I know it's been covered before, but I can't find the old thread

[SamG]

OK, more details...

As far as player actions, they are as described above. In the interest of full disclosure:
1) My DD was the batter
2) I had helped coach her team for the last 4 weeks, but was "outside the fence" as a spectator b/c I had to look after my other two kids.

Regarding what happened after BR returned to 1st...

D coach stepped away from dugout toward field, I do not remember if he called time or not, but willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He said something to the effect of "She's not allowed to stop and return to 1st".

From outside the fence, I said "She's entitled to one stop as long as she immediately makes a decision." (yes, I should have kept my mouth shut, mea culpa)
D coach looks at me and says "Let us handle it." He might have said something here to the officials, but I don't remember/didn't hear.

PU goes out and meets w/BU out of earshot of anyone. They break up and PU calls BR out.
O coach calls "time" and tries to say pitcher raised her hand as if to make a throw.
PU & BU go back into position, "play ball".
O coach did NOT protest any more.

Obviously I am biased toward my DD & her team. But, I tried to present the case here in an unbiased way. I tried to give as many facts as I can. I will admit my knowledge of the rules isn't the best and didn't know if there are any "extenuating" circumstances that should change the outcome.

From what I can tell here, the umpires made the wrong call. Can O coach "protest" and ask for a ruling from the UIC? Obviously, this shouldn't be a judgement call, right?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SamG

O coach calls "time" and tries to say pitcher raised her hand as if to make a throw.

Did the coach call time and just start talking, or did he request time, have it granted, and walk out to talk with PU? You're going to get further if you do the 2nd. At this point, OC needs to determine what the PU saw and what they are ruling on.

Can O coach "protest" and ask for a ruling from the UIC? Obviously, this shouldn't be a judgement call, right?

Some of this IS judgement. Which is why OC needs to know what the umpire "saw". If, in his judgement, the movement (if they saw it) by the pitcher was not a play ... then it wasn't. If, in his judgement, BR is out for stopping too long after rounding, then she stopped too long. Neither of these are protestable.

If, however, they tell your coach something contrary to the rules (like - "she can't round first on a walk without going all the way to 2nd"), THEN the coach should definitely protest, and USE THAT WORD.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Did the coach call time and just start talking, or did he request time, have it granted, and walk out to talk with PU?

Honestly, don't know. I think he just started walking out.

You're going to get further if you do the 2nd. At this point, OC needs to determine what the PU saw and what they are ruling on. Some of this IS judgement. Which is why OC needs to know what the umpire "saw". If, in his judgement, the movement (if they saw it) by the pitcher was not a play ... then it wasn't. If, in his judgement, BR is out for stopping too long after rounding, then she stopped too long. Neither of these are protestable.

That makes sense. Is there a proper way to ask what the umpire saw? "Hey Blue, why is she out?" seems simple and too the point, but also sounds argumentative.

If, however, they tell your coach something contrary to the rules (like - "she can't round first on a walk without going all the way to 2nd"), THEN the coach should definitely protest, and USE THAT WORD.

Is there any harm in protesting? Not to extremes, but let's say just once a tournament (like on this play). If a coach protests (I assume that's when UIC is called in) and the umpire's call is upheld, is there any downside? Do umpires "hold it against" a coach for getting the UIC's opinion?

BTW, thanks.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SamG

Honestly, don't know. I think he just started walking out.

That totally explains the PU and BU taking their positions and saying play ball.

That makes sense. Is there a proper way to ask what the umpire saw? "Hey Blue, why is she out?" seems simple and too the point, but also sounds argumentative.

Not in this case. There is obviously confusion, as she was not ruled out initially. "Why is she out" is a completely valid question.

Is there any harm in protesting? Not to extremes, but let's say just once a tournament (like on this play). If a coach protests (I assume that's when UIC is called in) and the umpire's call is upheld, is there any downside? Do umpires "hold it against" a coach for getting the UIC's opinion?

BTW, thanks.

No, not at all. Most leagues have a protest fee that you get back if you're right. Tourney's? Heck no. You should absolutely protest when a rule is screwed up by an umpire. I know I don't hold it against anyone. Now ... protesting often when you're WRONG can have some repercussions, so you better know you're right.

