Florida head coach accuses umpires of cheating his team at WCWS
 

Wow! Watching UCLA vs. Florida and just saw in game interview with Florida head coach after having 6 IPs called against his team all for leaping. Coach’s quote: “I think they (his team) feel as cheated as I do right now.”

All of these IPs could clearly be seen on TV. There was not a whole lot of grey area, F1 clearly has two feet in the air. Frankly I think the NCAA should take some action for a head coach to come on national TV during a game and accuse the umpires of cheating his team.

Don’t want umpires to call IPs? Don’t IP. Don’t like the IP rule as written. Fine, work to change it. But don’t accuse the official who is doing his/her job as directed of cheating.

Jim Leyland and Armando Galarraga think the Florida coach is a crybaby. :rolleyes:

Let me start by saying that I umpire baseball and in no way do I understand the nuances to umping softball. But could this be one of those "rules" that does have some gray areas and is loosely called during the regular season. But when the post season comes, or in this case the College World Series, where EVERYONE is watching, they are told to call every Illegal Pitch regardless of advantage/disadvantage. And in this case Florida pitchers may have been doing this all year and not have been called this tight.

Well as I understand it, the supervisors in charge of NCAA softball umpiring have been saying all year that umpires are to call the IPs they see and not to rationalize with, "didn't gain an advantage," "been doing it all year," "no one is complaining," etc. You're not going to get to the WCWS by not following directions.

For my part I once had a HS playoff game in which the pitcher was leaping time and time again. We kept calling it and were complimented by our evaluator afterward.

That may very well be the case. If so, the officials who did not make the call in the past may deserve some criticism. But it does not IMO give the coach leave to go on TV and say he is being cheated by the umpires who are calling it as written and as directed.

Look at it in another light. Let’s say that for years you have taken income tax deductions that by the tax code are not allowed and finally this year you get caught. Do you think the IRS would buy the argument that since they didn’t catch you in prior years that they should not penalize you this year? Once they finish laughing at you they will audit all your prior returns! There seems to be this school of thought that since pitchers have gotten away with this in the past that now the umpires are somehow in the wrong for getting it right.

No, I agree the coach was a rat. Every replay I saw an IP. Thats one thing I don't like about some coaches is their attitude toward umpires directly affects the players. The coaches reaction I think had more to do with the girls giving up 16 than the 6 IP did. And of course UCLA hot bats.

This pitcher has been called a bundle of times this year, during the SEC playoffs and NCAA's. This is nothing new.

Larry, this is the equivalent to a pitcher being called for a balk on a regular basis and then continuing to do so through the world series and then whining about it.

make it even
 

what about the other pitcher from UCLA? did she not fly? fair for one is fair for the other. if both feet are off the ground it is an IP BY THE RULE. a 1/2 in or 3 inches u guys are rule crazy. MAKE THE CALL or use common sense.

Great, another putz who thinks they know how this works. Say goodbye, pop.

little league um
 

u are a true little league um or maybe a t-baller

Not in this instance.....
Brombacher, Florida's starting pitcher was called for 2 IP's in the game, that brought her total IP's for the season to 17. She led the SEC in IP's this season with 15, 12 of those were called on her in conference play.
So both her and her coach are no strangers to her having IP's called on her.

There were a total of 4 IP's called in the game against FL. 1 IP was called in the first inning and 3 IP's were called in the third, one on Brombacher and two on the pitcher who relived her, Gammel. All the UCLA runners who advanced a base on the IP's eventually scored, including a runner (Yundi) who scored from 3rd on the second IP called on Gammell,

pop they showed UCLA pitcher in slow motion a few times. There was no illegal pitch. Don't listen to the announcer. She is rule stupid.

Larry, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

If it is against the rules, it is against the rules. Apparently, someone believes it is an advantage or there would be no rule forbidding it.

And at this level, there really is no excuse for not knowing what you are going wrong.

Ya I get that its illegal and now seems that it has been called alot. I was just asking if it might have been ignored. irish you call every rule every time regardless?

At this level, yep. That is why the teams are paying me to be there. If there are rules which are to be taken lightly or not place an emphasis upon, the UIC will instruct me accordingly.

That has been the problem that has lead to the issue here. Over the years, umpires have ignored certain "unpopular" rules, which made some coaches happy and others not.

The lines you see (or saw at the beginning of the game) extending from the end of the PP are a direct result of umpires not calling the IP for being out of the 24" lane. It is a difficult rule enforce, but so many pitchers abused the lax enforcement, the coaches got ticked off and changed the rule book to add these lines as a "reminder" to the pitcher and maybe aid the umpire in enforcement.

