You make the call

[chapmaja]

Here are three plays from today's JV game, NFHS rules.

Play 1: Pitch gets by the catcher and the runner on 3rd comes home. The runner does not slide, but just continues to run towards home. The throw from the catcher to the pitcher covering home hits the runner before she touches the plate? She did not do anything to intentionally contact the throw such as reach up and swat at the ball or jump in front of the throw. What's the call?

Play 2: 1 out R1 on first, B2 batting. Strike three is dropped and gets behind the catcher. R1 takes off for second base. The catcher picks up the ball and throws back to the pitcher in the circle. The plate umpire clearly and loudly called strike three, batters out. R1 for some reason stops short of second base, pauses, then realizes she needs to continue. This pause happens after the ball is in the circle in possession of the pitcher. What's the call?

Play 3: Runner at third, 2 outs. The runner jumps up and switches feet touching the base in such a manner that momentarily there is no contact with the base by either foot. (Pitcher has the ball in the circle) She has never moved forward towards home plate. Player 40 is the batter in the box when this happens (this is important in play 5). What's the call?

Play 4: Similar to play 3, this time runner is on first base. The runner jumps up as the pitcher is on the pitchers plate, but moves 3 feet off first base towards second base in the process of switching the "lead" foot.

Play 5: From play 3, #40 was at bat when the inning ended at 3rd base. Batter #18 comes up to bat and the count is 1-1 when the offensive coach calls for time and says she is switching batters to #40 who should be the batter because she was up when the call was made (play #3). What should happen?


There were all plays from tonight's JV DH. Play 1 was when I was on the bases, plays 2-5 were with me on the plate.

[chapmaja]

My opinion of these plays is as follows.

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here are three plays from today's JV game, NFHS rules.

Play 1: Pitch gets by the catcher and the runner on 3rd comes home. The runner does not slide, but just continues to run towards home. The throw from the catcher to the pitcher covering home hits the runner before she touches the plate? She did not do anything to intentionally contact the throw such as reach up and swat at the ball or jump in front of the throw. What's the call?

I have nothing if I am the plate umpire. This was not interference, but simply a throw that hit a runner who was running where she was allowed to run.



Play 2: 1 out R1 on first, B2 batting. Strike three is dropped and gets behind the catcher. R1 takes off for second base. The catcher picks up the ball and throws back to the pitcher in the circle. The plate umpire clearly and loudly called strike three, batters out. R1 for some reason stops short of second base, pauses, then realizes she needs to continue. This pause happens after the ball is in the circle in possession of the pitcher. What's the call?

I again have nothing on this. She took off with the ball not in the circle, momentarily paused while the ball was in the circle then continued to second base.

Play 3: Runner at third, 2 outs. The runner jumps up and switches feet touching the base in such a manner that momentarily there is no contact with the base by either foot. (Pitcher has the ball in the circle) She has never moved forward towards home plate. Player 40 is the batter in the box when this happens (this is important in play 5). What's the call?


I have nothing on this play. The runner did not leave the base early, she just lost contact momentarily above the base.


Play 4: Similar to play 3, this time runner is on first base. The runner jumps up as the pitcher is on the pitchers plate, but moves 3 feet off first base towards second base in the process of switching the "lead" foot.

I have an out on this for leaving the base early. I ended up making this call from the plate because the base umpire did not call it despite the fact she was a good three feet off the base which was clearly visible from where he was standing. This should not have been my call to make, but when the visiting team coach is arguing about consistency in the calls, she will get what she asked for. Why he did not call this I have no idea.

Play 5: From play 3, #40 was at bat when the inning ended at 3rd base. Batter #18 comes up to bat and the count is 1-1 when the offensive coach calls for time and says she is switching batters to #40 who should be the batter because she was up when the call was made (play #3). What should happen?

I know have the correct batter, #40, up with a 1-1 count. Despite what the defensive coach said, I have no out on this play because no play had occurred.


There were all plays from tonight's JV DH. Play 1 was when I was on the bases, plays 2-5 were with me on the plate.

One final thing. After play #3, we get ready to start the next half inning and I look up and see my BU standing just inside the foul line at 3rd base. I tried quietly pointing him to get back into position, but he wasn't paying attention to me. The first play was a ground out, with a fairly close play at 1st, which he called from by 3rd base. It took him halfway through the second batter to realize he was out of position. I think he started the half inning in the E position.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I suggest you read the words that are actually rule 8-6-18 without paraphrasing what you believe the rule intends.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I suggest you read the words that are actually rule 8-6-18 without paraphrasing what you believe the rule intends.

And which play would this be in reference to? I am assuming you are talking about play 1, because what I find online has to do with a RETIRED runner. In play one, there was not a retired runner. As stated in the OP, the throw hit her "before she touches the plate", thus she is not a retired runner, but a runner attempting to come home on a passed ball.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

And which play would this be in reference to? I am assuming you are talking about play 1, because what I find online has to do with a RETIRED runner. In play one, there was not a retired runner. As stated in the OP, the throw hit her "before she touches the plate", thus she is not a retired runner, but a runner attempting to come home on a passed ball.

