My First Ever Official Protest
 

For the first time in my umpiring career, last night one of my calls was officially protested. The sad part is, due to an oddly written local rule, I might just lose this one!

16U rec league game, using NFHS rules as the "default" and about five pages of "local rules" (pretty standard stuff, like the run rule, continuous batting order, time limits, etc.).

Here is the play: Batter has two strikes, one out, first base not occupied. The next pitch is swung at and missed. The pitch then hits the ground, rebounds off the catcher and rolls up toward the plate.

Batter-runner takes off for first base. F2 retreives the ball near the plate, then steps in front of the plate to make the throw. F3 is positioned on the white base to receive the throw.

But...the throw is a bad one. To catch it, F3 had to move directly over the orange safety base. She catches the ball- well before the B/R gets there- with one foot on the orange base, the other stretched out into foul territory. B/R then touches the orange base as she overruns first.

I called the B/R safe as F3 never touched the white bag. Since the throw came from the fair side of the first base foul line, this is not a play where the defense is entitled to use the orange base to complete the play. (NFHS 8-10-2a).

Defensive coach questions the call and states that the defense may use either base on any dropped third strike play. I explain to him the reason I called the B/R out and that my call stands. He files an official protest, we play on without further problems.

Sounds pretty cut and dried that a protest won't fly here. But there is more to the story...

Last year, this league's local rules included some examples of when the defense can use either base (I guess the ones in the NFHS rule books they distribute aren't good enough). One of the league's helpful hints was that the defense could use the orange base "on any play coming from foul ground".

Last year I pointed out that this was incorrect- or, at least, not in compliance with the NFHS rules. I was told that the wording of the league rule would be revised to reflect the NFHS rule (ie: throw must be coming from the foul side of first base).

Back to last night's game...I make this call and the coach files his protest. I'm sure he's wrong and I'm right.

First thing I do when I get home is pull up their on-line league rules. Yes, the above mentioned rule had been changed...for the worse! Instead of saying that the defense could use the orange base "on any play coming from foul ground", it now reads that they can use the orange base "on any dropped third strike"!

Based on that local league rule- which appears to have been written by someone who really doesn't understand the high school rules and which I was told was going to be revised to match them- this one just might fly.

Guess I'll find out in a few days...

Fill in the blank: "Local rules are made by _____." :D

Coaches..... board members....... people that don't have a clue about the rules?

Which one is right? Was I even close???


I would say to have the league have their UIC at these writing sessions, but I also know from past experience that might not help!!

tools

This rule was amended and written as such by the OP DC. That's how he knew this silly stipulation.

Actually...even though I didn't even get into all that...you are likely correct! :eek:

My understanding is that this coach is on their "rules committee" and he is actually one of the people- if not the person- who crafted this rule.

Also, this whole issue first came up last year, when this SAME call went against this SAME coach!

Sound like the process that the NCAA uses....:D

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think Bret Mans' play mirrors one I had last year. I believe I talked about it on this forum, but I definitely had conversations about it with my state Fed rules interpreter.

USSSA game. Almost all rules mirror Fed. Ground ball hit to F6. BR is very slow. The throw to F3 is very high, causing her to jump up off the white bag, catch the ball, but land completely on orange. Slow runner finally gets to 1st and runs through the bag, touching both white and orange. I rule safe because of F3 being on only orange. Offensive coach says this qualifies as an errant throw(8-10-2-b). Super veteran :rolleyes:plate partner adamently agrees with coach, feeling this qualifies as an errant throw and runner should be out. He clearly states (in a private conversation by the way) that I should reverse my decision. I feel I'm right and stick with the call. Game and life goes on.

In the subsequent days I ask my Utrip interpreter as well as my state Fed interpretor (who also works lots of Utrip with me)to ask the national Fed office for clarification of what it means to be an errant throw. They say that the play as I described it does count as an errant throw, meaning the fielder could use either bag. I believe someone on this group said ASA has in the past ruled this is not an errant throw.

I think this play has a lot of similarities to the original post. This has become my pain in the behind issue over the last year. It seems that we're rewarding the defense for a poor throw. When I get home I'll search a little more to see if I can find the original thread.

Try 8-102b

Except that one of our ASA experts has apparently said it is not errant if the fielder is still at the base, as opposed to well off it.
Hope someone will correct if that is not the case.

But if the fielder simply moved from the white to the orange base, then the errant throw did not pull her off the base. It only moved her to another portion of it.

As the rule states, off the base into foul ground, so the defensive player would be moving back to the base. It is to prevent the rule from requiring that the players cross paths. If the fielder was still on the base, she was not (obviously) off the base.

Opening post specified modified NFHS rules.

She moved off the white base into foul ground, the colored base (it is in foul ground, right?). The NFHS interpreters in both states where I work HS would have this as an out.

The Law of Unintended Consequences.
 

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.

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.

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

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.

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? :rolleyes: 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

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.

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. :p

But the good news is we won the game :D

Reported.

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?

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").

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.

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

Just wonderin..
:D

Yes, I absolutely did! Whatcha gonna do 'bout that? ;) :D

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."

I have the opposite issue....whenever I teach or train, I tend to use "she" when referring to players.

Most of the ball that I do is JO, HS, or College FP...all girls or womens....

I dunno... a few years ago. Mike made fun of me objecting to the trashing of the language for PC purposes. :rolleyes:

Have a Martini and think about it...;)

I'll drink to that. I'll even buy the first round. :D

Prior to this gentleman (who really does take the job seriously) they had a longtime, experienced umpire in this role. He had to drop it due to a job transfer.