[SamG]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, not at all. Most leagues have a protest fee that you get back if you're right. Tourney's? Heck no. You should absolutely protest when a rule is screwed up by an umpire. I know I don't hold it against anyone. Now ... protesting often when you're WRONG can have some repercussions, so you better know you're right.

I understand the protest fees, but in this case, if I were coaching, I THINK I know what the rule is, but wasn't sure at the time. Unfortunately this is one of those situations where the BR would be the tieing run in the top of the last inning and there was only 1 out. TOTALLY changed the scope of the game.

[txtrooper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Oh no. Find us the rule that says "commits to second" after "three steps". Runner is allowed to continue running in one direction, however far she wants ... stop once, briefly ... decide which way to go, and THEN head to a base (to which she is NOW committed). BR can jog all the way to 1 step short of 2nd base, stop, and return legally.

I never said three steps was a rule or commitment to go second base, review the above post for the origin of the three steps. I said, if in the umpire’s judgment, three steps could be a commitment to second. Just as a runner who rounds first and is tagged, the umpire has to make a call based on their judgment, taking into consideration if an attempt toward second was made.

On the LBR, I am looking at the whole rule under 8.7.T.3.a.b.c.d.e. Neither d nor e requires a stop for the rule to come into effect.

Under a. the rule allows the runner to stop once and immediately make a determination of whether they are going to advance or return to the base.

Where I question the rule is c, d and e all use the term committed to a base. Under a, the author did not use the term committed to second base, although it is implied that a commitment can be made prior to a stop, as in d and e. with all that being said, I believe that it could be cleaned up and explained better. It is apparent that the rule is not called the same at every ball park and I believe that most of us want to make the right calls, although because of the rule there is some confusion among umpires.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

...I said, if in the umpire’s judgment, three steps could be a commitment to second.

No, it can't. That is nowhere in the LBR. The umpire does not get to arbitrarily "judge" when the runner committed.

Originally Posted by txtrooper

Just as a runner who rounds first and is tagged, the umpire has to make a call based on their judgment, taking into consideration if an attempt toward second was made.

Apples and pomegranates.

Originally Posted by txtrooper

On the LBR, I am looking at the whole rule under 8.7.T.3.a.b.c.d.e. Neither d nor e requires a stop for the rule to come into effect.

Under a. the rule allows the runner to stop once and immediately make a determination of whether they are going to advance or return to the base.

Where I question the rule is c, d and e all use the term committed to a base. Under a, the author did not use the term committed to second base, although it is implied that a commitment can be made prior to a stop, as in d and e. with all that being said, I believe that it could be cleaned up and explained better. It is apparent that the rule is not called the same at every ball park and I believe that most of us want to make the right calls, although because of the rule there is some confusion among umpires.

The umpire does not get to arbitrarily decide which section of the LBR to apply. This is from the OP:

Originally Posted by SamG

...BR runs to 1st, rounds it, goes three steps off (toward 2nd), then stops, and goes back to 1st....

Now, from that, which part of the LBR applies? (Hint: it ain't 8-7-T-3-b, c, d, or e.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

I never said three steps was a rule or commitment to go second base, review the above post for the origin of the three steps. I said, if in the umpire’s judgment, three steps could be a commitment to second. Just as a runner who rounds first and is tagged, the umpire has to make a call based on their judgment, taking into consideration if an attempt toward second was made.

Okay, let's get rid of the three steps as it is irrelevant to the rule.

On the LBR, I am looking at the whole rule under 8.7.T.3.a.b.c.d.e. Neither d nor e requires a stop for the rule to come into effect.

NONE of them require a stop for the LBR to be in effect.

Under a. the rule allows the runner to stop once and immediately make a determination of whether they are going to advance or return to the base.

Where I question the rule is c, d and e all use the term committed to a base. Under a, the author did not use the term committed to second base, although it is implied that a commitment can be made prior to a stop, as in d and e. with all that being said, I believe that it could be cleaned up and explained better. It is apparent that the rule is not called the same at every ball park and I believe that most of us want to make the right calls, although because of the rule there is some confusion among umpires.

All these rules allow a stop. When it involves a BR overunning 1st base, it simply means that the change in direction is the same as a stop for the purpose of the LBR.

[txtrooper]

I am going to concede to the majority here and change the way I call it, thanks for the input.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

I am going to concede to the majority ...

Not that it matters, but the way you were calling it (with the "allowed two or three steps" thing) was the way I was taught and the way that I believe all organizations taught it several years back.

