No Advantage - Spirit of the Rule

[rwest]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

So are we going to ring them up everytime they shift their weight off the foot in contact with the base and there is air between the foot and base? Technically that's off the base. Or if she has foot beside base in dirt touching insole and she twists foot and it disengages from the base without ever starting to move forward? All of you wanting to get this out are going to call all of these infractions too?

The rule book is clear. If they leave the base for any reason they are out. Momentarily breaking contact is not leaving the base. That goes beyond the intent of the rule. We can't protect the girls from making mistakes. What are going to do when R1 advances to 2nd on a hit down the line, stops at 2nd and then steps off and returns to first when the ball is in the pitchers possession in the circle? Call the out? But blue she thought the ball was foul! Sorry Coach, we didn't call it foul.

It's a slippery slope when we start making allowances for a girls mistake.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

So are we going to ring them up everytime they shift their weight off the foot in contact with the base and there is air between the foot and base? Technically that's off the base. Or if she has foot beside base in dirt touching insole and she twists foot and it disengages from the base without ever starting to move forward? All of you wanting to get this out are going to call all of these infractions too?

Nobody said anything about "technically" being off the base. Walking away from the base is not the same as shifting the position of the foot on the base.

So, you would ignore the violation we're discussing?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Anybody here NOT know how I feel about this rule? Obviously, I don't believe it should be a rule.

However, since it is and the rule book is clear, the runner is out if they leave the base.

I love it when people cite "spirit of the rule". If the powers-that-be wanted the umpire to judge when and when not to enforce a rule, it would be written as such.

Of course, as already has been brought up, there is the absurdity of the lifting of the foot a few inches or shifting weight. Give me a break.

Then again, every time someone starts this is just one more reason to get rid of the rule, so keep it up. If enough people know the spirit of the rule better than those who put it in place, maybe they will just get rid of it like the rule involving the handle of a bat.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

So are we going to ring them up everytime they shift their weight off the foot in contact with the base and there is air between the foot and base? Technically that's off the base. Or if she has foot beside base in dirt touching insole and she twists foot and it disengages from the base without ever starting to move forward? All of you wanting to get this out are going to call all of these infractions too?

Dave:
In a word...no. I don't think that anyone who responded to the OP advocating the point that you have to call the runner out as LBR/LBE is looking to be an OOO.
You're post is kind of mixing apples and oranges. The sitch in the OP is quite different than the type of technical LBR/LBE sitches you referenced. The point that I will go back to is this: what do the governing bodies of the rule code that we're playing under, or the sanctioning league/conference, or the assigning board, or tournament directors, want us to do when we observe the type of technical LBR/LBE violation you described in your post. When we pass (as most of us would) on calling the runner out what is our supporting rule, interpretation, directive, etc. should we have a DC demanding an out call?

In my neck of the woods, I can't speak for NFHS as I'm not on the local board. However, at the annual clinic for my college assigning board, we were directed to NOT make LBR/LBE out calls in the conferences we work when we observe these type of technical "off the base" sitches. That's our supporting directive should a DC get into it with us for not calling the out.
Now, runners being dumb (as in the OP), or the sitches described by Radio and Dakota...OUT....no question, no umpire discretion.

I'm curious as to ASA's feelings on this. While I'm a registered ASA umpire, unfortunately, in my local area we have no ASA FP, and on a state level, (for whatever reason), our ASA "senior management" is not very proactive in the area of umpire education/training. So if any of you "in the know" ASA FP guys/gals out there can give me the approved ASA interp on this it would be appreciated.
Irish?? AtlUmpSteve??
Thanks

[AtlUmpSteve]

You have few options.

1) Call the out, as it technically violates.
2) Say you didn't see it, can't call what you didn't see. Hear some grief, but if you can support that possibility (more specifically to a momentary step off to tie a shoe or pull up a sock or knee pad), that might be your best answer.
3) Say you called time (needed to sweep a base or something equally foolish), so it didn't happen during live play.
4) Say you or your partner put the runner in jeopardy by changing or delaying a call.

It (#4) is the only legal way during live play to cover it up. You cannot use "spirit of the rule" which contradicts the rule. Only you and your partner (and a UIC) can know you really didn't put her in jeopardy; but if you are determined to protect her, and can't claim you didn't see it or called time, this may get you some grief, but it is generally protest proof (Mike may see through it, other UIC's may not like that explanation, but it passes muster if you think you could/should have ruled more clearly and timely).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

You have few options.

1) Call the out, as it technically violates.
2) Say you didn't see it, can't call what you didn't see. Hear some grief, but if you can support that possibility (more specifically to a momentary step off to tie a shoe or pull up a sock or knee pad), that might be your best answer.
3) Say you called time (needed to sweep a base or something equally foolish), so it didn't happen during live play.
4) Say you or your partner put the runner in jeopardy by changing or delaying a call.