Never mind, found the 13 book and saw they reorganized the rules since the 2010 book I saw online.

Ok, technically the little hopstep would be grounds to declare the runner out, HOWEVER, this is where the technical and the practical rules applications require officiating. Was she gaining an advantage by her action of losing contact with the base for a split second while she adjusted her feet? No.

How often does this happen at all levels of softball? I'm sure its a lot more than it gets call.

The biggest complaint with a call like this is consistency. This is both between umpires and from the same umpire.

As stated above, the same umpire had a clear view of the runner 3 feet off the base and I had to call the out from behind the plate because he he did not call it. (he even told the coach "yes she was off" after I made the call).

Also, this rule is one of the worst for inconsistency among umpires. I personally will not call a player momentarily losing contact because she is switching her foot position, yet other umpires will. This is because some umpires rule to the letter of the rule, while others rule to the intent of the rule. I don't think the intent of the rule is to call a runner out when she loses momentary contact with the base without making any movement to advance her position on the base.

[RKBUmp]

Obviously different rule set, but still a case play covering a very similar situation and explanation for the call and why it should be called. When umpires start determining "intent" of the rule and if an advantage was gained or not it becomes their own personal interpretation of the rules. When that happens rather than calling the game per the published rules, it becomes literally thousands of different rule sets based on each umpires own personal interpretations of intent and gaining an advantage.

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?
2) the runner walks off the base to groom the dirt area which she churned up as she ran out her single. She does not attempt to advance so 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.
2) As in the earlier situation, the runner should be called out unless she asked for and was granted time by the umpire.
In both these cases, the umpire should enforce the rule without assigning intent of the runner or whether or not an advantage is gained. It is much cleaner to call all aspects of the game based on the objective actions that are displayed rather than to assign value or intent and then decide if the action warrants a penalty. For some, that might seem “nitpicky” but it does provide predictable, consistent application of the rules without having to judge intent OR whether or not a “real” advantage is gained. That said, it is good preventative umpiring to anticipate these possible actions. For example, if the area around the base is churned up at the conclusion of play, the umpire can signal “time” in anticipation of the player’s desire to smooth the ground. If the player then simply walks off the base without requesting time, you have no violation as play is already suspended. Bottom line, however, is that players are responsible for adhering to the playing rules and the rules committee does not favor the slippery slope of ignoring rule violations when there’s no intent to violate the rules or conversely only penalizing players when they intentionally violate the rules.

[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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here are three plays from today's JV game, NFHS rules.

Play 1: Pitch gets by the catcher and the runner on 3rd comes home. The runner does not slide, but just continues to run towards home. The throw from the catcher to the pitcher covering home hits the runner before she touches the plate? She did not do anything to intentionally contact the throw such as reach up and swat at the ball or jump in front of the throw. What's the call?

Does the title of the rule book have a "D" in it?

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Play 2: 1 out R1 on first, B2 batting. Strike three is dropped and gets behind the catcher. R1 takes off for second base. The catcher picks up the ball and throws back to the pitcher in the circle. The plate umpire clearly and loudly called strike three, batters out. R1 for some reason stops short of second base, pauses, then realizes she needs to continue. This pause happens after the ball is in the circle in possession of the pitcher. What's the call?

Nothing. The runner is allowed one stop, but then must proceed / retreat immediately.

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Play 3: Runner at third, 2 outs. The runner jumps up and switches feet touching the base in such a manner that momentarily there is no contact with the base by either foot. (Pitcher has the ball in the circle) She has never moved forward towards home plate. Player 40 is the batter in the box when this happens (this is important in play 5). What's the call?

Your phraseology here is interesting... "jumps up"... this sound like something more than just switching feet. Was it?

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Play 4: Similar to play 3, this time runner is on first base. The runner jumps up as the pitcher is on the pitchers plate, but moves 3 feet off first base towards second base in the process of switching the "lead" foot.

Same question as above, but since she clearly did leave the base, she's out (regardless of how you come down on the "fails to keep contact" v "leaves the base" wording of the two rules).

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Play 5: From play 3, #40 was at bat when the inning ended at 3rd base. Batter #18 comes up to bat and the count is 1-1 when the offensive coach calls for time and says she is switching batters to #40 who should be the batter because she was up when the call was made (play #3). What should happen?

You got it. #40 continues the at bat & assumes the count.

The wording difference between Fed rules 8-6-18 and 8-7-3 is puzzling. You would think the infraction would be the same and hence would be described the same. But, since it is different, youngump's method of distinction is not unreasonable (although I'm not sure if I can endorse it exactly).

8-7 is describing the situation where the pitcher has control of the ball in the circle. 8-6-18's only clear indication of when it applies is before the pitch is released. How much before? Again, I can see how youngump comes to the conclusion that 8-6-18 is only in force once the pitcher has begun her pitching motion. Before the pitch? Runners? Don't leave while the pitcher has possession. After the pitch has started? Runners? Keep contact until the ball is released.

Rather than fret over this, a much simpler approach is to simply not use these rules as a "gotcha" rule. Which brings me back to my question after Play 3. If the runner is playing games and "jumping up" to supposedly switch feet, then, OK, runner, I'll play... OUT.

[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.