The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   3' running lane violation on BB? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/55253-3-running-lane-violation-bb.html)

PSUchem Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:32pm

3' running lane violation on BB?
 
Hi everyone. Long time lurker here. Here's a situation that has been bothering me for years, and I've received varying answers from fellow umpires. Fortunately, this situation has never arisen during play but is one that I've thought of as a possible problem.

For example, with a runner on third with any number of outs and the batter issued a walk... It is common practice by some teams to throw the ball to the first baseman to ensure that the batter does not take second on the walk. Is it possible that if the batter is running down to first in fair territory, that she might be out for interference if the thrown ball contacts her? I know that the batter is entitled to "advance without liability to be put out;" however, the same goes for a runner obstructed by a fielder (cannot be put out between the bases she was obstructed), but an interference call would override the obstruction. Could the same be considered for the walk situation? That an interference call could override the "not liable to be put out?"
If this is not the case, I could envision a situation that the ball hits the batter and rolls away, enabling the runner to score from third. Confusing, since in a batted ball situation, the batter would be out.

How would you rule this situation, both ASA and Fed?

Straight from the NFHS website, under the video clips: "A base on balls does not negate the batter-runner's requirement to use the 3' lane."
Three-Foot Running Lane Violation - Dartfish.tv

umpirebob71 Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:40pm

Why in the world would a catcher throw to first base on ball four with a runner on third?

MrRabbit Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:48pm

Ok Just because...

2 outs, runner on third... Catcher throws to first and hits batter / runner out of running lane and hits her... What do you call ?

RKBUmp Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:35pm

NFHS case study Rule 8 Page 49. Ruling, If the umpire judges that the batter-runner interfered with a legitimate play by the catcher, she should be called out.

My question is how would this be considered a legitimate play? The batter-runner received a base on balls and is entitled to 1st base without liability to be put out. Im not sure I see a legitimate reason for the catcher to be throwing to 1st, especially with a runner on 3rd.

Based on the video, however, I see a real potential for a coach to abuse the rule to try and get a free out.

Dont have an ASA case study book and dont see anything regarding a walk and running lane violation in the rules supplements.

MrRabbit Mon Nov 02, 2009 02:06am

RKBUmp if you will please note the comment listed with Rule 8 on page 49...8.2.5 SITUATION B:

COMMENT: All bases must be run legally, even awarded bases.

So a award of a walk ( base on balls) is not a free pass to first base... There is still liability to be put out...

Same in ASA...

A walk is still a live ball situation...

SamG Mon Nov 02, 2009 07:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpirebob71 (Post 634119)
Why in the world would a catcher throw to first base on ball four with a runner on third?

To prevent the runner going to 2nd.

R1 on 3rd, B2 walks. Less than 2 outs. In the "early leagues" (12U and under?), I don't think it's unusual for the offense to send B2 to 2nd base (don't stop on 1st at all, just round and run. If successful, now you have R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd.

How do you defend? I've seen some teams throw the ball to 1st, make sure the BR stops, then throw to the pitcher. Other teams will have the pitcher try to make a play, others will just let it happen. If the D tries to make any kind of play on the BR, R1 will generally score (unless you've got some great playmakers on D).

RKBUmp Mon Nov 02, 2009 07:38am

I realize that it states the bases must be run legally, but, it also states there must be a legitimate play. There is no play on a walked batter at 1st base until they pass the base and turn toward 2nd, so F3 has no reason to be setup on the bag.

Merely being out of the lane and getting hit by the ball is not automatically interference. Was there a play? Was the throw on target and catchable? Did the catcher try to bean the BR on purpose?

Snocatzdad Mon Nov 02, 2009 08:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 634142)
I realize that it states the bases must be run legally, but, it also states there must be a legitimate play. There is no play on a walked batter at 1st base until they pass the base and turn toward 2nd, so F3 has no reason to be setup on the bag.

As stated before walk is a live ball situation, other runners on base or not the runner has the option to run to 2B after getting to 1B. I would not try to lock down that runner by throwing to 1B, but... it is a legitamate defensive strategy, just not a great one because the when F3 throws back to the pitcher the runner can take off for 2B because it's still a live ball until LBR kills the play.

