain change my stance. She is not out. A week Dakota? you sited another one earlier?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by snorman75

It took a week for someone to find this? It fits perfect. I will gain change my stance. She is not out. A week Dakota? you sited another one earlier?

It only took a week (or five+ pages, take your pick) for SOME of you. There was never any doubt in my mind the ball was dead. Apparently some people need more than a definition (ASA Definitions - DEAD BALL), so I supplied a case play, whose only relevance to the thread is to help those who apparently do not clearly understand the meaning of "not in play" or who somehow imagine that a ball sitting on the ground beyond the outfield fence is still "in play."

Maybe it is like a vampire ball - the undead ball.

BTW, the NFHS rule is identical in effect.

SECTION 6 THE RUNNER IS OUT
A runner is out when:
ART. 5 . . . Anyone other than another runner physically assists the runner while the ball is in play.

[CecilOne]

After all, the point of rules like assisting and passing other runners is to prevent any extra advantage in advancing to other bases. If the base is already awarded, especially with a dead ball, what sense does it make to have a rule about advantage?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by snorman75

Making up rules, no. Making up calls, yes. Like I said if I feel it is out of hand, I am willing to take that hit to my integrity. I feel better me then the kids. So I guess all your points are made.


Like I asked before and getting back to original thread, anyone hear for ASA on a home run being a dead ball?

I'm curious what you would have done in this situation...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by SRW

I'm curious what you would have done in this situation...

Regardless of who you asked, a comment or two.
Getting to 64 with a 10 after 5 means they got 64 in 5 innings. Found that hard to believe momentarily, but remembered a game that was 21-0 after 2.
I have some concern that someone suggested "the role umpires can take". That should be what it always is, enforce rules, judge plays and let the teams worry about the rest (short of clearly UC).
Personally, I dislike calling deliberate outs either, like the LBR violations coaches invent, supposedly to be nice to the other team.

[Dakota]

Unless the rules body gives the umpire some tools to use (mercy rules, for example), there is little the umpire can OR SHOULD do.

As an aside, when this game was brought up last year, I thought the coach of the winning team was basically a sleaze. Why? This comment by the reporter

Weir said he was "shocked" by the final score after the March 21 game ended. He said he was concentrating more on making sure his players were playing the game right and had lost count of the score.

I don't believe that for a minute. He'd have to be an unbelievably zoned-in coach; and to be that focused on his players' play, if true (which, as I said, no way, Jose), means he was treating the opponent as merely a practice squad - which in a way is even worse.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Weir said he was "shocked" by the final score after the March 21 game ended. He said he was concentrating more on making sure his players were playing the game right and had lost count of the score.

I would like to thank all the little people to, what a load of BS.

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by SRW

I'm curious what you would have done in this situation...

I go into that game with a HUGE strike zone. Wont change it, but will start huge. To qualify that, I have always have had a tight up, down and out zone. So my huge zone is others just a little bigger then normal.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by snorman75

I go into that game with a HUGE strike zone. Wont change it, but will start huge. To qualify that, I have always have had a tight up, down and out zone. So my huge zone is others just a little bigger then normal.

Why do you feel a need to be such a big part of the game? The strike zone is the strike zone in a 10U game and in a NCAA game. It doesn't change or move just because of the talent level. Just like most of us don't make calls based on a game situation, but rather on what actually occurred.

I have noticed that you still haven't answered SRW who asked you the question that I believe we are all wondering; just why do you umpire anyway?!

[snorman75]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Why do you feel a need to be such a big part of the game? The strike zone is the strike zone in a 10U game and in a NCAA game. It doesn't change or move just because of the talent level. Just like most of us don't make calls based on a game situation, but rather on what actually occurred.

I have noticed that you still haven't answered SRW who asked you the question that I believe we are all wondering; just why do you umpire anyway?!

Strike zone does not change. I have never known any umpire that follows that.

As for the question well maybe I missed it, but I thought SRW was being more rhetorical. You are just being more confrontational. Which is interesting in its own light. No need to ask again, you see know I still did not answer the question. Maybe if you tell me I will tell you. But it is a good question, you can tell my mind is chewing on it. (and as you can see below I guess I did answer)

I mean is it for the enjoyment, yes. The Kids, for sure. The rules, well none of us would be here if we did not like to order of the rules. The power of doing it, do not lie to yourself there is power. The social good, doing it for the community, a job few others will or can do.

My order would have to be Kids, enjoyment, rules, social good(community), and then the ugly truth in the corner power.

Now I have been open with you, what is your order? I would guess rules will be above mine, hence our differences. I see you are a NCAA ump (Skahtboi), to be one I would think rules would need to be 1 or 2.

You know we all learn the first day officiating your ONLY friend at the game is your partner. We have a lot of people reading but few stepping out and posting.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by snorman75

You know we all learn the first day officiating your ONLY friend at the game is your partner. We have a lot of people reading but few stepping out and posting.

I stopped posting after I saw the correct answer posted. After that, there was no debate for me.