8U rules conundrum

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Of course, there can't be any "right" answer here since this is a made up rule. It isn't going to conform with any standard rule or interpretation in the ASA rule book (unless this league has already anticipated such a play and written something to cover it, which I doubt).

I guess that I would:

- Call time once the pitcher had the ball (just because that's what their rule says you have to do).

- Ignore everything else that happened after that point...UNLESS it's an appeal for leaving early on the catch. Then I have an out.

If anybody complains, I'll invite them to file a protest with the league. Let them sort it out...and, hopefully, see the absurdity of their imaginary, made up rule.

Why ignore what happens while the ball is dead? The runner legally retouched after the ball became dead and then completed her baserunning assignment. If the defense wanted a timely appeal, they shouldn't have made the ball dead. (Then invite the people who complain to file a protest, hopefully, then they'll see the absurdity of their imaginary made up rule.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why ignore what happens while the ball is dead? The runner legally retouched after the ball became dead and then completed her baserunning assignment.

What rule are you applying to say that she "legally retouched after the ball became dead"?

[AtlUmpSteve]

I'm with YoungUmp on this one. Here's the parallel; suppose the ball became dead because it was thrown out of play, instead of because the pitcher controlled it.

Wouldn't you allow the runner to return to a base left early during the dead ball, THEN award bases (home in this case, because she was more than half-way)? So, isn't this the same play (just a different creating the dead ball)?

Now, some will argue that her position wasn't a legal advancement; we hear that all the time as a supposed reason to change an award. But this rule, just like the awarded bases, relates to the player's position, without granting merit to the legality of that position.

So, I have a legal return to 3rd during the dead ball, negating that possible appeal; and a proper award back to home, under their local rule. If the defense wishes to appeal the miss of home on her return, I would honor that appeal, call fer out, and negate the run.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm with YoungUmp on this one. Here's the parallel; suppose the ball became dead because it was thrown out of play, instead of because the pitcher controlled it.

Wouldn't you allow the runner to return to a base left early during the dead ball, THEN award bases (home in this case, because she was more than half-way)? So, isn't this the same play (just a different creating the dead ball)?

.

which is the whole problem with the local rule set. (why is the defense penalized?) while under 'normal' rule sets, the defense 'caused' the ball to be 'out of play'.... a mistake by the defense. (in your situation)

but in this case, the defense is simply following the rule set which the league set fourth and 'killed the ball' legally and intentionally.

(

[IRISHMAFIA]

But my question is why are there umpires working these games?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But my question is why are there umpires working these games?

Why indeed...

I work games in a fall league that has some pretty good competition for the older kids. They also have an 8U machine pitch division. I guess that some of the guys that were getting assigned to the 8U games complained about it, so the lady that runs the league decided to rotate the umpires through all the age divisions.

I really like working this league. They have nice fields, it's close to home, there's a laid back atmosphere and it's a chance to be out umpiring during a slow time of the year. But this week, I have to pay my penance...

My number came up and I get to work three 8U games on Sunday. I just hope that I can stay awake through the whole thing!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Why indeed...

I work games in a fall league that has some pretty good competition for the older kids. They also have an 8U machine pitch division. I guess that some of the guys that were getting assigned to the 8U games complained about it, so the lady that runs the league decided to rotate the umpires through all the age divisions.

I really like working this league. They have nice fields, it's close to home, there's a laid back atmosphere and it's a chance to be out umpiring during a slow time of the year. But this week, I have to pay my penance...

My number came up and I get to work three 8U games on Sunday. I just hope that I can stay awake through the whole thing!

I've seen awful 8U ball ... and I've seen great 8U ball... the league closer to my home, just 20 miles east of where I was working, has REALLY good 8U ball - the allstar team that this league generates fares well at state every year (interesting considering the rotation of kids and coaches year to year... and also interesting considering these very same girls do NOT complete well at state 2 years later at 10U!); winning state a couple of times recently.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But my question is why are there umpires working these games?

