need help on NCAA new rule for runner leaving early
 

Please help me get this through my thick skull. Under current NCAA rules, here is the situation. Bases loaded, an illegal pitch happens first, then the runner on first leaves early. Batter gets an in the park home run. The rule book says signal delayed dead ball, let play continue, get with your partners, figure out which happened first, give the opposing coach the option of the play or enforcement of the rule. Then enforce the second violation. When all the smoke clears, how many runs would score? Also, if there are two outs, wouldn't that change the run output? The illegal pitch happened first, so the OC would take the result of the play, 4 runs score. Then you would go to the DC and ask what they want to do. This is where I get confused on how to sort this out. Please help.
Dave

It doesn't matter if the IP happened first. If there is more than one rules violation:

12.20.2
"Notes:
1. In determining the result of play, ignore the leaving early violation and apply the effects for any other rule violations in the order in which they occurred. That end result becomes the first option."

In your situation, the OC gets the option of the IP or the in the park HR. Whatever his/her decision is becomes the result of the play when giving the DC the option of the leave early or result of the play. Obviously, in your situation, the DC will take the leave early regardless of which option the OC chooses. The result would be no pitch, runner on first is out.

AFTER the offensive coach chose the result of the play (4 runs), the defensive coach would choose the penalty for leaving early.

NO PITCH
RUNNER OUT
OTHER RUNNERS RETURN TO TIME OF PITCH BASE

So if you reverse what happened first. Runner leaves first early, then an illegal pitch. Go to DC he will take runner being declared out. Then go to OC on illegal pitch option. He will take in the park home run. Less than two outs, how many runs score? Is it every runs counts except the girl called out for leaving early? Two outs, how many runs score?
Dave

Previously stated:

12.20.2
"Notes:
1. In determining the result of play, ignore the leaving early violation and apply the effects for any other rule violations in the order in which they occurred. That end result becomes the first option."

So, 1) ignore the leaving early. Then 2) apply the effect of other violations (illegal pitch); OC will still take the home run. With that result of the play, DC will still take the leaving early.

The only time the final option isn't the leaving early effect is when the pitcher doesn't throw a pitch, or intentionally alters the delivery in a way to create the leaving early violation. No matter what order any other violations occur in.

And what if the leaving early was the result of in IP?:rolleyes:

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.

Under this rule, as a pitcher, every once in a while with runners on, I'm going to not release the pitch on the first windmill and continue around for a 2nd one before pitching. Most runners will run early - I get an out. Later, after they've seen this several times, my runners are glued to their bags when I'm pitching normally. Win-win. Dumb ruling.

I've brought up that very situation and have had the rule repeated back to me which leads me to believe the answer is: "Too bad, so sad".

I guess a good pitcher would be working on a windmill with a hesitation....

On another note.... The timing of an appeal could be very interesting...

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.

Glad you pointed that out - It certainly makes the most sense.

I'll have to go back and read a little more carefully.

It's probably buried on page 7 of that 9 page "brief" on how to handle these option plays....

I don't know about you guys, but my head was ready to explode after about a page and half of that thing.....

I believe they need to reword page 6 of the NCAA rule book, points of emphasis. seems misleading to me.

Dave

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

Maybe they need to justify needing all those people on the rules committee.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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......

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. :D

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.

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?

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

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.

I did.

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.

Sorry, I meant IRISHMAFIA.

I don't buy this as a "requirement". This paragraph is offered as one of many examples of what could be interference on the runner. And the quantifier is that there must be a chance for the fielder to make a play.

See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call. Simply because one did something which others may believe "could" have been INT, doesn't make it so.

In your play, maybe F6 does make the catch, but maybe the catch could have been more routine had their not been INT. But maybe she doesn't make the catch, but ends up trying to turn a deuce, but throws the ball into the stands and the BR is OBS by F3, and R1 plows over an unsuspecting F5 and is then picked up by the 3B coach and pushed towards home while F9 just went into labor and is down in RCF.......

