need help on NCAA new rule for runner leaving early

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

No, see Topper's answer and reference.
I'm not sure why, but leaving early is always the last option.
There is a multi-page guidance of scenarios which I went over at the beginning of the season.

Did you get as bad of a headache as I did after reading all 11 pages and trying to keep all the different scenarios straight in your head??

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Hugo, you weren't told correctly. Cut and pasted from Dee Abrahamson's rules interpretations on NCAA Home Plate Arbiter:

3-5-12 12.20 10.8 15.2.13
Runner Leaves Early, Illegal Pitch, Pitcher Holds Ball

Play: Pitcher makes three revolutions with her arm before letting go of the pitch. After the first revolution, the base runner on first base leaves early. OR Pitcher correctly and legally follows the pitching rules except does not release the pitch causing the base runner to erroneously leave the base in anticipation of the release.

Ruling: This is an exception to the typical effect for the double violation of leaving early and an illegal pitch. If the pitcher fails to deliver the pitch in the legal manner causing the base runner to leave early in anticipation of the proper release of the pitch, the defensive head coach is not rewarded with having the option of selecting the outcome. Instead, enforce only the penalty for illegal pitch and warn both the pitcher and head coach that a repeat of this unsporting behavior will result in their ejection.

15.2.13 says “the umpire shall not impose an effect on a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the effect would be an advantage to the offending team.” In this case, intentionally violating the pitching rule to cause an opponent to violate the base running rule is unsporting and should not be rewarded by allowing the defensive coach to have the runner called out for leaving early.

Steve could you post the page number of Ask Dee that was on? I can't seem to find it in either my printed copy of when looking at the PDF file on line.
Thanks

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Steve could you post the page number of Ask Dee that was on? I can't seem to find it in either my printed copy of when looking at the PDF file on line.
Thanks

Top of Page 2.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And just think how much easier it would be if they just left the rule like it has been for the past 75+ years.

Exactly! One play in one game with the right (or wrong) coach on the wrong end of a double play cancelled due to a leave early. I guess the rest of the coaches on the rules committee didn't want to buck the chairman, or didn't think this change was a big deal. Probably both.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I understand the reasoning behind the change, but there are just so many possible post-infraction scenarios, there just has to be a better way to address it.

I still believe this change came out of a few "what ifs" in a game where a coach believes s/he came out on the short end.

Much like an INT call, sometimes is may just be more prudent to stop everything and apply the rule, reset and start all over. After all, as we all know, you can "what if" everything to death and still never come up with a perfect resolution.

[topper]

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

SHHHHH...some college coach may hear you and propose this as a rule change......

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

And it could ASSUMING just about everything that happens afterward would have happened had the umpire not declared it a dead ball.

But you run into the same set of convoluted issues if you try to extend the play. You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?

Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.

NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?

[tcannizzo]

TWP = Third World Play - bordering on the absurd...

[topper]

Thanks, Tony. Second new term I've learned this month on here. The other was "meeb".

Now if Mike could explain what he meant by it, I would appreciate it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Thanks, Tony. Second new term I've learned this month on here. The other was "meep".

Now if Mike could explain what he meant by it, I would appreciate it.

I did.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?

fair enough. So revise my statement to "in this case". In MOST cases of interference, you don't wait to see of a play can be made anyway - you call it when it happens.