Some coaches assume that if they can lock down runner on 1B and F3 has relatively short throw home then R1 on 3B will retreat, but reality is that F3's throw to 3B is long and R1 has no reason to not continue to lead off until ball is returned to the pitcher.

wadeintothem Mon Nov 02, 2009 08:25am

I'm not there to supplement crappy defense... so I'd have to really see int.

So .. probably nothing from me unless there really was an act of int which did not include simply trotting to 1b while a catcher makes a bad throw.

RadioBlue Mon Nov 02, 2009 09:51am

Seems to me there's plenty of opinion to go 'round on this topic ... and a lot of it seems to be in direct violation of the rules.

Whether or not a defense is, in our opinion, making a smart play, or not, has no bearing on this play whatsoever. The rules are the rules. If the BR is out of the running lane and she interferes with the throw, she is out.

Another instance where a defense may throw to first is late in the game with a one-run lead or a tie. You have to let the defense play defense. And the offense is obligated to play within the rules.

Remember, the running lane starts 30' from home, so the likelihood is the throw is made prior to the BR getting to the lane.

topper Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadioBlue (Post 634156)
Whether or not a defense is, in our opinion, making a smart play, or not, has no bearing on this play whatsoever. The rules are the rules. If the BR is out of the running lane and she interferes with the throw, she is out.

The definitions section defines what a play is. If the throw, as stated earlier, is to keep the runner from continuing to 2nd rather than recording an out, I'm not sure it meets the criteria of a play. There is no out at 1B while the BR is on his/her way there. I would have nothing.

AtlUmpSteve Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:15am

To the OP request for both NFHS and ASA rulings:

In ASA, I have nothing but a stupid play by F2; and if taught to keep the runner on 1st, an equally stupid coach. It does not meet the ASA definition of making a play, and should be treated as an errant throw, with results whatever happens.

In NFHS, we have a specific ruling (for whatever reason) from the Rules Editor (who has the authority to speak for the Rules Committee) that this is a play; the fact that we don't consider it a legitimate play, isn't material anymore, the ruling is there. Unless you judge this was not a quality throw that could have been caught by the defender at first, or simply a blatent attempt to hit the runner (USC), you must rule this INT in NFHS.

Not because I say so, or even believe so; because Mary Struckhoff says so.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Nov 02, 2009 01:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRabbit (Post 634133)
RKBUmp if you will please note the comment listed with Rule 8 on page 49...8.2.5 SITUATION B:

COMMENT: All bases must be run legally, even awarded bases.

So a award of a walk ( base on balls) is not a free pass to first base... There is still liability to be put out...

Same in ASA...

A walk is still a live ball situation...

As Steve notes, it is NOT the same in ASA.

Dakota Mon Nov 02, 2009 01:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 634174)
...Not because I say so, or even believe so; because Mary Struckhoff says so.

I don't understand your issue with this ruling, Steve. It is clearly backed up by Rule 4.3-G.1

The Official Rules

JefferMC Mon Nov 02, 2009 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dakota (Post 634198)
i don't understand your issue with this ruling, steve. It is clearly backed up by rule 4.3-g.1

the official rules

:d

Ref Ump Welsch Mon Nov 02, 2009 03:55pm

Whew...I'm glad I do SP.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Nov 02, 2009 04:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch (Post 634215)
Whew...I'm glad I do SP.

Why? Same rule applies.

Ref Ump Welsch Mon Nov 02, 2009 05:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 634224)
Why? Same rule applies.

That is if the league is using base stealing, and the BB was not the result of a dead ball.

IRISHMAFIA Mon Nov 02, 2009 06:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch (Post 634237)
That is if the league is using base stealing, and the BB was not the result of a dead ball.

If there is stealing a walk cannot be a dead ball unless the ball lands in front of or on the plate or hits the batter.

steveshane67 Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by umpirebob71 (Post 634119)
Why in the world would a catcher throw to first base on ball four with a runner on third?


Quote:

Originally Posted by SamG (Post 634140)
To prevent the runner going to 2nd.

R1 on 3rd, B2 walks. Less than 2 outs. In the "early leagues" (12U and under?), I don't think it's unusual for the offense to send B2 to 2nd base (don't stop on 1st at all, just round and run. If successful, now you have R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd.

