Watching 10U - BR to 3rd!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by argodad

Took you a while this time, Mike. I was looking for this post a few days ago!

You and me both. I was going to stay quiet and just not encourage him.

[celebur]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think the most defensible positions are A) BR made it to third missing (grossly) 1st and 2nd base, and B) BR is simply "no where" - has not achieved 1st base and that's all.

Once time was called, if you go with A, then BR would be out if appealled, and additionally would be out once the pitcher held the ball, if she tried to go ahead and head toward first base (LBR).

I would agree with this, and I'm not sure which one is the better option.

Since the PU went with A, then:

Most of the DC's argument was of the form "She can't do that." and "That's just wrong" --- never any concrete anything.

Given the context, I think I would interpret this as a valid appeal. The DC coach is saying that the BR can't go to 3B without first going to 1B (and 2B) thus implying that she missed those bases.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by celebur

Given the context, I think I would interpret this as a valid appeal. The DC coach is saying that the BR can't go to 3B without first going to 1B (and 2B) thus implying that she missed those bases.

Well, it was a dead ball and it was a coach ... so ...

But even so - say a regular player misses a base and the pitcher turns to you and says, "That's just wrong" - you calling an out? I think you need something a little more specific.

OTOH - I'm not faulting an umpire who takes that as an appeal in this case on the field.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Well, it was a dead ball and it was a coach ... so ...

But even so - say a regular player misses a base and the pitcher turns to you and says, "That's just wrong" - you calling an out? I think you need something a little more specific.

OTOH - I'm not faulting an umpire who takes that as an appeal in this case on the field.

Remember, the OP asked about rules that would be different than ASA, too.

In ASA, the coach cannot make that dead ball appeal, it has to be an infielder (including pitcher and catcher). But, Fed would allow it (don't have my NCAA book handy, but believe coach can there, too). That said, most umpires would simply ask the nearest the player "What did coach ask you to ask me??"

But, to the form of the question, I think it is clear that, coach or player, they are trying to make some form of appeal, but haven't asked one that you can address; YET. My response would be something more along the lines of "What you are saying isn't something I can rule on. That isn't a rule violation. Do you have a specific appeal you are trying to make??"

And, no, I don't consider that coaching, as long as there is enough information to understand they are actually trying to make an appeal, it is perfectly acceptable to head in that direction, as long as you don't actually direct them to something they weren't already trying to do, or hand them the information they need to have.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My, my, my......where does it say the runner must touch those bases in that order?

Rule 8.3 refers to order and reverse order, but nowhere in book does it state that order.

Don't know about you east coast people, but out here, we count from 1 and go to 2, then up to 3, and so on.

Do you really intend to win this argument on the basis that a runner from Delaware might have actually been taught to count backwards beginning from 3?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Don't know about you east coast people, but out here, we count from 1 and go to 2, then up to 3, and so on.

And yet in football on both coasts the player runs from the 10 to the 9, to the 8, to the 7, to the 6, to the 5, to the 4, to the 3, to the 2, to the 1 before they can score.

Do you really intend to win this argument on the basis that a runner from Delaware might have actually been taught to count backwards beginning from 3?

I never stated or insinuated anyone count backwards, just that the ASA rule book simple states the runner must touch each of the 4 bases to score a run, not that they must be run in that particular order like NFHS rules do (8.3.1)

[txtrooper]

If I see this violation, I am invoking 8.3.D. Legal order for the bases means legal order; it should not have to be spelled out for us or anyone else to understand. It is an elementary theory of order 1, 2 3…….etc.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

If I see this violation, I am invoking 8.3.D. Legal order for the bases means legal order; it should not have to be spelled out for us or anyone else to understand. It is an elementary theory of order 1, 2 3…….etc.

Then why does NFHS and NCAA believe it to be necessary?

What would you do in a JO game if a pitcher, catcher or infielder entered the field of play on defense without a glove?

[txtrooper]

I haven't started calling High School or College games at this point and have not looked over the rule sets for them. It appears that the call is supported by ASA rule and the right thing to do. I understand that the situation above was a little different as the coach was granted time and did not allow the play to finish before calling time, although Rule 10 allows for the umpire to make it right and I believe they should do so. I know we are getting off the original post here, but I am going to take a stab at your question. If I had a defensive player enter the field w/o a glove, I would be concerned for her safety and advise the coach of my concerns. If the player refused to use a glove, I would not allow the player to remain on the field.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

I haven't started calling High School or College games at this point and have not looked over the rule sets for them. It appears that the call is supported by ASA rule and the right thing to do. I understand that the situation above was a little different as the coach was granted time and did not allow the play to finish before calling time, although Rule 10 allows for the umpire to make it right and I believe they should do so.

