No Advantage - Spirit of the Rule

[vcblue]

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?

[AtlUmpSteve]

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.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by vcblue

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).

Yeah, okay, if that is what he says.

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.

[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.

[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 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?

[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

[rwest]

Originally Posted by vcblue

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?

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.

[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?

[RKBUmp]

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.