Watching 10U - BR to 3rd!
 

Was watching a 10U game waiting for my partner for the next game to finish up. He was alone on this field and is in his first year. Batter hits the ball. The way everyone screamed this MAY have been the first time ever. With 79 people telling her what to do .... she ran to third and stayed there. Worse ... the defense threw the ball to pitcher and then did nothing.

Parents from both sides are alternatively laughing and yelling. Coach either doesn't say anything to her, or she ignored him, not sure which. Defensive coach requests time, and unfortunately, the umpire granted it. More unfortunately, the offensive coach came out too and joined the "discussion". I was close enough to hear much of it. Most of the DC's argument was of the form "She can't do that." and "That's just wrong" --- never any concrete anything.

Out of curiosity --- what would YOU do? I know what I would have done, but will wait to hear your answers.

This got a lot of discussion in the locker room, everything from missed base to LBR (including an interesting disagreement regarding what should be done if, while F1 had the ball in the circle, BR suddenly ran toward first ... or home... or 2nd!), to appeals, to running the bases in reverse, to "just fix it". Forget that it's 10U (where the inclination is probably more likely to ignore rules and just fix it) and rule as if this was somehow the 16U state championship.

ASA if it matters - interested to hear of a FED or even NCAA rule makes this different.

Here's my shot at it. If it happened in a 16U state championship, I'd have trouble believing it wasn't done on purpose and have running the bases in reverse. If it didn't happen on purpose she missed first and second on her way to 3rd. She subject to appeal and it's too late to go back. If she steps off the base while the pitcher has it she's out.
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT

Here is my swing....
To address the Time Out request, I think the correct thing to do by rule is deny the time out as the play is still going on. The batter is not out or safe yet, she is just on her way to 1st base (although she is taking the long way there). So, you should tell the coach, time out is not being granted and continue to watch the play develope. This is easy to say after the fact. Honestly if it happened to me, I would probably have allowed the time out before I realized I should not have.

As far as what to do next, it just depends what happens. The defense could throw the ball to 1st and step on 1st and then an out should be called. A fielder with the ball could go tag the runner while she stands on 3rd and the runner should be called out.

What would really be weird is if the defense did nothing and the next pitch was thrown. At that point since the batter-runner never reached 1st I believe she is out for leaving 1st base early. I guess I could also see an argument for LBR once the pitcher had the ball in the circle since the batter-runner is not standing on 1st.

This is why it is harder to umpire 10U and 8U games than it is to umpire 16U games. The younger age groups is when all the weird things happen.

To the previous answers I'll ask...

When does the LBR begin taking affect after a batter becomes a batter-runner?
What does the leaving early rule say?

At the point of this "what would you do", there had been no appeal, or even a mention by the DC about missing bases or anything of the sort (and all his jawing was during TO anyway).

Yeah, he shouldn't have granted time - we still have a live ball here. I wouldn't have granted time for several seconds after he did... but assume he eventually HAD to, as nothing was happening.

Why not grant time? You didn't have any action and you didn't have any runners off base. Is this situation somehow much different if she runs 30 feet toward first and then takes off for third?
________
ROLL BLUNTS

ASA 8.3.D. Dead ball, runner's out.

No book here at work ... which rule is that?

Running the bases in reverse order.
________
ECIG FORUM

I don't believe this can be considered creating a travesty of the game by running the bases in backward order, if you've not achieved home plate legally, then traversing toward third is not running the basepaths backward.

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).

If you go with B, the LBR can NEVER come into play - BR has not reached first base ... so LBR is not in effect. Umpire called time, with BR not on a base and no play being made - the only acceptable remedy there is simply placing the runner on 1st.

PU in this situation, on the spot and without the benefit of 4000 internet umpires to help... :) ... simply told the DC that the runner is on third, and we need to play on. Defense never did appeal the play. Once the next pitch happened, amid all the grumbling directed at me solely because I wore a similar shirt to the umpire in question (!), I told them all they had to do was appeal that she missed 1st or 2nd.

I agree with your conclusion, but not how you got there. This is definitely running the bases backward, she went to the last numbered base first and if it had been a double, she would have run to second. But the rule says that she has to be running them backward to confuse the defense or make a travesty of the game and I think it's pretty clear she did it because she was confused.
________
Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensary

If she had run to 2nd after third, I could more easily see this as running the bases backward.

However, going from the batter's box to third is not going backward ... it's just going to third. She wasn't "on" home... she was just near it.

So under your logic, B hits the ball, steps on home plate, and stays there. Ball goes to F1 in the circle, never having gone to F3 at 1B. PU calls time.

Award a run because she ran to home and stopped? What if she had just ran from home to 2B straight past F1 and stopped there?