T.W.P. We can all try to justify anything we want regardless of which way we prefer to slant it, but I believe we are better off as is. At least, until you can find the perfect, intelligent umpire that will not screw up a call. Like to admit it or not, there are umpires working all levels of ball that are somewhat clueless and misapply some of the simplest rules in the book. How in the world can a team expect any consistency from an umpire if so many "what if's" are available on what should be a simple play.

My vote goes for the ruling to remain an immediate dead ball.

It is an example that specifies what constitutes INT when there is physical contact between runner and fielder, ending in "and was prevented from doing so." I would consider it a requirement. The other examples deal with specifics of other runner violations.

The coach may then ask for you to support it in the rule book if the play were made.

There are rules covering that as well

No argument here.

Fair enough. Perhaps some re-wording of the rule would make that more supportable.

Really? You think I'm going worry about citing a rule book to justify an INT call?. Yeah, GFL w/that.

LOL.

Let me help you - you are talking to someone who is usually IN THE ROOM when rule changes are discussed and written.

And don't I wish I had the pull to get some of this stuff "adjusted" to make it easier for the user. :D

Like others on this site, being in the room just means you are allowed to possibly take part in the discussion, in some circumstances some have a vote, on how things go and, at least, get the purpose for change or rejection of, first hand. I find this makes it much easier to explain changes or reasons for not changing something. Another reason I believe each State/Metro should have their UIC or umpire representative in attendence.

I attended my first ASA Council Meeting this last November.

Being able to be in the various rooms and committee meetings when rule changes were discussed was quite fascinating. It is very interesting to hear the rationale behind why the author thinks changes are necessary as well as the discussion back and forth.

And of course the Yeungling was good too....:)

I have no idea what you worry about when on the field. However, the NCAA rules has a specific protocol when it comes to protest situations, and one part involves opening that pesky little rule book. There will be no need for you to cite anything.

Thanks for the help, but I'd be interested to know when the last time he was IN THE ROOM at an NCAA Softball Rules Committee meeting.

Now let me help you - get back to the shallow end of the pool and start another thread about how last night's 10U league game went or how stupid you think the local rules are.

Wow....I think I hung in longer than most at McGriff's and Eteamz before they became more about insults and trolling than a free exchange of softball umpiring ideas and conversations.

I'm willing to hang in here for a while longer to see if the trolls and such get tired and just go away, if not....then, Thanks, Dave!

If you're meaning me, then I will say that there was a free exchange of ideas and opinions taking place. At least until the "Let me help you" post. I simply responded in kind. If that's trolling in you opinion, you are certainly entitled to it.

If you took offense to my "let me help you" post, I'm sorry - offending you was not the intent. Helping you understand that you were not talking to a neophyte was my intent.

And I surely don't think that comments regarding the level of ball I work are an appropriate response. THAT is what he was calling trolling. You don't know me - you have no clue what I work or where. I suspect I've worked far higher than you would guess, but that is really not the point of my posts. Yes, I do work the very very little ones on occasion as well - my assignors (well, most of them) do a great job mixing it up, letting us work different levels of games as well as with different levels of partners (I was in one league for quite a while where my assignor loved to put me with the guy who needed some work ... I'm certainly willing to do that - but I never ever got to work games for that assignor where I got to learn from umpires significantly better than me (and there were several in that group) - my current assignor realizes that is not best for the group and gives a good mix. If that means I have to work a 10U game every once in a while, or work at some place who's game is closer to Calvinball than softball ... so that someone else can learn from someone or work on something, so be it - happy to do it. For you to denigrate working those games says more about you than it says about me, frankly.

Now let me help you - get back to the shallow end of the pool and start another thread about how last night's 10U league game went or how stupid you think the local rules are.

Question is are you Clara or Cosmo....either/or, maybe you should emulate them.

It would be difficult for me since I have no idea what you mean.

The majority of this topic is useless, should be offline. :(

Personal bickering and insults do not belong. :mad:
Please give it up.