Is there a hole in 8-7-J

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

This is a stretch. If we take a rule that talks about something happening to a runner who has already scored you wouldn't apply that to a runner who was awarded home since he will be a runner who has already scored once he takes the award.
It's a much shorter path to the right answer to go Steve's way in my mind. The B-R is a special kind of runner and this rule just isn't precise in who it mentions because the situation where it would need to be is so obscure.

;-) Besides if you aren't going to call him out until he's a runner, you have to award the BR 1st, watch him walk down and then call him out when he gets there which is just asking for trouble ;-)

True... I posted this before reading Steve's explanation. Much better way of putting it.

They're still looking for something that isn't there.

[shagpal]

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Underneath 8-7-L:


I do not view this as a loophole. The rule does not say that it has to be a double play on a runner, only that it's an attempt to break up a double play. Since the BR is awarded 1B as per the quoted note above, they are now a runner, and are subject to the prescribed penalty.

For the record, I haven't been paying 100% attention to this thread. I think we're looking for a loophole that just isn't there.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by shagpal

yeah, the loophole is there as explicitly written, so OP raises a valid point, which is really just a language issue.

mike is saying BR is awarded 1B regardless. so it doesn't matter, since it makes BR the a runner when placed on 1B by default.

steve is saying, the BR is a runner also in a sense, so BR doesn't need to ever reach 1B to be the second out.

I was suggesting another possible way to look at it, that BR reaches 1B after dead ball call because she is allowed to finish running responsibilities first before enforcement of the INT double play breakup. by doing so, I'm suggesting this might close up the language because it makes BR a runner if she reaches 1B safely. I can't see this being an issue in real play, unless BR pulls something silly like goto the dugout first. I guess anything can happen.

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

Be careful with how far you go with using the "intent" of a rule. While I do agree with you that we should call the BR out in this sitch, there are times when some umpires stretch rules to match what they believe their intent is. ASA has gotten more and more strict with letter-of-the-law interpretations, as they can often be our only salvation.

When there's no room left for interpretation in the application of the rules, we, as umpires, stand on firmer ground.

[shagpal]

yes, I'm not thrilled about the use of "award", used by mike and used by NHFS as well (note the edit), but absent from asa rules as far as I could find.

(edit) ** actually, the "award" in the NHFS casebook 8.5.3 (p60) is awarding BR B1, but is not the trailing runner **

what I suggested was simply another way to look at the same thing we all do, declare the BR out on the turn of a INT double play broken-up. allowing the BR to finish her running responsibilities allows BR to reach 1B legally, NOT AWARDED, only then to be ruled out for a double play breakup as the trailing "runner". that way, we can get around the quandary of "double jeopardy". it's not the way I look at it, it's just something I offered to help close your hole. to be honest, I never knew there was a hole till you pointed it out.

what we (I) are explaining is not what we all do normally, but the flaw or lack of in the way the rule applied as written. but whatever rationale you prefer really doesn't matter, it's all handled the same way, at least that's mike's rationale anyways.

Originally Posted by rwest

If you enforce the penalty for interference and award the BR 1st base, you can't then call them out on a subsequent application of the penalty. That's similar to an Ex Post Facto law, in which you punish some one for a past activity that is now a crime but wasn't when it was performed. Once we enforce the penalty for interference and place BR on 1st, we are done. We can't go any further.

We can't use the awarded bases rule either. The rules stating that we must allow the runners to complete their base running responsibilities are in regard to missed base or base left early. We allow them to correct their mistake BEFORE awarding the bases. There is no mistake in this case to correct. We are awarding 1st because of the interference. There is nothing we are required to allow the runner to do before we award them 1st base.

I'm leaning toward Steve's method. I'd word it differently though. I'd just say the intent of the rule does not preclude getting the BR out. The black and white written word may, but not the intent.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Be careful with how far you go with using the "intent" of a rule. While I do agree with you that we should call the BR out in this sitch, there are times when some umpires stretch rules to match what they believe their intent is. ASA has gotten more and more strict with letter-of-the-law interpretations, as they can often be our only salvation.

When there's no room left for interpretation in the application of the rules, we, as umpires, stand on firmer ground.

Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.

We need to know the intent of the rules to accurately enforce them. The rule book should convey the intenct but sometimes the intent is not as clear as in other cases. This is not meant as harsh criticism on the writers of the rule book. We've all written something that didn't clearly convey our meaning. Often times what we write is clear to us because we know what we meant. However, the reader might misinterpret it.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by rwest

Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.

We need to know the intent of the rules to accurately enforce them. The rule book should convey the intenct but sometimes the intent is not as clear as in other cases. This is not meant as harsh criticism on the writers of the rule book. We've all written something that didn't clearly convey our meaning. Often times what we write is clear to us because we know what we meant. However, the reader might misinterpret it.

That's why we have rules supplements, case plays and clarifications on the ASA website.

Plus that annual meeting held in November.

My only caution was that there are some umpires who, completely on their own and without guidance, look too deep for the "intent of the rule." Sometimes, the intent is readily apparent. Other times, it's not.

[NCASAUmp]

And for the record, no, I wasn't implying that rwest was "searching for intent." My words were simply meant to be a general statement.

My respect to rwest.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

Being a letter-of-the-law umpire can also get you into trouble. Years ago ASA had a problem with the wording of the D3K rule. I can't remember the exact format, but one way to interpret the rule as it was written then would have prohibited the Batter from becoming a Batter Runner with 2 outs in a given scenario. Maybe it was with a runner on 1st. I can't remember the exact scenario. Regardless, the wording was misleading at best. We all know that with 2 outs the Batter becomes a Batter Runner on the D3K. That was the intent but that's not how it was worded.

It wasn't THAT long ago and it took two years to get it changed onced discovered (the NUS addressed it, but forgot to make the change). Never saw Bob S. so upset as when I asked him how it was that change wasn't made.

The wording was the B becomes a BR when the catcher fails to catch the third strike before the ball touches the ground and there are (1) fewer than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch, or (2) there are two outs and first base is occupied.

Obviously, this wording does not account for two outs and first base being empty. The change was made to the present wording. That change was initiated due to a post on one of these boards, maybe this one.

However, to make Dave's point, we all knew the proper application through case plays and rules clinics.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It wasn't THAT long ago and it took two years to get it changed onced discovered (the NUS addressed it, but forgot to make the change). Never saw Bob S. so upset as when I asked him how it was that change wasn't made.

The wording was the B becomes a BR when the catcher fails to catch the third strike before the ball touches the ground and there are (1) fewer than two outs and first base is not occupied at the time of the pitch, or (2) there are two outs and first base is occupied.

Obviously, this wording does not account for two outs and first base being empty. The change was made to the present wording. That change was initiated due to a post on one of these boards, maybe this one.

However, to make Dave's point, we all knew the proper application through case plays and rules clinics.

I brought it up to support my view that we need to know the intent behind the rule and that sometimes the rule book doesn't clearly define the intent. This is obviously a extreme example in that there was a blatant error. However, the same philosophy applies when the error is not so blatant.