It's 8U. About half the 8U around here has umpires, and half doesn't. After this week, they may well decide not to. However, the LP indicated that he might want no umpires for league play, and then umpires for tourney. To me, that's the worst of both worlds. Either pay for the umpire so that they learn during the year and know what to expect during tourney ... or DON'T pay for the umpire and DON'T have an umpire for the tourney. Consistency is key. Switching before the tournament is about the worst thing they could do in my book.

[MD Longhorn]

A couple of interesting points made here... thanks all - that's exactly why I posted it.

It seems to be the consensus, at least, that I (yes, I was PU) called time at the proper time. My supervisor (as well as at least 2 of our most experienced umpires) indicated that I should have let the play play out a bit more and not be so quick on calling time. 99.9% of the time if any of these 3 (much less all 3) are going to give me advice, I'm accepting the advice and thanking them for it... I respect all 3 that much. In THIS case, however, I feel their advice is dead wrong.

I take it a step further... if I was a coach (not a rat... a coach!) and the umpire did not kill it - I feel I'd have a valid protest (assuming I can get the umpire to admit he didn't kill it because he felt there was further play to be had, and not simply judgement that F1 didn't have control or something along those lines)... The rules simply say that what F1 did stops play. Period. In fact, the idea that I prevented the defense from executing a play or prevented offense from continuing to run kind of irks me ... as that is the PURPOSE of this rule - giving the defense a way to stop play and prevent offense from continuing to run.

The most interesting idea I've read above, and didn't consider on the field, was the thought that the "placement" of the runners in this situation might be similar to an "award" - and if it's an award (a la ball out of play, obs, etc), the runner should be allowed to complete their baserunning duties. Obviously, this being a made up Calvinball rule, there's no right answer. The rules don't use the word AWARD when giving the runner the base after where they stand at the moment of the dead ball... so I could see the justification of NOT allowing them to go back and retouch before continuing home... but the acts of Placement and Award are similar enough that I could see justifying allowing it as well. Obviously - this is a point that should be clarified by the Calvinballrulemakers.

(And then ... if we call this an award, and the runner returns to 3rd without retouching home... and then goes home --- do we have a LTB issue?!?!)

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But my question is why are there umpires working these games?

I used to NOT provide umpires at 8U, but my customers really want/need it. Combination of justifying registration fees and redirecting disputes from the teams and parents to a neutral arbiter.

The best part, for me as an assignor, is that our youth slowpitch has dried up; leagues just don't make anymore. I can still redirect those unable (physically) or unwilling to work fastpitch to coach pitch 8U, and keep them working (while not tieing up an experienced umpire). I also use it to get some young teens some experience at game management, without putting them in "real" fastpitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I used to NOT provide umpires at 8U, but my customers really want/need it. Combination of justifying registration fees and redirecting disputes from the teams and parents to a neutral arbiter.

I understand the registration side, but what I have seen is more like the "want/need" was more "I don't want to do that", for one of two reasons: they don't want to be screamed at by other parents, or they believe it is beneath their social status, like some people consider working the concession stand.

8U do not need umpires, they need coaches. IMO, it is a waste of money, but to some parents it is worth it.

The best part, for me as an assignor, is that our youth slowpitch has dried up; leagues just don't make anymore. I can still redirect those unable (physically) or unwilling to work fastpitch to coach pitch 8U, and keep them working (while not tieing up an experienced umpire). I also use it to get some young teens some experience at game management, without putting them in "real" fastpitch.

Second point is regional in that a lot of areas just do not have enough umpires to use up such a valuable resource. Obviously, that is not the case everywhere, but I would rather see the parents get a work out in the field of umpiring which may help develop a better opinion of what its like to be on the field. Granted, this reasoning is greedy and self-serving, but I don't care.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm with YoungUmp on this one. Here's the parallel; suppose the ball became dead because it was thrown out of play, instead of because the pitcher controlled it.