How do you defend? I've seen some teams throw the ball to 1st, make sure the BR stops, then throw to the pitcher. Other teams will have the pitcher try to make a play, others will just let it happen. If the D tries to make any kind of play on the BR, R1 will generally score (unless you've got some great playmakers on D).

throwing to first base might be the dumbest "strategy" to prevent the runner from going to 2nd.... how about throwing the ball back to the pitcher??? that seems to work just fine in baseball.

ive watched maybe 2 womens fastpitch games in my life (both were NCAA D1), but im having a hard time imagining, even in youth leagues, how a runner can get to 2nd on a walk and not be put out. can the girls not throw the ball 85'????

BretMan Tue Nov 03, 2009 01:08am

Yeah, they can throw the ball 85 feet. The problem is- at least for younger kids or lower level ball- is that in the time it takes for the catcher to throw it 85 feet to second base, then put a tag on the runner, then make another 85 foot throw to home, the runner on third will have advanced all the way to the plate and maybe even have scored.

That's really the only time you'll see this play- when there is a runner on third and the offense wants to draw a throw to second to give the run a chance to score. You'll probably never see this play in an NCAA game. I rarely see it in travel ball for anything over 14 year olds. It's a little more frequent in high school ball where the player's skill might be a few notches below travel ball. I have never seen it in a men's fastpitch game.

It's a common enough tactic that coaches have come up with all sorts of defenses against it, like throwing the ball to F3 while inside the bag, throwing to F4 somewhere in the baseline or having F6 come in and cut off the throw in front of second. Depending on the score or game situation, many will just concede second base to prevent the runner on third from advancing, figuring that a runner on first will go ahead and steal second on the next pitch anyway. If a team has a good lead and one out already, they might concede the run and try for the out at second.

Lot's can go wrong when you try to defend this. If you want to get the runner at the plate, it's going to take two quick, accurate throws and some pretty good ball handling. The more you can force the defense to handle the ball, the more chance of something going wrong. Plus, if your fielders aren't all on the same page or haven't practiced for these situations, the chance of something going wrong is even greater.

But I do agree- in fastpitch, where the Look Back Rule comes into play, usually the best defense is to just fire the ball back to the pitcher. That forces the runner on third to commit one way or the other and that will usually get her back on third. It also prevents the runner rounding first from doing any real dancing around and forces her to get back on first or advance to second without delay.

SamG Tue Nov 03, 2009 07:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveshane67 (Post 634290)
ive watched maybe 2 womens fastpitch games in my life (both were NCAA D1), but im having a hard time imagining, even in youth leagues, how a runner can get to 2nd on a walk and not be put out. can the girls not throw the ball 85'????

Bretman described it well... you can't compare what you saw in D1 with a 12U team. Even the girls who might have the strength to make the throw between 2nd & home won't generally have the accuracy or the speed to catch R1 at the plate.

Keep in mind R1 should have a good lead off on the pitch and won't start back until the pitcher gets the ball. Even a slow runner should be able to make it home before F3/F6 even fields the throw much less get it back to home.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Nov 03, 2009 07:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 634291)
But I do agree- in fastpitch, where the Look Back Rule comes into play, usually the best defense is to just fire the ball back to the pitcher. That forces the runner on third to commit one way or the other and that will usually get her back on third. It also prevents the runner rounding first from doing any real dancing around and forces her to get back on first or advance to second without delay.

That is the best defense in all situations in all games. NO one defender is closer to all the locations of a possible play than the pitcher. NO one defender is going to have the shortest throw than the pitcher.

And the problem is many coaches all think they can come up with some sort of new play that no one has ever tried before and it just isn't there.

IMO, the only reason the INT on a BR that has been walked arose is because some catcher was dumb enough to hit the BR on the way to 1B where there was no play and the coach, being the all-american that s/he he is, had to find someone to blame for it and sold that bill of goods to some putz.

RKBUmp Tue Nov 03, 2009 08:40am

I have a coach royaly ticked at me from a game last night over the this type of play.

Runner on 3, batter is walked rounds 1st and takes off for 2nd. Ball was thrown right back to the pitcher and no attempt was made on the BR. Runner on 3 is just standing there doing nothing. I killed the play, called the runner out for the LB violation and put the BR back at 1st. Coach is just standing there with his jaw on the ground and all the parents are going nuts. The coach finally came over and asked me to explain the call. I gave him a brief explanation of the look back requirements and he walked away still looking bewildered.