I didn't notice the UCLA pitcher leaping

Irish, thank you for your explanation. Unfortunately the area I am in is small. Our association is combined both baseball/softball. About 4-5 times a year I am asked to work a softball game on nights we are short softball umpires. The funny thing is I only get the two large schools in the area. And they actually ask our commish to schedule me more of their games. I always have the dish and work with a super experienced partner who taught me the mechanics. And yes I know its a dis-service to the girls not to know the rules, but I try. I take the test to be certified, got a 92 on the NFHS test, Open book. The thing I struggle with is the application of the rules. I just don't work it enough. Ya know the little things. Does my rambling make sense?

The talking heads in the game went on at length, for many innings, that the umpires aren't supposed to call the IP if the pitcher does not gain an advantage. Even said that was the rule. Spent some time lamenting that the umpires were affecting the game.:eek:

Even though the 'heads' said the Fla pitchers were not gaining an advantage by leaping the slomos showed both pitchers landing with their left foot on the circle chalk! Do you think being 2-4 feet closer to the batter and a slightly higher pitch speed would be an advantage?

You must have been watching a different game than I was. ;)

Granted, I have been jumping back and forth between programs, but I heard them talk about the umpires being directed to actually see the IP and then call it, not guess on presumption. They also noted that the IPs were clearly IPs.

I must have missed the part to which you are referring.

Heard some of that in the AZ/Tenn game but didn't hear it in the Fla game. I was working while listening and trying to watch some. Most of what I heard about not calling th IP unless there was an advantage came in the first 2 innings but still came back to it later in the game. Late in the last inning they said that there were two three-run HRs but that the real story in the game was the IP. Huh?

Those are ex players and maybe a coach 'in the booth', not umpires


just sayin

Could someone post up a copy/paste of the rule....?

If it doesn't mention gaining an advantage.....I'm wondering why everyone keeps referencing it (including the announcers...as I did watch the game). If it does mention it....I'm wondering what advantage she is/was gaining.

Thanks.

So here's another thread where the advantage/disadvantage talk has popped up. :rolleyes:

It doesn't. And if you are actually giving credit to the TH for any type of rules knowledge............................:o

You may download the whole rulebook from here:

NCAA Publications - 2010-2011 Women's Softball Rules (2 Year Publication) Online NOW

As for the rule look at

10.4.4 No leaping is allowed. The pitcher may not become airborne on the
initial drive from the pitcher’s plate. The pivot foot must slide/drag on
the ground.

That won't tell you an iota of how umpires have been asked to enforce this rule, but I think the other posters are doing a pretty good job of that.

So, where did this "gaining an advantage" phrase come from? Same place "tie goes to the runner" originated?

Soccer? Basketball? ;)

It was stressed at the clinic this year to focus on calling the IP EVERY time we see one in the NCAA. It has been stressed since day one, because there are so many pitchers out there that have started getting away with sloppy mechanics.

So, where did this "gaining an advantage" phrase come from? Same place "tie goes to the runner" originated?

Same place "the hands are part of the bat" originated.

There are any number of baseball and softball phrases spouted so commonly that people assume they're in the rule books, the same way they assume that the terms "freedom of expression" and "separation of church and state" are in the U.S. Constitution.

"One plus one," "one from the infield, two from the outfield," "the fielder has to hold the ball for three seconds" are other common examples.

"Gaining an advantage," which exists nowhere in any rule book, undoubtedly derives from rec ball, in which umpires are often faced with the choice of letting some violations slide or in effect ruining their and everyone else's evening. If both 10-year-old pitchers are technically illegal as they lob pitches in the general direction of the plate, you simply can't persist in calling their motion (or the strike zone) strictly by the book. But you can inform them and their coaches of the proper motion and recommend that they practice it.

But once I was put in a bad situation in an official state girls' softball tournament in New Jersey. Most of the teams were well coached, but my first game involved two city teams that had somehow qualified and yet were miles below the better teams in ability and knowledge. Both pitchers were illegal six ways from Sunday. The coaches were cooperative, listened to my explanations, and tried to get the pitchers to make corrections, but there were just too many problems. Both coaches asked if we could just forget about the pitching rules for that first game and work on the mechanics between games.

I agreed to that, wanting to avoid chaos and knowing that both teams were going to be blown out of the tournament by noon. (Both teams were mercy-ruled by the third inning in the rest of their games, and the opposing coaches didn't mention the IPs.) College, especially at the levels on TV, is of course a different story. You have to enforce the rules, even if it means calling a dozen IPs in an inning.

Wow. A record. Only 6 posts to my ignore button.

Hey ... "Not gaining an advantage" people...

If she's not gaining an advantage by doing it, why doesn't she simply stop?

