No Advantage - Spirit of the Rule
 

I was watching a Varsity game tonight. Batter hits a line drive to the 2nd base side of F5. F5 dives snow cones the ball and it comes out as she hits the ground. BR is safe at first, runs through and returns. After returning with the pitcher having the ball in the circle the BR walks of the base towards her dugout. She then realizes the ball was not caught, she is not out and returns to first. The D coach wants her called out for LBR. The coach was pretty good he first asked the FU if he agreed that the runner was off the base after returning and with the pitcher having the ball in the circle. The FU said yes. Then he told the FU he had no choice but to call her out. The FU said she gained no advantage and he would not call her out. The D coach protested the game based on the blue's rule interpretation.

That would have been the 3rd out. The Offense scored 2 additional runs that inning and won by one run.

I was once told by a highly regraded UIC from San Diego that "you can never be faulted for calling a book rule. Also, Kevin at the NUS said many times "I enforce the rules without pride or prejudice" (or something like that, basically he does not put his own beliefs in to the rule).

What do you all think?

Forget his response; it wouldn't stand up. In my state, there are no protests of high school games, so, whatever.

But, if the umpires stated they failed to declare "no catch", then they could also allow that they put the runner in jeopardy by delaying a call, and could award the appropriate base. If a call was made, then blame the base coach, and declare the runner out.

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.

Yeah, okay, if that is what he says. :rolleyes:

There has been a presumption made that the umpires did not call "no catch". If they did not call an out, don't see where the runner has been placed in jeopardy.

Y'all know I'm not a fan of this rule, but it is a rule and the teams have agreed to play with it. The runner has a coach, so it was his/her job to instruct and control the runner, not the umpires.

The DCs claim is valid and if the umpire WAS LOOKING in that direction and saw it, making the call is appropriate.

None of which are reasons to determine a call.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

For Any Reason
 

The rule specifically states that if they stop at a base and then leave it for any reason while the LBR is in effect, then we have an out. It doesn't matter that it was a dumb move on the part of the runner or not. Call the out.

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?

There is a big difference between standing at a base, stomping on it, lifting foot etc and physically leaving the immediate vacinity of the base.

Apples and Oranges
 

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.

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?

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.:eek:

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.:D

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

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!

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

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.

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

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. :D 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.

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

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:D, I follow that same approach in life.

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.

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.

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...:cool:

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. :rolleyes: :)

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. :(

Appreciate the info...thanks.
KJ

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//

Now that's a directive. No gray area there.

As a follow up.
 

I sent this to a member of the NUS:

Had a recent discussion among some umpires about the LBR. When the issue about whether or not to make the call if there was no definitive advantage led us to the argument about calling a runner out for "clearing the spikes, falling off the base, shifting weight, switching feet" because "technically" the runner has violated the LBR by losig contact with the base.

The LBR states a runner violates the rule by "leaving" the base. However, I think we have some umpires who take RS#34.I to heart where it is stated that if a runner is standing off the base without immediately advancing, they are in violation. Obviously, I believe the runner is still bound to be in contact with the base until the pitcher releases the ball, a little common sense would tell an umpire that would be when the pitcher is preparing to pitch, not when she is standing there just catching her breath or taking a second for her catcher to set.

Well, in my mind shifting one's weight, clearing the spikes, switching feet 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, this may be an acceptable interpretation for not calling a runner out for simply losing contact with the base, but not moving from that space.

This is the response I received:

You are correct on all points. What you are describing, in the time frame you are describing it, is perfectly legal. Once on the bag, the changing of which foot is touching the bag when both feet leave the bag is legal.
We must go back to the 70's to derive the intent of the Rule. It's intent goes along with why it was named the "look back rule". Prior to it's implementation, the pitcher used to have to 'look the runner back to the bag', if the runner was off the bag. If the pitcher looked him back and then turned away, the runner would then stay off the bag and dance etc. It slowed the game considerably. Thus the current rule.

So any adjustments, well prior to the pitch, still are legal per the intent of the rule.

Rule 8, Section 7 2, does not help much when it says "Once the runner stops at a base for any reason, the runner will be declared out the leaving the base", this refers to a bona-fide attempt to leave as opposed to the changing of feet on the bag.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just making sure, a lot of people read this stuff.