Snocatzdad Tue Nov 03, 2009 09:34am

RKBUmp that is the call that needs to be made more often. I've seen the runner on third retreat, then lead off again all while ball is in the circle and everyone (including umpires) is so fascinated with girl streaking from 1b to 2b that they miss the violation on 3B. My girls have been guilty of this as well and not been called out, but the fact that they should have been called out usually results in a minor heart attack for the 3B coach who will specifically remind them that they LBR is in effect. That's the problem with confusion plays, sometimes you confuse yourself :)

BTW when I say ball in the circle I mean that no attempt to make a play is being made, so LBR is in effect.

wadeintothem Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 634310)

IMO, the only reason the INT on a BR that has been walked arose is because some catcher was dumb enough to hit the BR on the way to 1B where there was no play and the coach, being the all-american that s/he he is, had to find someone to blame for it and sold that bill of goods to some putz.


Yep, that about sums it up pretty nicely.

JefferMC Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:12am

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 634338)
Yep, that about sums it up pretty nicely.

The board was more lively when Wade and Irish argued about everything instead of agreeing with each other. :cool:

Dakota Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 634310)
...IMO, the only reason the INT on a BR that has been walked arose is because ...someone... sold that bill of goods to some putz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 634174)
...because Mary Struckhoff says so.

:eek:.... OK. :cool:

wadeintothem Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:32pm

Being unfamiliar with this Mary Struckhoff other than by name, upon a quick googlingseems to me she is more aptly suited and experienced for Basketball interps than softball interps.

Plus she doesnt look so bad.

To OOO this call is wrong at any level or in any org.

I think all of us would call INT on this play in a "know it when I see it" once in a career call.

Other than that, this is an idiotic call.

RKBUmp Tue Nov 03, 2009 01:29pm

Even with the NFHS case study, it says if in the umpires judgement there was a "legitimate play". I find it very hard to imagine what reason there would be to attempt a play at 1st base on a walked batter. If they want to throw down to F3 to hold the runner there that is one thing, but F3 has no reason to be set up on the bag or for a throw to be right down the line.

As Wade said, I guess Ill know it when I see it.

robbie Tue Nov 03, 2009 07:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 634316)
I have a coach royaly ticked at me from a game last night over the this type of play.

Runner on 3, batter is walked rounds 1st and takes off for 2nd. Ball was thrown right back to the pitcher and no attempt was made on the BR. Runner on 3 is just standing there doing nothing. I killed the play, called the runner out for the LB violation and put the BR back at 1st. Coach is just standing there with his jaw on the ground and all the parents are going nuts. The coach finally came over and asked me to explain the call. I gave him a brief explanation of the look back requirements and he walked away still looking bewildered.

"I killed the play, called the runner out for the LB violation and put the BR back at 1st."

Is this an ASA rule? or some other codes for that matter?

In NSA, the ball is not dead on LBR violation. Runner at third would be out and ball is still live and BR is liable to be put out, but may run to second or return to first subject to LBR for the BR.

SC Ump Tue Nov 03, 2009 08:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 634447)
In NSA, the ball is not dead on LBR violation.

NSA fast pitch rule 9-1, The ball is dead and not in play:

g. When a baserunner fails to keep in contact with their base until
the pitched ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

Dakota Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:33pm

That's leaving early, not LBR.

AtlUmpSteve Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:25pm

I know nothing about NSA. If it stays live, it is one of a kind.

But in ASA, NFHS, NCAA, and ISF, a LBR violation is a dead ball.

youngump Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:41am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 634479)
I know nothing about NSA. If it stays live, it is one of a kind.

But in ASA, NFHS, NCAA, and ISF, a LBR violation is a dead ball.

In YSISF, it's a dead ball and a dead runner.
________
Keishaass cam

Skahtboi Wed Nov 04, 2009 09:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngump (Post 634488)
In YSISF, it's a dead ball and a dead runner.

I thought it was a live grenade and a dead runner. I gotta go back to the rule books!

robbie Wed Nov 04, 2009 09:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 634479)
I know nothing about NSA. If it stays live, it is one of a kind.

But in ASA, NFHS, NCAA, and ISF, a LBR violation is a dead ball.

Well........... Guess thats a good thing for the NSA. At lease we can get multiple outs for LBR violation on the same play. Apparently, other codes cannot.