Because thats the way she pitches 'more gooder'. :D

That long, huh? :rolleyes:

BTW, NC#, the tie does go to the runner.:cool:

So... what you're saying is that it's a myth that the tie goes to the runner is a myth.

Which I happen to agree with. The book states

If the ball and the runner get there at the same time, a tie, then fielder did not contact the base before the runner, the runner is safe, the myth list not withstanding.

No such damn thing as a tie! If you thought it was a tie, you weren't looking close enough. :D

Michelle always says it is a DISadvantage to leap because you lose power.
FullCount-It is not ball speed but batter reaction time. The Florida Pitcher was subtracting at least a foot or two from the batters' time to see the ball when she leaped.

There is no such thing as two independent events occurring at the same precise moment... there is no tie.

PS - you can find exactly the reverse wording elsewhere in the book... even the book assumes there is no such thing as a tie.

Within the limits of human perception, yes there are. And since we're talking about a human's perception (although quite a few coaches might argue with that), ties will happen. And I would argue that you cannot prove that two independant events did NOT occur at the exact same time.

The closest I could find was in the rule supplement (1.L in the book I have open) dealing with the appeal when the runner passed first base "before the throw arrives" without touching. I can accept that the offense loses the benefit of winning the tie if they fail to touch the base. :)

You could always say the following:

"Coach, how many races have you ever seen that resulted in a 'tie?' None. Slow it down enough, watch it carefully, and someone will ALWAYS get there first. And that's exactly what I did. :D"

Keep in mind that the touch of the base and the gloving of the ball, however we might try to define them, are not instantaneous events, though we treat them as such in practice. They do not occur at infinitesimally small intervals of time.

The two events certainly can occur at intervals far too short for the human eye and mind to discern. Therefore, we can have an apparent tie.

only problem with that is you can't see 1/2 inch of the ground at game speeb - slo mo yes

i can not fathom why people think that the ball hitting the 1b mitt and the runner's foot touching the bag could not happen at the same exact time.

if one car leaves 10 minutes from point x and goes 20mph and the second car leaves point x and goes 30mph, then at some point in time they are going to be tied even if it is for 10 to the millionth second. seems reasonable.

Your example is not two unrelated events - it's two related events. Also, the touching of the bag may be an instantaeous clockable event - but catching a ball isn't. At what precise instant do you consider it caught? There is a finite amount of time between where the ball enters the glove and hits the glove and another finite amount of time before the ball's motion is stopped.

Why can you not fathom it. At BEST, one can say the two unrelated events happened so close together that the human eye cannot discern the difference. That doesn't mean one didn't happen before the other.

Point is, really - that no matter which POV you take, you're supported AND refuted by the rulebook. Tie does NOT go to the runner ... OR to the fielder.

Yeah I understand about reaction time- hence my note about being a few feet closer to the batter. I also heard one of the heads say several times that leaping is a disadvantage but I also know that there are several schools of pitching styles that firmly believe you gain speed by leaping. Regardless of your belief, the pitchers leap because they think it does gain them an advantage. If it didn't they wouldn't do it. I kept waiting yesterday to hear someone to make that very point. I'm still waiting.

Earlier tonight they were saying the pitcher was NOT getting an advantage by leaping because the foot is just an inch or so off the ground.

These THs are really all over the place on the issue, but then again, they really have no idea of what they are talking about.

Latest example. After a ball slipped from the pitcher's hand for a ball: "If she would have reached out and caught that ball out of the air, it would have been a balk." :rolleyes:

Followed in the bottom half of the inning by "[Georgia coach] has already been out once this inning and cannot come back out or she would have to remove her".

Balk, 2nd trip causing removal of F1? Did I happen to dial into a baseball game?

Mendoza at her finest.:eek:

The jabbering announcers are one of many reasons that I turn the sound off and listen to music while watching college softball. MLB, too. Bach is better for your blood pressure than McCarver.

In softball, the last straw for me was the announcers all agreeing that the umpire had erred in calling a force out at 2B when F6, with the ball securely in her bare hand, tagged the bag with her glove. They showed the replay several times, but they didn't seem to wonder why the "offended" team didn't question the call.

In MLB, it was the constant shilling for programs coming up on their wonderful schedule.

I can remember when a college coach very very seldom would say anything about an umpire and if they did it was almost always good or at least neutral. I remember where a coach jerked a girl off the field because of the player's reaction to a call and it was expected. We had a polite discussion about the call and after the game the player came up and apologized.

I remember when they switched from ASA to their own rules and the explanation as to why. One of the coaches I talked to about it stated that the NCAA wanted more control over the rules and felt that ASA did not give it to them.