No Advantage - Spirit of the Rule

[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.

[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.

[RKBUmp]

The definition of leave is to go away from. Standing there lifting your foot and cleaning your cleats is not going away from the base. You want to pick nits that small I bet we could call out every runner that ever gets on base.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

That's what I thought...until I looked it up!

The ASA & NFHS rules say the runner is out when she "fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released. At least that's what their specific rule covering a runner leaving too soon once the pitcher is in the process of delivering a pitch.

Buried within the Look Back Rule is something about a runner not "leaving her base" once she stops on it. I suppose you could extend that requirement right up through the time the pitcher is actually throwing the next pitch.

If that's the case, then the rules say BOTH "keep contact with" AND "leave" her base. Way to be consistent and eliminate confusion...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's what I thought...until I looked it up!

The ASA & NFHS rules say the runner is out when she "fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released. At least that's what their specific rule covering a runner leaving too soon once the pitcher is in the process of delivering a pitch.

Buried within the Look Back Rule is something about a runner not "leaving her base" once she stops on it. I suppose you could extend that requirement right up through the time the pitcher is actually throwing the next pitch.

If that's the case, then the rules say BOTH "keep contact with" AND "leave" her base. Way to be consistent and eliminate confusion...

Yes, but ""fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released" is not in the LBR which this topic is about. Talk about nitpicking semantics.

The other rule (8-6-21 in NFHS) implies a pitch is taking place, which makes enough difference to me.

FWIW, agree that the wording could be better, but there is a lot of that.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's what I thought...until I looked it up!

The ASA & NFHS rules say the runner is out when she "fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released. At least that's what their specific rule covering a runner leaving too soon once the pitcher is in the process of delivering a pitch.

Buried within the Look Back Rule is something about a runner not "leaving her base" once she stops on it. I suppose you could extend that requirement right up through the time the pitcher is actually throwing the next pitch.

If that's the case, then the rules say BOTH "keep contact with" AND "leave" her base. Way to be consistent and eliminate confusion...

I would not mingle the two rules. I'm not suggesting the rules requiring a runner to maintain contact with the base until the ball is pitched to be overlooked.

I would, however, only apply said rule when a pitch is immenent. If the pitcher is simply in the back of the circle catching her breath or away from the PP waiting for the catcher to put on her helmet or getting set, I would be more worried with the LBR than the contact with the base at the pitch.

You are assuming the rules are inconsistent, and I am working off the point that they are two different rules and meant to be just different.

//Self-serving commercial//

Of course, if we just kill the LBR, the issue here is dead and this thread is totally unnecessary. The game would move along at a consistent pace and the coaches would return to planning strategy based upon throwing, hitting and catching the ball, not whether or not they can trick the opponent into a cheap out or benefit from another's ever so slight error in judgment on how high they may lift their cleated sole to set their feet for the next play.

//Return to you regular programming//

[KJUmp]

Good info. Mike.
So to attempt to recap the different interpretations by rule set regarding a runner momentarily losing contact with the base prior to the pitcher preparing to pitch and making no effort to advance, we have the following interpretations/approved rulings based on what's been posted:

1) NUS- NO VIOLATION. (See IrishMike's 3/28 post)
2) NCAA-VIOLATION: Runner is out. (See RadioBlue's 3/36 post)
(3) ASA- NO VIOLATION (See ronald's 3/35 post)

I do not believe we've yet determined the NHFS approved ruling (I could be wrong on this).
Other rule sets?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Good info. Mike.
So to attempt to recap the different interpretations by rule set regarding a runner momentarily losing contact with the base prior to the pitcher preparing to pitch and making no effort to advance, we have the following interpretations/approved rulings based on what's been posted:

1) NUS- NO VIOLATION. (See IrishMike's 3/28 post)
2) NCAA-VIOLATION: Runner is out. (See RadioBlue's 3/36 post)
(3) ASA- NO VIOLATION (See ronald's 3/35 post)

I do not believe we've yet determined the NHFS approved ruling (I could be wrong on this).
Other rule sets?

Let's be clear. We are talking about shifting feet, clearing spikes, etc., not taking trips to the coach's box, clearing your path or just generally wondering away from the base, etc.

[tcannizzo]

Is "NO CATCH" an approved mechanic?
I thought that "CATCH" with a hammer would be the only thing to "call".
Along the lines of only calling "FOUL" and never calling "FAIR".


If it is an approved mechanic, is it a good one?
Because "NO CATCH" and "CATCH" are potentially confusing to all.

[bniu]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Is "NO CATCH" an approved mechanic?
I thought that "CATCH" with a hammer would be the only thing to "call".
Along the lines of only calling "FOUL" and never calling "FAIR".


If it is an approved mechanic, is it a good one?
Because "NO CATCH" and "CATCH" are potentially confusing to all.

on a really close catch/no catch call, wouldn't a catch require more of a loud sell out? I had a strange play happen to me yesterday, runner goes around first, obstructed by F3, i signal obstruction, I protect her to 2B, she gets to 2B easily, I waive off the obstruction, ball's in F5's hands and I'm about to head to my next position for the next play. For some odd reason, the coach has his runner run from 2B to 3B thinking I was protecting her to 3B and it was a dead ball. Runner runs smack into the 3B who just happened to have the ball in her glove, basically the runner tagged herself out. I called the runner out, her coach threw a fit. He asked me how his runner could be out if it was a dead ball and I asked him: "Did I call time?" I told him I only protected his runner to 2B and anything beyond that was on her. Furthermore, since I didn't call time, as there was no need to, the runner running into the 3B's tag was still a live ball and on him. He realized he screwed up badly and didn't argue with me the rest of the game.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Let's be clear. We are talking about shifting feet, clearing spikes, etc., not taking trips to the coach's box, clearing your path or just generally wondering away from the base, etc.

Yes...let's be crystal clear. That's all we're talking about...the type of movements by the base runner that you defined so well in your posts. I'm not looking to open any other cans of worms here...just trying to bring some closure to what I feel has been a very informative and helpful thread.