Show intent on going to 2nd

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

First off I dont think any other umpire, even if you were being observed should have said anything during the game let alone in front of other teams. It should have waited until after the game when you were alone and could have discussed it in private.

I dont have an ISF rulebook, but in any other rule set there is no requirement the batter turn to the right or straight back down the line when returning to 1st after an overrun. It is perfectly legal for a batter to turn to the left as long as they do not make an aggressive move toward 2nd.

I'll echo RKBump's comment about your alleged fellow umpire. If anyone should be dressed down, it should have been him.

Secondly, this is obviously a judgment call. However, it is the umpire's responsibility to determine the runner is making an attempt to advance to 2nd, not the runner's to prove s/he is not.

At one time the training (at least in my area) included, probably somewhat similar as you have been told, that ANYTHING, dip of the shoulder, a look back to the left, even a slight drifting of the runner's path into fair territory, WAS to be considered an attempt. I never bought into that theory of dictating what an umpire is to judge.


Over the years, I have learned to use my brain. Okay, enough! IOW, if the runner did something which my eyes showed my brain to tell my gut I needed to react in a manner to take the runner to 2B, there was an attempt.

This isn't supposed to be a "gotcha" play just so the umpire can ring up one of the 42.

[Skahtboi]

I will echo the two previous posts on the alleged umpire who came out to talk to you in front of both teams.

I also agree with their assessment of your call.

[CecilOne]

Me too, on both counts. Even though it seems the call was incorrect, the "observer" was way more wrong.

What IM said about reading it is my guide as well.

But, I do think the advice given to the player to always turn right (as youth coaches teach) is what causes people to think that is the rule. Besides, a runner can turn right and still make an attempt toward 2nd. Not by rule, but physically.

[EsqUmp]

It's not just intent, but ATTEMPT. You have to actually ATTEMPT to advance toward 2nd base.

[bsnalex]

The other ump apologised after the game and said it should have waited.

If I tell a new player to peel to the right, I always say its not the rule to go to the right, just helps remove all doubt of where you're going.

The problem I have is the judgement of an attempt. A player leisurely strolling back to first but also making his way over to the left a bit isn't deliberately making an attempt but could be testing the waters.

Irish, iff I think back to my training I was probably told in class number one that if their in the infield portion and are not returning to first immediately then they're fair game. If anything if I go by that rule internally I'll never waiver in similar calls. It has nothing to do with getting the 42 and going home. BR got to first but he just made zero effort to get back to the bag.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bsnalex

The other ump apologised after the game and said it should have waited.

If I tell a new player to peel to the right, I always say its not the rule to go to the right, just helps remove all doubt of where you're going.

The problem I have is the judgement of an attempt. A player leisurely strolling back to first but also making his way over to the left a bit isn't deliberately making an attempt but could be testing the waters.

Irish, iff I think back to my training I was probably told in class number one that if their in the infield portion and are not returning to first immediately then they're fair game. If anything if I go by that rule internally I'll never waiver in similar calls. It has nothing to do with getting the 42 and going home. BR got to first but he just made zero effort to get back to the bag.

Then you were given inaccurate information or misunderstood.

The bold portion makes it sound as if you may be confusing to the action to which the rule applies.

The exemption to being put out permits the BR to run through the base and not be required to maintain contact as long as that runner makes no attempt to advance to 2B and returns to the base. Nothing other than an attempt to advance to 2B removes that exemption. If this is the action to which you are referring, IMO, you are looking at it from the wrong side of the rule.

The rule clearly states that if the runner makes an attempt to advance to 2B, that runner is in jeopardy of being put out. It says nothing about losing that given exemption if s/he doesn't return as quick as the umpire desires. It says nothing about infield, outfield, grass, dirt, etc.

Now, back to the bold portion above. If you are referring to a player rounding the base toward 2B, they are "fair game" whether they are returning to 1B immediately or not, as rounding the base is a clear attempt of advancement. That BR/R never obtained an exemption from being put out since there was an immediate indication of possible advancement toward 2B.

[chapmaja]

This play lead to the only ejection I have ever called in 4 or 5 years of adult league games. Ground ball to second base, the throw to first is over the head of F3, who jumps into the path of the batter-runner. The batter-runner has to lean into the field of play and barely touches first as he tries avoiding contact with F3, who has come down right on the middle of 1b. This move by the runner causes him to run into the field of play, but he makes no attempt to advance to second. The catcher had come down to back up the throw, and throws to F4 who tags the runner returning to 1b. I rule safe, no attempt to advance. The "manager" absolutely goes crazy, charges out of the dugout, dropping F-bomb after F-bomb. I didn't get the chance to eject him before he was right at me, but as soon as I could he was tossed for charging and berating an umpire. Luckily his team held him back, because on a 1 umpire system you are alone if someone goes crazy.

I agree with the previous comments, your play should not have resulted in an out, and the observer should not have did what he did either.