3' running lane violation on BB?

[robbie]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Does NSA kill the ball when a runner leaves the base prior to the release of a pitch?

Yes - Dead ball, runner out.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by robbie

Yes - Dead ball, runner out.

Actually, the correct mechanic is: No pitch. Runner out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by robbie

Actually, the correct mechanic is: No pitch. Runner out.

Okay, now if you think about it, this and the LBR are based upon the same theory that the runner is not in contact with the base when required.

Is it the same rule? No, because the LBR is more tolerable and allows the runner to continue until s/he stops and then dictates immediate move to come in contact with the base. The leaving early is just the LBR with the runner already stopped and in place prior to the violation.

The cause is a little different, but I would think the effect should probably be the same.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, now if you think about it, this and the LBR are based upon the same theory that the runner is not in contact with the base when required.

Is it the same rule? No, because the LBR is more tolerable and allows the runner to continue until s/he stops and then dictates immediate move to come in contact with the base. The leaving early is just the LBR with the runner already stopped and in place prior to the violation.

The cause is a little different, but I would think the effect should probably be the same.

I completely agree. My above discussions are only based on what the book says and how I would rule in live play or as a UIC (Bases on the rules as written)

[BretMan]

Wow. I wouldn't put much faith in a sanctioning body who's Case Book is so out of whack that it "has no merit", to the point that the umpires simply disregard it.

(And I was registered with NSA a couple of seasons and worked some of their tournaments. Never had the occassion to invoke an out on the Look Back Rule and was never instructed to call this any differently than the rest of the softball world.)

If a "tie goes to the runner" .... then in this case I'd have to say that a tie goes to the interpretive guidelines issued by the sanctioning body for whom you are working games. Having not one, but two, separate Case Plays saying the ball is dead on a LBR violation is pretty strong evidence that it's not a "typo" or a "mistake"- it's what they really mean!

Just out of curiosity, what other glaring mistakes can be found in the NSA Case Book?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Wow. I wouldn't put much faith in a sanctioning body who's Case Book is so out of whack that it "has no merit", to the point that the umpires simply disregard it.

Not to be flippant, but we are discussing NSA - an alphabet soup org of little repute. Its glorified rec. and NSA (only) umpires I've worked with display the lack of real training that org provides. What would be the expectation exactly?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Not to be flippant, but we are discussing NSA - an alphabet soup org of little repute. Its glorified rec. and NSA (only) umpires I've worked with display the lack of real training that org provides. What would be the expectation exactly?

Careful, wade. Here in MN, the state association for ASA has been losing ground for several years against a cacophony and shifting landscape of organizations.

The reasons behind this have nothing to do with the rules or with umpire training, but the effect is if you want to umpire fastpitch, you need to umpire the sanctioning organization that has the teams where you are. I'm an ASA-trained umpire, but I find that I actually umpire fewer and fewer true ASA games every year. NSA isn't here (yet), but plenty of others from U-trip to NAFA (for girls, not men). AFA made a brief appearance, but appears to have flamed out locally.