That's what I was getting at in my reply to youngump. There is a rule that says a runner may go back and correct a baserunning mistake if the ball becomes dead due to an overthrow or blocked ball. This was neither of those.

Sure, I see the parallel. I also recall the thorough trouncing I got a few days ago when I suggested a parallel between a couple of other rules!

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, I have a legal return to 3rd during the dead ball, negating that possible appeal; and a proper award back to home, under their local rule. If the defense wishes to appeal the miss of home on her return, I would honor that appeal, call fer out, and negate the run.

When the runner touched home the second time (at the umpire's direction), her miss of the plate was corrected under the "last time by" theory. At that point, there were no appeals to be had.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

That's what I was getting at in my reply to youngump. There is a rule that says a runner may go back and correct a baserunning mistake if the ball becomes dead due to an overthrow or blocked ball. This was neither of those.

Doesn't this local rule in effect make it a dead ball same as a blocked ball, with award based on runner's location? They are adding a new form of blocked; controlled by pitcher in the circle.

Originally Posted by BretMan

Sure, I see the parallel. I also recall the thorough trouncing I got a few days ago when I suggested a parallel between a couple of other rules!

And I submit that we have to consider the most likely and consistent interpretation possible whenever there isn't a rule that covers a specific instance. It may be that the absence of a rule is intentional, to indicate there is NO ruling necessary, but we are required to use some logic when ruling on something simply not covered by rule.

Originally Posted by BretMan

When the runner touched home the second time (at the umpire's direction), her miss of the plate was corrected under the "last time by" theory. At that point, there were no appeals to be had.

Not on my game; last time by, a theory not particularly or specifically referenced by any rules authority I have noticed, doesn't supercede touching bases in the proper order, a rule. If touching home the last time by corrects the miss of home required before returning to third, then she still must return to third after finally touching home, as that is the required (in proper order) sequence; 1) retouch home on the way back, 2) retouch third as required, 3) THEN can be awarded home.

ASA 8-3.A, When a runner must return to a base when the ball is live or dead, the bases must be touched in reverse order. EFFECT: The runner is out, if properly appealed. And,

ASA 8-5.G (2) without full quote, requires giving runner an opportunity to "complete their baserunning responsibilities" if the runner is a base beyond prior to awarding bases on a overthrow or blocked ball. The baserunning responsibilities include 8-3.A, which is never stated as not required with the sole exception of a foul ball (in effect, a ball that never was in play, and there never was an advance, so why would you need to retrace in order).

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not on my game; last time by, a theory not particularly or specifically referenced by any rules authority I have noticed, doesn't supercede touching bases in the proper order, a rule.

I was thinking that ASA had recognized "last time by" as a valid theory for their game in the "Plays and Clarifications" section of their website.

I looked through there and couldn't find it. Apparently, I am thinking of another sanctioning body. I definitely remember discussing this for some rule set or another before this season started.

But I'm still not buying the whole "this is just like a blocked ball" argument! Besides the fact that there is a very precise definition of and rule covering a blocked ball, a blocked ball (with a base award to the runners) is the result of the defensive team doing something they're not supposed to do. On this play, the defense was doing exactly what the rule compels them to do!

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I was thinking that ASA had recognized "last time by" as a valid theory for their game in the "Plays and Clarifications" section of their website.

I looked through there and couldn't find it. Apparently, I am thinking of another sanctioning body. I definitely remember discussing this for some rule set or another before this season started.

But I'm still not buying the whole "this is just like a blocked ball" argument! Besides the fact that there is a very precise definition of and rule covering a blocked ball, a blocked ball (with a base award to the runners) is the result of the defensive team doing something they're not supposed to do. On this play, the defense was doing exactly what the rule compels them to do!

It's a local rule and not very well written, you have to find the closest analogy if you want familiar ground. But here's my real question about the rule. Comebacker to the pitcher. Pitcher holds the ball up. Does the BR (who isn't halfway to first) score (having been awarded home?)