You make the call

[youngump]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Look-Back Rule
Runner on first base following a single. The pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle when:
1) with only a single foot on the base, the runner lifts it off the base to clean off the bottom of her cleats, thus breaking contact with the base. She does not attempt to advance so because there is no advantage gained, should the umpire ignore the violation?

Ruling
1) No, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.

I assume these are NCAA case plays? Anyway, on the one quoted, I continue to maintain (though I think everyone continues to disagree with me) that the rules do not support an out here (at least the ASA and NFHS rule). The rule does not require the player to maintain contact with the base it simply forbids leaving the base (until the pitch starts at which point they are required to maintain contact). Almost everyone here believes that is a distinction without a difference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

I assume these are NCAA case plays? Anyway, on the one quoted, I continue to maintain (though I think everyone continues to disagree with me) that the rules do not support an out here (at least the ASA and NFHS rule). The rule does not require the player to maintain contact with the base it simply forbids leaving the base (until the pitch starts at which point they are required to maintain contact). Almost everyone here believes that is a distinction without a difference.

Originally Posted by NFHS

8-6-18 The runner is out when .... The runner fails to maintain contact with the base to which the runner is entitled until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

Originally Posted by NFHS

8-7 The lookback rule will be in effect when the ball is live, the batter-runner has touched first base or been declared out, and the pitcher has possession of the ball within the pitcher's circle. 8-7-3 Once the runners stops at a base for any reason, she will be declared out if she leaves the base.

How do you find a distinction here? Once she stops on a base, the two rules combine to mean she cannot lose contact while the ball is live and the ball is in the circle until the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand.

ASA 8.7-S and 8.7-T(2) have identical wording.

Frankly, the wording is MORE lax in NCAA.

Originally Posted by NCAA

12.8.13.3 The runner is out .... When, once she returns to a base for any reason, she leaves the base, unless ..... the pitcher releases a pitch to the batter.

So, not even fails to maintain contact, leaves the base. Yet, any loss of contact IS leaving the base.

@youngump, you're looking for a distinction that doesn't really exist to justify not wanting to appear nitpicky.

@chapmaja, you are paraphrasing the actual rule to meet YOUR interpretation of the intent of the rule, you are NOT applying the rule. That may suggest that your multiple questions about every game situation at your JV level games should suggest you read, listen, and apply, rather than interpret. You note consistency is the issue with coaches, yet you refuse to acknowledge that to be consistent, you must either call ALL of the actual infractions, or call NONE of the infractions.

There are more common sense ways of dealing with the "it's too nitpicky to call outs" in some of these situations, without attempting to state it isn't the rule, or you don't judge it violates the intent of the rule. Shifting feet on the base; sorry, coach, I didn't see that happen, I was watching the pitcher, and the ball status, and ......, and I will be more vigilant in watching all runners (including yours should not be verbalized). Standing next to the base without touching it without anything happening, or a runner wanting to clear cleat or slide tracks; coach, I granted time, I just didn't make it a huge presentation that would make me the center of attention. You mention to base coaches that it IS a violation if you see it and the ball is live, and that you would hate to have to make that call, BUT I will if your runners can't maintain contact with the base.

When you're calling NCAA on TV, and/or the game is being video'd by the teams and will be taken apart frame by frame; well, you better call time as a matter of preventative officiating as suggested by the case play (after the ball is in the circle, mind you) or call the violation.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

How do you find a distinction here? Once she stops on a base, the two rules combine to mean she cannot lose contact while the ball is live and the ball is in the circle until the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand.
@youngump, you're looking for a distinction that doesn't really exist to justify not wanting to appear nitpicky.

You can certainly read it that way. It's not more natural then reading it the way I suggest, it's just the way you are used to.
Consider a couple of points. First, in your reading, the lookback rule makes it completely unnecessary to have a rule that says you have to maintain contact until the pitch. (Since in your case the runner would always be out under the lookback rule.) Second, the rule requiring the runner to maintain contact is clearly meant as a restriction during the pitch. It says until the ball leaves the pitchers hand. In some sanctions, the pitcher can put the ball between her legs to fix her hair and still have control, and in all sanctions she has control when it's in her glove. Further, the look back rule is off when the pitcher fakes a play. You certainly couldn't get that result from the pitching rule. (The lookback rule is off, so she can leave the base, but she has to maintain contact unless the pitcher throws the ball?)
If you want to read leave and maintain contact as the same thing, I have less problem with that but it seems evident that 8-6-18 and 8-7 do not apply to the same time period. (Though the last part of the exception in the ASA rule to the lookback rule applies to a pitch being released, which cuts against what I'm saying.)