It (#4) is the only legal way during live play to cover it up. You cannot use "spirit of the rule" which contradicts the rule. Only you and your partner (and a UIC) can know you really didn't put her in jeopardy; but if you are determined to protect her, and can't claim you didn't see it or called time, this may get you some grief, but it is generally protest proof (Mike may see through it, other UIC's may not like that explanation, but it passes muster if you think you could/should have ruled more clearly and timely).

Yes, that is true and I don't think anyone has suggested getting too technical. And pulling the stunts Steve notes above may get you past some coaches, but not the smart ones and they will only get you off the field. As noted, an UIC may not see this as a positive and it could reflect in the rating, but that is not be the primary problem.

Rant on!

I think the biggest problem is umpires taking it upon themselves to alter the rules to satisfy their beliefs or just to make their life easier. The teams pay to have their games officiated by a certain set of rules. As umpires, we receive specific direction how to apply rules and handle interpretations.

Umpires often receive special instruction at some tournaments or games that often employs common sense and, yes, at times they are told to prioritize some rules and be dicreet calling others. And that is okay because that adjustment is being made by an authority who is assigned to do so, but even then I have never been told to ignore a rule.

GAGA umpires are often the type that hedge and this will usually win over a coach until the umpire's decision to ignore certain rules affects his/her team in a negative manner.

When the umpire who does their job as directed works these teams, everything becomes suspect because that ISN'T how they do it at home. Then you end up like SteveMs friend from Ohio who believes everyone at this tournament were the biggest idiots and sole purpose was to screw his team because we didn't do it they way it was done "back home".

I guess the bottom line is that it just comes down to one word, integrity. You don't like a rule, work to get it changed, don't just ignore it. If you don't like it that much, do the game and the rest of us a favor, find another game 'cause it just isn't worth the headaches for any of us.

Rant off!

[KJUmp]

Steve/Mike:
Thanks for your responses to my question regarding your view on the topic looking at it through the ASA rule book.
You both make excellent points and I'm not in disagreement with any of the points either of you made....despite your different (but well founded) opinions.
It's been an interesting, and I hope helpful, thread.

(Mike...being new to the forum, help me out here, GAGA umpires?)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Steve/Mike:
Thanks for your responses to my question regarding your view on the topic looking at it through the ASA rule book.
You both make excellent points and I'm not in disagreement with any of the points either of you made....despite your different (but well founded) opinions.
It's been an interesting, and I hope helpful, thread.

(Mike...being new to the forum, help me out here, GAGA umpires?)

Go Along to Get Along

[AtlUmpSteve]

Just to be clear, I gave you the only possible options; I didn't recommend some of the "stunts" (as Mike put it), I simply gave the options that could fly without losing a protest.

In championship play, I am making the call per the book. For lesser ball, I mostly agree with Mike; make the call. I'm only using "jeopardy" if we really did look confused ourselves, and looked at each other for a call. If we (the umpire crew) weren't sure, then I won't hold the coaches or players responsible to know what we didn't.

I work for a conference where the coordinator directs us not to call the 10 second rule on batters or pitchers, and only illegal pitches that a blind man can see. I can assure you that I won't tell a coach I didn't call it because R..... said so; if that is what is meant by having a supporting directive. It is a challenge to comply and do the job when working that conference; but I still won't throw the boss under the bus.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Dave:
In a word...no. I don't think that anyone who responded to the OP advocating the point that you have to call the runner out as LBR/LBE is looking to be an OOO.
You're post is kind of mixing apples and oranges. The sitch in the OP is quite different than the type of technical LBR/LBE sitches you referenced. The point that I will go back to is this: what do the governing bodies of the rule code that we're playing under, or the sanctioning league/conference, or the assigning board, or tournament directors, want us to do when we observe the type of technical LBR/LBE violation you described in your post. When we pass (as most of us would) on calling the runner out what is our supporting rule, interpretation, directive, etc. should we have a DC demanding an out call?

In my neck of the woods, I can't speak for NFHS as I'm not on the local board. However, at the annual clinic for my college assigning board, we were directed to NOT make LBR/LBE out calls in the conferences we work when we observe these type of technical "off the base" sitches. That's our supporting directive should a DC get into it with us for not calling the out.
Now, runners being dumb (as in the OP), or the sitches described by Radio and Dakota...OUT....no question, no umpire discretion.

