My First Ever Official Protest

[Little Jimmy]

For what it's worth, below is the question sent to Mary Struckoff from my state rules interpreter last summer along with her answer. The state interpreter's original correspondence to her had multiple questions. I have made minor edits to include only what pertains to the subject.


Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Mary Struckhoff
Subject: Softball Play Situations



Mary:

The following is a play situation that a Maryland umpire forwarded to me for interpretation...


Routine hit to short. Bad throw to 1st base pulls F3 completely off of the white bag and completely onto the orange bag. F3 catches ball with her foot completely on the orange bag. Relatively slow runner is not obstructed and touches orange bag. Base umpire hesitates, and as runner turns back toward first base umpire signals safe, thinking that an "errant throw" is one that has been misplayed or overthrown. Ruling: I believe the umpire's ruling is incorrect because 8-10-2b permits the fielder to use the orange base if the throw pulls her there. In my opinion this is an "errant" throw.

The umpire goes on and requests a definition of "errant throw" as used in NF 10-8-2.

Ms. Struckoffs reply...Not quite sure what you’re asking me. The BR should be out if the F3 touches the orange base. 8-10-2b permits F3 to use the colored base when there is an errant throw – meaning, a bad throw, one that takes the fielder off the base and in this case, into foul ground. The BR could have used the white or the colored base as well.

Thats it. I don't agree with it but I guess I do what I'm told.

[BretMan]

Starting off her answer with "Not quite sure what you're asking me" doesn't really inspire too much confidence in the answer.

In any event, at least this thread has given me some food for thought. It had always been my understanding that NFHS interprets the use of the double first base exactly the same as does ASA. Last year I put that question to our local UIC for high school softball and the answer I got was affirmative. My understanding of the ASA rule is that the fielder must be pulled completely off the base, away from it, and into foul ground before this "exception" kicks in.

Would love to see a written interpretation of what NFHS means by "pulled off the base into foul territory by an errant throw".

The folks that have to rule on this protest have limited rules experience, and I doubt that they've ever had to interpret something like this, so I'm thinking that whatever final decision they come to is pretty much going to be a crapshhot.

[Little Jimmy]

My problem is the definition for errant throw. It's sometimes taken for granted that we know of a definition. There is no definition in the Fed book or any other that I know of. Do I use "wandering" or "behaving wrongly"(from my copy of Merriam-Webster?) Or should I try "doing wrong" or "moving aimlessly" from the Random House dictionary on the desk? It would simply take a clearly defined term in the appropriate section from the powers that be to help clarify things a lot.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

My problem is the definition for errant throw. It's sometimes taken for granted that we know of a definition. There is no definition in the Fed book or any other that I know of. Do I use "wandering" or "behaving wrongly"(from my copy of Merriam-Webster?) Or should I try "doing wrong" or "moving aimlessly" from the Random House dictionary on the desk? It would simply take a clearly defined term in the appropriate section from the powers that be to help clarify things a lot.

You should note that MS said "off" the base into foul ground. The base is the base. One base, two portions. IMO, if the defender simply moved from the white to the colored portion, since neither the play, nor player came "from" foul ground

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Starting off her answer with "Not quite sure what you're asking me" doesn't really inspire too much confidence in the answer.

In any event, at least this thread has given me some food for thought. It had always been my understanding that NFHS interprets the use of the double first base exactly the same as does ASA. Last year I put that question to our local UIC for high school softball and the answer I got was affirmative. My understanding of the ASA rule is that the fielder must be pulled completely off the base, away from it, and into foul ground before this "exception" kicks in.

Would love to see a written interpretation of what NFHS means by "pulled off the base into foul territory by an errant throw".

The folks that have to rule on this protest have limited rules experience, and I doubt that they've ever had to interpret something like this, so I'm thinking that whatever final decision they come to is pretty much going to be a crapshhot.

You are correct in your understanding of the ASA interpretation; and, in Georgia, that is the same NFHS interpretation, according to our Associate Exceutive Director that has that authority.

What needs to be considered is what the double base is there for, and how it impacts on the game. By saying when the play comes from fair ground that the defense must use the white base, the bottom line is that the base simply ISN'T a 15 x 30 base at that point, that would, in effect, reward the defense for making an errant throw!! No, the errant throw provision is, and always was, intended solely to reinstate the "safety" base intent, and not then force the fielder to now recross the runner's path and go back to the white base!!

So, don't reward the bad throw, and don't force the safety base to become a danger base. Makes sense, doesn't it?? Should be that simple.

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I think that we can all agree that the concepts and goals of the Safety Base is admirable, BUT!!! How many train wrecks at 1B a season does one have to really need a Safety Base.

MTD, Sr.

Funny you ask that. Just the other day in my adult kickball league, the field we were on actually had a safety base (it didn't last time we played there) and as I was running to first, the throw was such it pulled F3 into the basepath and I ended up in a trainwreck with a bloodied knee. I couldn't help but to think of the irony that the safety base was suppose to minimize this.

But the good news is we won the game

[NCASAUmp]

Reported.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

The folks that have to rule on this protest have limited rules experience, and I doubt that they've ever had to interpret something like this, so I'm thinking that whatever final decision they come to is pretty much going to be a crapshhot.

Why in the world would a league ever have people with "limited rules experience" ruling on a rules protest? That's about the worst thing I've heard in a while.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Why in the world would a league ever have people with "limited rules experience" ruling on a rules protest? That's about the worst thing I've heard in a while.

Is the village idiot ever truly aware that they're the village idiot?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Why in the world would a league ever have people with "limited rules experience" ruling on a rules protest? That's about the worst thing I've heard in a while.

Because we live in an imperfect world?

Because the league's board is made up of volunteers and they have to take what they can get?

The guy who has to rule on this is their "umpire director". He is a former coach who, when he took this position three years ago, took it seriously enough to actually go through the state high school umpire certification classes and has retained his certification since then, attending all the mandatory annual classes and clinics.

But just looking at all the varying answers here- from experienced umpires that have been around a lot longer than three years- I would say the umpire director's experience on this particular point would be called "limited" (probably more like "non-existent").

[MD Longhorn]

I've run across the occasional coach cum umpire director who did not umpire beforehand... ALWAYS a problem. And worse, most of them learned BASEBALL rules and are not aware that softball rules are very much different (or if they are, they consider softball rules an offshoot of baseball rules and remember 4 or 5 "exceptions" that are different, rather than learning the rules of the sport in total).

Why in the world have they not put an UMPIRE in this role?

I know it's not a perfect world ... but obviously they HAVE umpires - I would suspect that a 3 year umpire is more versed in the rules and their nuances than a former coach who spends his extra time supervising umpires... even if he did attend a clinic - learning comes when the rubber meets the road.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Is the village idiot ever truly aware that they're the village idiot?

I'm no English major, but did you just mix a singular subject with a plural pronoun???

Just wonderin..

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I'm no English major, but did you just mix a singular subject with a plural pronoun???

Just wonderin..

Yes, I absolutely did! Whatcha gonna do 'bout that?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I'm no English major, but did you just mix a singular subject with a plural pronoun???

Just wonderin..

Plural pronouns are the new PC-gender-neutral singular pronouns. Haven't you read your ASA rule book lately?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Plural pronouns are the new PC-gender-neutral singular pronouns. Haven't you read your ASA rule book lately?

Yeah, when did they make that change? I seem to recall the book always using "he."