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There are more common sense ways of dealing with the "it's too nitpicky to call outs" in some of these situations, without attempting to state it isn't the rule, or you don't judge it violates the intent of the rule. Shifting feet on the base; sorry, coach, I didn't see that happen, I was watching the pitcher, and the ball status, and ......, and I will be more vigilant in watching all runners (including yours should not be verbalized). Standing next to the base without touching it without anything happening, or a runner wanting to clear cleat or slide tracks; coach, I granted time, I just didn't make it a huge presentation that would make me the center of attention. You mention to base coaches that it IS a violation if you see it and the ball is live, and that you would hate to have to make that call, BUT I will if your runners can't maintain contact with the base.

Is this an invitation to lie to the coach? Or are you saying, work very hard not to see it so you can tell the coach you didn't?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

You can certainly read it that way. It's not more natural then reading it the way I suggest, it's just the way you are used to.
Consider a couple of points. First, in your reading, the lookback rule makes it completely unnecessary to have a rule that says you have to maintain contact until the pitch. (Since in your case the runner would always be out under the lookback rule.) Second, the rule requiring the runner to maintain contact is clearly meant as a restriction during the pitch. It says until the ball leaves the pitchers hand. In some sanctions, the pitcher can put the ball between her legs to fix her hair and still have control, and in all sanctions she has control when it's in her glove. Further, the look back rule is off when the pitcher fakes a play. You certainly couldn't get that result from the pitching rule. (The lookback rule is off, so she can leave the base, but she has to maintain contact unless the pitcher throws the ball?)
If you want to read leave and maintain contact as the same thing, I have less problem with that but it seems evident that 8-6-18 and 8-7 do not apply to the same time period. (Though the last part of the exception in the ASA rule to the lookback rule applies to a pitch being released, which cuts against what I'm saying.)



Is this an invitation to lie to the coach? Or are you saying, work very hard not to see it so you can tell the coach you didn't?

I agree with you, Steve

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree with you, Steve

Yes, I know everyone disagrees with me over what is almost an entirely academic point. We've been down this road before.

My question to Steve was meant seriously though: Is this an invitation to lie to the coach? Or are you saying, work very hard not to see it so you can tell the coach you didn't?

[AtlUmpSteve]

I will work very hard to see everything that needs to be seen; and not so hard to not see what doesn't need to be seen (wait, is that enough negatives in the same sentence fragment??). It's about game management; those that handle that aspect get in way less "situations" than those that do not. Some umpires are less preferred partner because they are $hit-magnets, seeing what needs to be missed, missing what needs to be seen, then overanalyzing the (now) necessary conversations with coaches.

Actually, as an aside, it is one of my pet peeves when an umpire draws unnecessary and a ridiculous amount of attention to himself to announce "TIME" when nothing is happening. I particularly like it when announcing "TIME" during an already dead ball (like after a hit batter, ball out of play, or even a foul ball). Personally, if a coach (or my catcher) requests time then, I simply acknowledge the request, not announce it.

If it's a dead ball, and you announce "TIME" (making it double time), do you have to point twice and state "play" twice to fully make it live again?? Always wondered about that.

More serious note. When a runner "tags" on fly ball, but isn't actually in contact with the base when (or after) the ball is caught, would you (asking youngump, but applies to all) similarly (and consistently) deny an appeal because she didn't "leave" the base. If being at the base but not in contact is not leaving it, would you deny a pickoff tag (okay, that rule says in contact, but my point is where are you drawing the line??)?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I will work very hard to see everything that needs to be seen; and not so hard to not see what doesn't need to be seen (wait, is that enough negatives in the same sentence fragment??). It's about game management; those that handle that aspect get in way less "situations" than those that do not. Some umpires are less preferred partner because they are $hit-magnets, seeing what needs to be missed, missing what needs to be seen, then overanalyzing the (now) necessary conversations with coaches.

Actually, as an aside, it is one of my pet peeves when an umpire draws unnecessary and a ridiculous amount of attention to himself to announce "TIME" when nothing is happening. I particularly like it when announcing "TIME" during an already dead ball (like after a hit batter, ball out of play, or even a foul ball). Personally, if a coach (or my catcher) requests time then, I simply acknowledge the request, not announce it.

If it's a dead ball, and you announce "TIME" (making it double time), do you have to point twice and state "play" twice to fully make it live again?? Always wondered about that.

