No Advantage - Spirit of the Rule

[vcblue]

To be honest I believe that no protest are allowed in CA as well. As to declaring "no catch" that is a mechanic in some cases, but it is not something that is required. Typically what the BR did may be something I would overlook, however if a coach pointed it out and I agree then I need to make the right call, and not come up with some reason not ot make the call that is not supported by the rules. Some might say this is a bad way to win, but it is the coaches job to protect the interest of his players. This was a league game and the team protesting the call was in first.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by vcblue

Some might say this is a bad way to win, but it is the coaches job to protect the interest of his players. This was a league game and the team protesting the call was in first.

None of which are reasons to determine a call.

[RadioBlue]

If one understands the rationale behind a rule, then one can use common sense and apply the rule for the situation for which is was intended. Clearly, this is not the situation for which this rule exists. Would an umpire be wrong for calling an out here? No. However, common sense dictates some latitude.

I had a similar situation in a regional HS game several years ago. R1 at 1st is moving on a hit-and-run (which really should be called a run-and-hit, right??). The batter foul tips the pitch and the runner reaches 2nd without a throw to the bag. Instead, the catcher returns the ball to the pitcher. At that time, R1 starts heading back to 1st when her teammates and coaches yell at her to stay at 2nd.

The defensive coach is wanting a LBR call and speaks to my partner who was working the bases.

We got together and I suggested that this was not a violation of the spirit of the rule and that's the call he decided to go with. I had some concern that a defensive player might have told the runner that it was foul ball which would have caused R1 to retreat.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

If one understands the rationale behind a rule, then one can use common sense and apply the rule for the situation for which is was intended. Clearly, this is not the situation for which this rule exists. Would an umpire be wrong for calling an out here? No. However, common sense dictates some latitude.

I had a similar situation in a regional HS game several years ago. R1 at 1st is moving on a hit-and-run (which really should be called a run-and-hit, right??). The batter foul tips the pitch and the runner reaches 2nd without a throw to the bag. Instead, the catcher returns the ball to the pitcher. At that time, R1 starts heading back to 1st when her teammates and coaches yell at her to stay at 2nd.

The defensive coach is wanting a LBR call and speaks to my partner who was working the bases.

We got together and I suggested that this was not a violation of the spirit of the rule and that's the call he decided to go with. I had some concern that a defensive player might have told the runner that it was foul ball which would have caused R1 to retreat.

I understand your reasoning and logic, and can respect the way that you handled it, but I don't agree. Unless the rule set that you're playing under or the sanctioning body of the league/conference has specific language as to the intent of a specific rule and direction as to how umpires are suppose to rule, how can you and your P determine (and be able to support) an interpretation you made up on the spot?
Now maybe you had all of that to support your decision (it was not indicated in your OP), but if you did not, what would have happened if after you made your ruling the DC advised you the he was now playing the game under protest?
For the sake of this argument/discussion, let's set aside any local "No Protest" rule stipulations. If your ruling was protested by the DC, what rule, rule interpretation, POE, or league/conference directive would have supported your ruling?
My point here is, that unless directed otherwise, we start down a slippery slope when we begin to apply our own sense of what is the "spirit or intent" of a rule.

[RadioBlue]

I understand and appreciate your point of view. You're correct in saying I have no black-and-white rulebook defense to ruling the way I did in this sitch. (Protests are not allowed in Illinois.)

However, we both know the rationale behind the rule to stop the cat-and-mouse game of trying to bounce on and off the bag in an attempt to draw a (hopefully) poor throw and be able to advance a base. This was not what R1 was attempting to do. The DC voiced her displeasure, as I would expect her to, but her challenge was short-lived.

On top of it all, I suspected that a middle infielder may have told R1 the ball was foul which caused her to abandon the base and head back to first. While we had no evidence of that, I was not willing to give the defense a cheap out if that was, indeed, what had occurred.

KJ, thanks for a thoughtful and polite response. It is appreciated.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

I understand and appreciate your point of view. You're correct in saying I have no black-and-white rulebook defense to ruling the way I did in this sitch. (Protests are not allowed in Illinois.)

However, we both know the rationale behind the rule to stop the cat-and-mouse game of trying to bounce on and off the bag in an attempt to draw a (hopefully) poor throw and be able to advance a base. This was not what R1 was attempting to do. The DC voiced her displeasure, as I would expect her to, but her challenge was short-lived.

On top of it all, I suspected that a middle infielder may have told R1 the ball was foul which caused her to abandon the base and head back to first. While we had no evidence of that, I was not willing to give the defense a cheap out if that was, indeed, what had occurred.

KJ, thanks for a thoughtful and polite response. It is appreciated.

Your welcome.
One comment, one question.
COMMENT- This was not a "cat & mouse" sitch.
QUESTION- If Illinois did not have a No Protest rule...would you have ruled differently?

[Dakota]

The LBR (and the similar leaving early rule) provide the runner ample opportunities to make dumb moves. We are not out there to protect runners from the consequences of dumb moves.

Suppose in both of these situations instead of F1 having the ball in the circle, the fielder had the ball and tagged the runner who wandered off the base? Would you make a different call? Why?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The LBR (and the similar leaving early rule) provide the runner ample opportunities to make dumb moves. We are not out there to protect runners from the consequences of dumb moves.

Suppose in both of these situations instead of F1 having the ball in the circle, the fielder had the ball and tagged the runner who wandered off the base? Would you make a different call? Why?

Ah ha!......Great question Dakota.
Now we see one of the many things that can happen when we chose to "start down the slippery slope" I mentioned in my reply to Radio's post.

[vcblue]

I was once told... When we put our arms up we could be signaling "Dead ball", "Time", or "You _____, why did you do that? Know I have to make a call that I am going to have to explain". lol