I'm not stating we should allow players to run the bases improperly, just taking SRW to task because he stated it was in the rule book when it is not stated as it is in other organizations.

I know we are getting off the original post here, but I am going to take a stab at your question. If I had a defensive player enter the field w/o a glove, I would be concerned for her safety and advise the coach of my concerns. If the player refused to use a glove, I would not allow the player to remain on the field.

Okay, under what rule would you not allow the player to participate? There is no requirement for any player to wear a glove. The first sentence to 3.4 reads "A Glove/Mitt may be worn by any player". Nowhere is there a rule (such as those involving other safety equipment) that require a player in any position, in any division or classification of play. It IS absolutely absurd for a player to not wear a legal glove or mitt while playing the game, but it is their choice.

[KJUmp]

OK, in agreement that ASA 8.3 does not tell us specifically what is the legal order of touching bases as does NCAA and FED, and would have been wrong in applying it to mb's sitch in the OP.

That being the case, what instance would we call a runner out (under 8.3.D) for running the bases in reverse order to either....(1) confuse the defense
or (2) make a travesty of the game?

[txtrooper]

George Hancock and every softball player after him knew or knows that softball bases are ran in order of 1ST, 2ND, 3RD and then home plate. In the referenced post, running to third could be judged a travesty or ridiculous representation of what a runner is supposed to do after becoming a batter runner. I would apply it to the situation under the referenced rule.

IRISH, as Umpires, do we not have a liability to insure the safety of the game? I would be willing to bet that any reasonable umpire would not allow a infielder to participate in a fastpitch softball game without a glove. I would reference Rule 10.1 and state that if ASA intends for us to enforce the helmet chin strap rule, then they would support an umpire’s decision to not allow an infielder to play w/o a glove.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

George Hancock and every softball player after him knew or knows that softball bases are ran in order of 1ST, 2ND, 3RD and then home plate. In the referenced post, running to third could be judged a travesty or ridiculous representation of what a runner is supposed to do after becoming a batter runner. I would apply it to the situation under the referenced rule.

As previously stated, I understand and agree that the correct order is 1,2,3,4 and all ruling should take that in consideration.

IRISH, as Umpires, do we not have a liability to insure the safety of the game? I would be willing to bet that any reasonable umpire would not allow a infielder to participate in a fastpitch softball game without a glove. I would reference Rule 10.1 and state that if ASA intends for us to enforce the helmet chin strap rule, then they would support an umpire’s decision to not allow an infielder to play w/o a glove.

And you are going to lose the subsequent protest. You are there to officiate the game under the rules to which the teams agreed to play. As noted, this and the helmet strap rule are specifically covered in the rules which negates the umpires ability to use the god rule.

[txtrooper]

The first paragraph of my last post was for KJ.

ASA Rule 3, Sec 4 states: A glove/mitt may be worn by any player (within prescribed dimensions). It further states that the pitchers glove may be solid or multicolored as long as it is not the color of the ball.

I would argue that the foreword slash between glove/mitt means one or the other. This rule allows for the option of wearing a glove or mitt, not that the glove is optional.

Wilkipedia.org states that the most common use of the slash is to replace the hyphen or en dash to make clear a strong joint between words or phrases, such as "the Hemingway/Faulkner generation". It is used to represent the concept "or", especially in instruction books. This is my final resting case on the glove issue.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

The first paragraph of my last post was for KJ.

ASA Rule 3, Sec 4 states: A glove/mitt may be worn by any player (within prescribed dimensions). It further states that the pitchers glove may be solid or multicolored as long as it is not the color of the ball.

I would argue that the foreword slash between glove/mitt means one or the other. This rule allows for the option of wearing a glove or mitt, not that the glove is optional.

The rules clearly state when any piece of equipment is required. A glove is not one of them, slash, backslash or even a colon.

And, yes, it is a no brainer, but so is wearing a mask when catching. Yet that is not only required by rule, but the specific type of mask is defined.

Wilkipedia.org states that the most common use of the slash is to replace the hyphen or en dash to make clear a strong joint between words or phrases, such as "the Hemingway/Faulkner generation". It is used to represent the concept "or", especially in instruction books. This is my final resting case on the glove issue.

Citing Wikipedia is not an advantage to any argument