They offered this position to me when he left. I politely turned them down. I like to spend my time on the field umpiring, not dealing with endless piles of paperwork about umpiring, scheduling umpires, making rain out schedules, dealing with cancellations, making phone calls into the night, trying to fill games, doing their payroll, attending board meetings, etc.

This is a big program, with something on the order of 1500 kids signed up for baseball and softball in the spring/summer and about 900 in their fall program. All told, they have 117 teams right now and run over 1000 games each year. Frankly, the administrative side of things bores me and this position works out to practically a fulltime job for half the year. Not my idea of fun...

I'm really not trying to dogpile here, and I'm a little worried it's going to come off that way.

Sounds like part of the job being too big is that you're lumping baseball and softball together. Probably a bad deal right there. I have to say I'm VERY surprised that with a program this huge there are NO umpires who would step up into this role. Not saying it's for everyone, and it's surely a thankless job... but not ONE?

Given your situation, I would see two solutions. One - Contact the District UIC for whatever rule-set you're using (after separating baseball and softball, of course) - he/she may very well know someone in the area who would LIKE this job. Two - even if it was distasteful to me, I think I'd step in before the solution that seems to have found you would ever have taken place. I would not want to work for someone who I could not go to for rule issues. I would not want potential protests of my games to go upward to someone who understood the rules less than me or my fellow blues.

Another solution might be to contact whoever schedules for nearby leagues - maybe they'd be willing to do it - and you'd get the side benefit of a larger umpire pool and more locations to work.

I just can't see moving forward in the situation you describe.

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I do have something to add that might be worthy of comment.

I've already posted my understanding of how "an errant throw pulling the fielder off the base into foul ground" is to be interpreted. Now, maybe I am going to have to revise my understanding.

The protest from my game, and another discussion of this same rule on another forum, got me digging for "official" interpretations. No luck there at all.

One little quirk in the actual rule I did come across: The NFHS rule refers to an errant throw pulling a fielder "off the base". The ASA rule says the fielder must be pulled "off the white base". Interestingly, prior to 2008 the ASA rule said only "off the base". In 2008, somebody slipped that "white" in there. I don't know if there is any significance to that- but random words don't usually appear in the middle of a rule by chance. This was not highlighted as a rule change or an editorial change.

Anyhow, just to "cover all the bases", I sent an email to the ASA National Supervisor of Umpires for clarification.

In an email received today, according to what I would consider "an authorative source"...apparently I have had it all wrong. His email stated that the errant throw does NOT need to pull the fielder completely off the base, past the colored base, and completely into foul ground for rule 8-2-M(5) to apply.

I was told that simply being pulled directly from the white to the colored portion satisfies the requirement of the rule. I was even given an example of a fielder setting up on the white base, jumping in the air to receive an errant throw, then landing on the colored base. This was presented as an example of the fielder legally using the colored base due to an errant throw.

Just when you think you know it all...:rolleyes:

I think our ASA National Supervisor of Umpires should consider running for elected office, because he did a great job of tap dancing around the situation.

MTD, Sr.

I get the intended humor in your response, but he didn't really tap dance around anything. He said, "This is the way it is and how it should be called". That's pretty straight forward!

Previous Case Book Play (2005-2006)

Play 8.2-40

B1 hits a ground ball to F6. While B1 advances to 1B a double base, F3 is pulled to the colored portion of 1B by F6's throw which arrives prior to B1 touching the colored portion.

Ruling: B1 is safe. Since this is a force out attempt from fair territory, the defense must use the white portion.


And someone may correct me, but I was pretty sure this was discussed a few years back when someone :rolleyes: proposed a definition of "errant throw" be added to the book so everyone applied the rule the same. A prominent silver-haired gentleman with an distinguished career of umpiring and rules interpretation stood and specifically noted that the exception was supposed to apply when the defender was returning "from" foul territory, not from fair landing in foul ground.

I don't care for the interpretation BretMan is relaying as it defeats the purpose of rule and awards the defense for poor play. But it that is the way ASA wants it called, that is what I will teach.

Personally, I feel they should either eliminate any possibility of players crossing paths at 1B or do away with the safety base as there is nothing safe about it.

How could they do that?

Was the "email received" from the "ASA National Supervisor of Umpires"? Or is "an authorative source" some different person?

Curious how this would be called. Is this an obstruction violation or simply rule as safe as if the fielder never touched any part of either side of the safety base? Say the fielder has the ball well in advance of the runner getting there, runner thinks he'll be out so veers around the bag/fielder, never touching the base. Since the fielder had the ball, does this rule out a possibility of OBS?

One and the same person.

Well, you are right, they couldn't guarantee it would be eliminated, but they certainly could remove any possible advantage a team could be afforded by the rules governing the use of the double base.

How could it be OBS if the defender has the ball? Now, if the BR checked up or contacted the the defender prior to him/her receiving the ball, it could be OBS, but that is not the case in the play.

Reported.

I'm still wondering if the BR has a right to touch the orange base. If the fielder jumps up and comes down solely on the orange base, the runner veers to avoid a collision and does not touch either base, do we rule safe as in the case where a runner passes the base (but doesn't touch it) prior to the fielder receiving the ball? In the latter case, an appeal would have to be made on the BR prior to his return to the base.

Is such an appeal a possibility here? Or do we simply have an out at first?

The BR always, without exception, may use the colored portion of the base.

If the defender does not have the ball and is impeding the runner's attempt to progess to a base, that is OBS no matter what base.