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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).