Dakota Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 634522)
Well........... Guess thats a good thing for the NSA. At lease we can get multiple outs for LBR violation on the same play. Apparently, other codes cannot.

I don't know NSA; have never called an NSA game. With that caveat, the idea that the ball is live after a look back violation in NSA got me interested, so I looked up the rule book and the case book.

The rule book does not state that the ball is dead in the look back rule (8-8-x); it doesn't state that it is live, either. Likewise, the look back rule is not mentioned in the "dead ball" rule (9-1), but neither is it mentioned in the "ball in play" rule (9-2).

HOWEVER, it is mentioned in the Case Book, in the two case plays under the 8.8x cases where an out is recorded, the ruling says the ball is dead. It also says only one out may be recorded on the LBR.
Quote:

8.8x In Fastpitch, Look Back Rule: R1 leaves 3B legally, R2 leaves 2B legally, B1 walks, F2 returns the ball directly to F1 who is in the circle, R1 & R2 stand still off base as F1 watches B1 round 1B.

Ruling: 8.8.x Dead Ball, R1 is out. Once B1 reaches 1B both R1 & R2 must return or advance. However, only one out may be recorded on this play.

8.8x In Fastpitch, Look Back Rule: B1 hits the ball to F4; B1 is safe at 1B; B1 overruns 1B and circles to the right. The ball is returned to F1 in the 16 foot circle. B1 breaks toward 2B.

Ruling: 8.8.x Dead Ball, B1 is out. When B1 turned right, B1 was committed to returning to 1B.

BlitzkriegBob Wed Nov 04, 2009 01:17pm

Tom beat me to the punch, and nailed it of course. Robbie, this is only my first year doing NSA, but I find nothing to support keeping the ball live in the rule book or case book. I'll email Terri (if I remember correctly you're also from Indiana) to ask her if I'm wrong, but I believe NSA treats the LBR the same as every other code.

robbie Wed Nov 04, 2009 08:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBob (Post 634551)
Tom beat me to the punch, and nailed it of course. Robbie, this is only my first year doing NSA, but I find nothing to support keeping the ball live in the rule book or case book. I'll email Terri (if I remember correctly you're also from Indiana) to ask her if I'm wrong, but I believe NSA treats the LBR the same as every other code.

Thanks for the replies. Here in lies one of the major problems with NSA rules. It is generally accepted (at least in Indiana) that the case book for NSA has no merit. There are definately several "cases" in the book that are devinbately wrong. This, of course, may or may not be one of them.

There are several "mistakes, typos, contradictions, etc" in the NSA book that I keep thinking I will write a major report to be presented to the annual meeting - But I never seem to be able to make time to do so.

I stopped refering to the case book for the reason stated above. In general I take the rules for face value, and in this case as stated - there is no rule to kill the play.

If I were in a game and called 2 outs on LBR and had a protest, I'm confident the rulling on the field would hold up. The UIC would have a rule book, and I would show that there is no provision to kill the play.

For what its worth (not much) - I worked a game last year with a Team Indiana staff member, and we had a situation where we did call the first LBR violation out and both rulled that the second runner "returned" quickly enough after her legal stop to avoid violation.

Having said all that - Not sure what Indiana would say the "intent" of the rule is. They certainly may say its dead.

PS:

Bob, Do I know you? Are you in Indiana? I know Terri well, and will inquire as well.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:06pm

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

robbie Thu Nov 05, 2009 01:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 634619)
Does NSA kill the ball when a runner leaves the base prior to the release of a pitch?

Yes - Dead ball, runner out.

robbie Thu Nov 05, 2009 01:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 634638)
Yes - Dead ball, runner out.

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

BlitzkriegBob Thu Nov 05, 2009 08:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 634613)
Bob, Do I know you? Are you in Indiana? I know Terri well, and will inquire as well.

I don't think we've met, but I could be wrong. Yes, I live in South Whitley, which is in the Fort Wayne area. This is my first year doing NSA, and I didn't sign up until July. I've worked a few tournaments in Warsaw, but nowhere else. I don't remember having a partner named Robbie, but we very well could have been sitting next to each other in the umpires' room at some point if you also have worked in Warsaw. I'm hoping to work some more tournaments at the Dome in Fort Wayne during the winter.