More serious note. When a runner "tags" on fly ball, but isn't actually in contact with the base when (or after) the ball is caught, would you (asking youngump, but applies to all) similarly (and consistently) deny an appeal because she didn't "leave" the base. If being at the base but not in contact is not leaving it, would you deny a pickoff tag (okay, that rule says in contact, but my point is where are you drawing the line??)?

I think the red part is where I have my opinion on the situation I posted in the original post. Yes, under the technical definition of the wording, the runner should have been called out, but I think umpires make their money in the area between the written word and the practical application of the rule. One thing that does need to be considered is the level of play IMHO. If this was a Varsity game, I could see making this call, even though I have seen the exact same thing NOT CALLED (today at a Varsity Game I was watching) in a Varsity level game. I think the original play was a situation where the umpire was looking to call something, rather than observing and reacting to what happens.

In USA Swimming we have a saying about officiating. We are not there to catch swimmers doing something wrong, we are to observe the swims and make sure they comply with the rules. There is a difference, when you are trying to catch someone you are specifically looking for something to happen. When you are observing, you are watching everything and reacting to what needs to be reacted to.

Back to the plays for a second. The bigger problem I had with the entire mess, was the next half inning the runner was very clearly not in contact with the base while the pitcher was in the circle starting her pitch, and the out was not called. It was a much more blatant violation of the rule than what he called at 3rd base on the opposing team. It was so blatant that I felt I had to make the call from behind the plate (and so obvious as well). He also had as good if not a better view on the one I had to call.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I will work very hard to see everything that needs to be seen; and not so hard to not see what doesn't need to be seen (wait, is that enough negatives in the same sentence fragment??). It's about game management; those that handle that aspect get in way less "situations" than those that do not. Some umpires are less preferred partner because they are $hit-magnets, seeing what needs to be missed, missing what needs to be seen, then overanalyzing the (now) necessary conversations with coaches.

Actually, as an aside, it is one of my pet peeves when an umpire draws unnecessary and a ridiculous amount of attention to himself to announce "TIME" when nothing is happening. I particularly like it when announcing "TIME" during an already dead ball (like after a hit batter, ball out of play, or even a foul ball). Personally, if a coach (or my catcher) requests time then, I simply acknowledge the request, not announce it.

If it's a dead ball, and you announce "TIME" (making it double time), do you have to point twice and state "play" twice to fully make it live again?? Always wondered about that.

More serious note. When a runner "tags" on fly ball, but isn't actually in contact with the base when (or after) the ball is caught, would you (asking youngump, but applies to all) similarly (and consistently) deny an appeal because she didn't "leave" the base. If being at the base but not in contact is not leaving it, would you deny a pickoff tag (okay, that rule says in contact, but my point is where are you drawing the line??)?

In response to your question at the bottom of the post. There is a huge difference between the OP and discussion about leaving the base or not and the tag up on a fly ball. In the OP there was a very momentary loss of contact with the base (from what I understand, less than one second). On a tag play you are not likely to see this same momentary loss of contact with the base, but will instead either see contact with, or no contact with the base. The only way I can see this being an issue is if the runner, while attempting to return to tag, steps to the side of the base and doesn't actually touch the base. At that point, it is a tough call from one standpoint. Am I 100% sure she did not touch with the tip of her shoe? Again, to me this better be real obvious she was never in contact with the base after the first touch of a batter ball which has not struck the ground.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

More serious note. When a runner "tags" on fly ball, but isn't actually in contact with the base when (or after) the ball is caught, would you (asking youngump, but applies to all) similarly (and consistently) deny an appeal because she didn't "leave" the base. If being at the base but not in contact is not leaving it, would you deny a pickoff tag (okay, that rule says in contact, but my point is where are you drawing the line??)?

I can't actually imagine a situation where a runner would not be in contact with the bag long enough to matter and I wouldn't determine it to be leaving the base. A runner tagged while not in contact with a base is out, so we're talking about the specific case where a runner is standing next to the base and they appeal by touching the bag. Any runner who has been off long enough for that to matter has left the base.

It's my judgment as to what leave a base means and standing on one leg or straddling a base for a while is leaving it. Shifting the feet in a way that temporarily breaks contact is not.

If I see a runner shift her feet in a way that breaks contact and the coach comes out and says did you see her off the base, I can truthfully say "coach I didn't see her leave the base; but I'll be sure and watch all the runners more carefully." If you inadvertenly happen to see a runner shift her feet in a way that momentarily breaks contact with the base and the coach comes out and says did you see that, what do you say?

I still maintain this is an entirely academic conversation as unless I'm missing something you're telling me, we're both going to do the same thing on the field, we're just going to have different approaches to getting there.