I believe it was somewhere around five years ago when the rule was changed to "one stop", which of course means as noted in an earlier post that the runner could run all the way, right up to 2B, before deciding to stop and go back. Though, realistically, that never happens.

[ChampaignBlue]

Originally Posted by SamG

Honestly, don't know. I think he just started walking out.

That makes sense. Is there a proper way to ask what the umpire saw? "Hey Blue, why is she out?" seems simple and too the point, but also sounds argumentative.

Is there any harm in protesting? Not to extremes, but let's say just once a tournament (like on this play). If a coach protests (I assume that's when UIC is called in) and the umpire's call is upheld, is there any downside? Do umpires "hold it against" a coach for getting the UIC's opinion?

BTW, thanks.

As long as you graciously accept the outcome of the protest shouldn't be anything but good come from it. Most umps I've worked with love protests because the protester learns it pays to study a little more.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

Not that it matters, but the way you were calling it (with the "allowed two or three steps" thing) was the way I was taught and the way that I believe all organizations taught it several years back.

I believe it was somewhere around five years ago when the rule was changed to "one stop", which of course means as noted in an earlier post that the runner could run all the way, right up to 2B, before deciding to stop and go back. Though, realistically, that never happens.

Don't know what rule set to which you are referring, but for ASA I'm pretty sure it has always been an allowance of one stop for the runner once the LBR was effective and I can document that back to, at least, 1999. The obvious exception is when the stop is while in contact with the base while the LBR is in effect. In 2000 the rule was adjusted to specifically cover the different scenarios of subsequent actions of the batter-runner after over running 1B.

And in my 22 years of ASA ball, I do not recall ever being trained or told of any distance, time or speed to which the runner must limit themselves to avoid being ruled out for an LBR violation.

I guess we also had to take into consideration that a decade or so ago, we did not have the large scale ability for ASA staff to communicate with the masses of mechanics and rule changes and clarifications. Back then it was the National UIC Clinics, but not all UICs would attend or go home and pass on the information to everyone. This probably left some areas to do the best they can in making their own decisions on rules and mechanics.

We still see that at some level when you hear about umpires still applying the old rules "about to receive", unreported sub penalties, re-entry allowances, etc. in their games and this is with the internet and the ability to get changes across in a heartbeat. Could be it is people not agreeing and making up their own rules, or just not paying attention to what they are told. It is not unusual to have people come up after a clinic to clarify an issue you just addressed and complete distort not only what was stated, but also displayed on a screen behind the clinician.

[txtrooper]

SC Ump, I was taught if a runner rounded first on a walk, they were committed to second; therefore stopping or would result in an out. I learned that from a senior umpire (16yrs Experience in ASA and NFHS) and it was confirmed by several other umpires. I believe the reason it is being taught, is the one IRISH mentioned in the last post. This forum has been a good resource for me the last couple of years and I have been able to clear up a few issues by interacting with the guys who contribute to the forum. Thanks again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

SC Ump, I was taught if a runner rounded first on a walk, they were committed to second; therefore stopping or would result in an out. I learned that from a senior umpire (16yrs Experience in ASA and NFHS) and it was confirmed by several other umpires. I believe the reason it is being taught, is the one IRISH mentioned in the last post. This forum has been a good resource for me the last couple of years and I have been able to clear up a few issues by interacting with the guys who contribute to the forum. Thanks again.

I believe I was taught much the same in my first year in blue. At some point, I gained enough confidence (and book knowledge) to question some of the things I was being told - and quickly realized that sometimes 20 years of experience is really 1 year of experience repeated 20 times. Within 3 years in that area, all the old guard was gone, I was UIC, and everyone had to actually attend the clinics and pass the test.

Much of the old guard became coaches ... you know, the guy who gets ejected after an argument that started with, "You know, I used to be an umpire..."

[MigoP]

Fed rule on LBR. She can only commit to 2nd if she over runs and steps toward 2nd. She is then committed to 2nd. She can round,whether the balls in the circle or not, and crawl to 2nd until she stops. She must then decide immediately which way to go. I saw this play in high school regional game where girl rounds first and very slowly, without stopping creep towards 2nd. Runner was on 3rd and she was trying to make pitcher make play on her to attempt to get run home. Legal and smart play. AS long as she doesn't stop which makes her make an immediate decision which way to go.