I did email Terri, but have not had a response yet. It typically takes her a couple of days to respond, but once she does I'll share what she says, unless you hear from her first. FWIW, I have not had a LBR violation in any NSA games I've done so far, so it would be good to know I'm not supposed to kill the ball if that's the case, since I know that's what I would have done.

IRISHMAFIA Thu Nov 05, 2009 08:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbie (Post 634639)
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 Thu Nov 05, 2009 09:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 634660)
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 Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:37am

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" :rolleyes: .... 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 Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 634681)
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 Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:48am

Quote:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem (Post 634683)
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.

wadeintothem Thu Nov 05, 2009 02:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 634694)
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.

Unfortunately, we have a very similar fight going on here; with a fairly new and obscure alphabet org .. these things stemming from fees and money and TDs and nothing to do with the umpiring or organizations. Plus the premier thing is obviously going on in CA. That org is using the ASA umpires and that drama is heating up and should be a good inferno by next year I would think.

Actually why in my post I specified NSA only umps.. of which it is obvious NSA provides little to no training (or at least quality training) for their officials, a fact that glares when they walk on the field.

I find it to be a real issue of consideration that these orgs do little to train or advance their umps and instead leach off of ASA umpire...

but there are worthwhile arguments to the contrary .. not the least of which are the "ind contractor" issue, lack of ASA games as ASA is seeming to decline in many areas (with some help/support of ASA trained umpires IMO), and the fact many pay for their trianing.

Loyalty is also dying or non existent for most.. I admit inner turmoil as to how to proceed in the current climate. IMO, ASA does bear some responsibility. I am hopeful it is not ignored or denied, but recognized and accepted and actions taken to help us again grow. We know ASA is the finest.. but if its not happening, what good is that other than a platitude?

The alphabet soup org taking hold in our area is so small and completely irrelevent as to be laughable, even NSA has more credibility.. but teams dont care, they just want to play and they are under pricing ASA orgs then simply using ASA umpires.

Its quite disturbing IMO.

BretMan Thu Nov 05, 2009 04:51pm

My experience as an NSA umpire was...unusual.

All I had to do was pay the $35 annual dues, buy a shirt and hat and- bada bing, bada boom!- I was in. No meetings, zero training and I'm working my first NSA tournament.

Several of the "senior" partners I worked with seemed to make up their own mechanics that didn't follow any sort of standard. I mean, they were nice guys and all, but you wouldn't know who might be covering what from one game to the next.

I work my first couple of pool games and the TD and UIC stop by the field to watch "the new guy". They must have liked what they saw, because I got invited back the next day and even got put on the 16U championship game. Didn't have any problems with that and got positive feedback from the assigner.

I'm figuring that I might stick with NSA awhile, at least for those rare weekends where ASA doesn't have anything going on around here. But even after the positive feedback, the guy that scheduled their umpires called me back exactly one time the entire summer!

I worked a couple of games for them the next year, with the same good results and feedback, and that was all that was offered to me- a couple of games. It hardly seemed worth the effort to maintain my registration and I decided to focus on ASA after that.

Starting out my first year with ASA, I was asked to work tournaments every weekend from mid-May through mid-August, with the exception of one tourney that had a really small number of teams/games and one weekend that ASA didn't have anything scheduled in my area (I went and worked independent men's fastpitch tournaments for a buddy of mine those weekends).

NSA did seem to gaining a foothold in girl's fastpitch in Ohio, until a couple of fiascos at big tournaments involving rainy weekends, team refunds, poor field maintenance and national qualifying spots being determined by coin flips. These resulted in a lot of ticked off customers and a bit of an exodus away from NSA the following year.

Locally, they have a huge presense in slow pitch. Back a few years ago they came in and underbid ASA by a few bucks to sanction and run all of he city sponsored slow pitch leagues, covering, about 2500 total games each summer and fall.

BlitzkriegBob Tue Nov 24, 2009 01:20pm

Giving an update on what NSA rules are in regards to LBR. At first I didn't realize I had received an answer from Terri, who is the Indiana Youth FP State UIC. It was kinda buried in the emails we were exchanging about tournaments. I asked my partners last weekend about this situation, and they were all 100% sure that a LBR violation creates an IDB. One of them stated it pretty much how I felt about it, saying "Softball is softball". But I did finally unearth Terri's response, and she did state that the ball is dead in this situation. So it appears the Case Book is correct.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1