I'm curious as to ASA's feelings on this. While I'm a registered ASA umpire, unfortunately, in my local area we have no ASA FP, and on a state level, (for whatever reason), our ASA "senior management" is not very proactive in the area of umpire education/training. So if any of you "in the know" ASA FP guys/gals out there can give me the approved ASA interp on this it would be appreciated.
Irish?? AtlUmpSteve??
Thanks

KJ.

This was specifically addressed at the Advanced FP camp last year. The shifting of the weight and loss of contact is not a violation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by ronald

KJ.

This was specifically addressed at the Advanced FP camp last year. The shifting of the weight and loss of contact is not a violation.

Not to anybody with any sense it's not, but it is against the strict letter of the rule.
________
Volcano video review

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by youngump

Not to anybody with any sense it's not, but it is against the strict letter of the rule.

So that part of the slippery slope is okay?

As officials, we apply judgement to the black-and-white of the rules book. Officiating happens in the grey. (At least the difficult part ... the part we're really paid to do ... does.)

Perhaps I used my grey crayon a bit outside the lines in my sitch. This discussion has certainly caused me to rethink whether or not I handled this the best way.

The NFHS rulebook says a runner cannot leave a base "for any reason" when the ball is in the pitcher's possession in the circle. Whether erroneously believing a ball was foul or losing contact with a base while shifting feet, runners in both situations are leaving the base. A runner tagged by a fielder with the ball in either sitch are out.

My point is: the same arguments can be made for the foot-shifting scenario that were made against the brain-farting baserunner. Directives from higherups notwithstanding, why would it be okay to call an out in one situation, but not the other? Are they not, essentially, the same situation in that the runner is leaving the base "for any reason"?

Discuss.

[RadioBlue]

I just got this from one of my college assignors. It is an approved NCAA ruling from Dee Abrahamson:

Rule 12, Section 21.6.3 Runner on first base following a single. The pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle when:
1) with only a single foot on the base, the runner lifts it off the base to clean off the bottom of her cleats, thus breaking contact with the base. She does not attempt to advance. Because there is no advantage gained, should the umpire ignore the violation?
No, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.

2) the runner walks off the base to groom the dirt area she churned up as she ran out her single. She does not attempt to advance, so should the umpire ignore the violation?
As in the earlier situation, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.

In both these cases, the umpire should enforce the rule without assigning intent of the runner or whether or not a significant advantage is gained. It is much cleaner to call all aspects of the game based on the objective actions that are displayed rather than to try to assign value or intent and then decide if the action warrants a penalty. For some, that might seem "nitpicky" but it does provide predictable, consistent application of the rules without having to judge intent OR whether or not a "real" advantage is gained. That said, it is good preventative umpiring to anticipate these possible actions. For example, if the area around the base is churned up at the conclusion of play, the umpire can signal "time" in anticipation of the player’s desire to smooth the ground. If the player simply walks off the base without requesting time, you have no violation as time is already called. Bottom line, however, is that players are responsible for adhering to the playing rules and the NCAA Softball Rules Committee does not favor the slippery slope of encouraging umpires to ignore rule violations when they think there is no intent to violate the rules or conversely penalize players only when it is apparent that they intentionally violated the rules.

Additional remark-- the Umpire’s Manual contradicts this intent of the committee. Specifically, on page 112 of the Umpires Manual, under preventative umpiring, the text says do NOT penalize a player who, while dusting herself off, loses contact with the base. Since the runner has no thought of attempting to advance to third, simply call time because no real or perceived advantage is given to either team.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

When the umpire who does their job as directed works these teams, everything becomes suspect because that ISN'T how they do it at home. Then you end up like SteveMs friend from Ohio who believes everyone at this tournament were the biggest idiots and sole purpose was to screw his team because we didn't do it they way it was done "back home".

I guess the bottom line is that it just comes down to one word, integrity. You don't like a rule, work to get it changed, don't just ignore it. If you don't like it that much, do the game and the rest of us a favor, find another game 'cause it just isn't worth the headaches for any of us.

Rant off!

Mike,
You forgot to mention that he had a 'B' team (on their good days) competing in an 'A' tournament.
Aside from that, I agree completely and emphatically with your statement "You don't like a rule, work to get it changed, don't just ignore it. If you don't like it that much, do the game and the rest of us a favor, find another game 'cause it just isn't worth the headaches for any of us." With the exception of speed limits, I follow that same approach in life.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Though it has somewhat subsided, I'd like to point out something which addresses the absurdity of the clearing spike/shifting weight arguments.

ASA, NFHS & NCAA states that the runner cannot "leave" the base.

Well, in my mind (and hopefully other's), shifting one's weight, clearing the spikes and, for that matter, even simply slipping off the edge of the base, is not leaving the base.

Technicality? Semantics? Call it what you may, I believe it is an acceptable interpretation for not calling a runner out for simply losing contact with the base.