It is not only a fundamental game concept to run from the BBox to 1B, 2B, 3B, and HP in that order, but it is rule (ASA 5.5.A.1). Break the rule by running backwards, you're out. Appealed for missing a base, you're out.

In your O, leaving the runner on 3B not only creates a major disadvantage to the defense, but you're now in the realm of determining what you think is confusion on the Offensive's part... and they're only 10, so poor little girls? They don't know any better?

No. Wrong.

Call the out. You don't have any ability or rule to allow you to determine that the offensive team was confused in this situation... only that the offensive confused the fielders.

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.

The big problem here is calling time. Why did PU call time?

Well, no - shouldn't have stopped play in the first place... but if you did - for whatever reason, your options are detailed above. I would opt for putting the batter-runner on first... but "scoring the run" at least temporarily could be defenseable.

Really? Care to quote that rule? Are you really going to try to say a BR who simply goes nowhere has created a travesty of the game or attempted to confuse opponents??!?!! Hell yes - of course... and in the OP, this is what the defense should have done.

How???? The defense has no disadvantage, and has an easy appealable out if they'd just bother to take it.

Out for what?????? The rule you're using says that the offense ran backward with the intent of confusing the defense... If that was not the purpose of the run, then you can't call her out just because the effect was to confuse them. Besides - running directly from the batters box to third base is NOT running the bases backward. It's simply skipping bases.

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

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

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

Since the PU went with A, then:

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.

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.

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?

:D

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. :cool:

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)

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? :rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


Citing Wikipedia is not an advantage to any argument :rolleyes:

The glove size is also specified in the rules. Page 169 of the safety awareness guide clearly says glove or mitt. The reason it is written as it is was to eliminate any confusion between the glove and mitt, which was previously illegal to wear. The safety guide says the ASA glove rule now allows any player to wear a glove or mitt at any position. The guide says the glove shall not exceed specifications within the rule, which indicates that the glove shall be worn. Am I getting anywhere with this or has this horse been beet to death on here before?

It has been beaten to death, but there is no indication the glove "SHALL" be worn anywhere within the ASA rules.

My posts have all been accurate. You can try to justify this all you want, but the rules simply do not support your stance. It seems you are attempting to force the allowance of a mitt or glove at any defensive position into a mandate that a glove be worn.

I get that, but if 1-2-3-H is the "normal order", then H-3-2-1 would be "backward" She didn't run 1-2-3-H, obviously... but she also didn't run H-3-2-1 (or any part of it). Just because she's started at the batters box doesn't mean she's starting at home. Batters box to 3rd is NOT the same as running to third after having achieved home plate.

And also remember that running backward is NOT illegal (happens often on caught flies, run downs, etc). Running backward with the intent of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game is illegal. And I don't think that applies in the OP at all.

I would agree with "/" meaning "or", but the sentence still doesn't mean what you say it does. Compare:

A glove or mitt may be worn by any player.

A glove or mitt must be worn by any player.

You seem to be interpreting "may" as "must".

Glove
 

So what would you do if a the catcher comes to the catchers box w/o a glove or the pitcher to the pitchers plate w/o a glove?

Review page 169 of your ASA Manuel. The Safety Awarness Guide. The top of the page says:

Basic Softball Equipment an Recomendations. Within the first paragraph of this section it states. The following provides a general outline of ASA's official rules concerning mandatory equipment to be used in ASA championship play. Glove is one of those pieces of equipment covered under this section. I would question any umpire who does not take the entire game and rule set into consideration, along with the ability to apply good old common sense.

Batter Runner to third.
 

"Any part of it", third is still a part of the bases. I realize that batter runner starts in the batters box, although running to third is reverse order. Suppose nothing is done and the runner advances to home, the run can not score because the player never touched 1st or 2nd (ASA 5.5). I believe that this situation would provoke an appeal, but if it did not , what would you rule on the play?

Considering there is no valid rule for me to call this runner out, I would (as you did) expect this situation to provoke an appeal. I rather like Atl's suggestions regarding "steering" the coach to an appeal if he's not quite there - and then informing him that a coach cannot make an appeal - it has to come from a player... hopefully that would do it.

But barring an appeal, as much as I'd WANT to, I find no rule allowing me to call this runner out - and I suppose that if the defense is too stupid to appeal this obviously appealable play, well, they deserve to be scored on.

Anyone besides me get the feeling that this thread has become just slightly convoluted? :rolleyes:

This is completely irrelevant to the point that the literal wording of the rule does not require the wearing of a glove/mitt.

So again, I'll ask the question, under what circumstances would/could a runner be called out under (8.3.D) for running the bases in reverse order?

The rule was put into baseball's code after a player stole second, and then on the next pitch stole first, and then stole 2nd again later. There was no rule to call him out for that, but they decided it was a mockery of the game, and added the rule. I'm assuming softball inherited that rule from them.