Left early

[benbret]

NFHS Girl's fastpitch R1 on first and R2 on second. Both runners leave the base at the same time before the pitch is released. Can you call both runners out or should you just pick one?

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Originally Posted by benbret

NFHS Girl's fastpitch R1 on first and R2 on second. Both runners leave the base at the same time before the pitch is released. Can you call both runners out or should you just pick one?

EsqUmp can confirm this, but in NYS, we are taught to get the lead runner.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

... we are taught to get the lead runner.

That is, you can only get one out - you cannot get two outs.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by benbret

NFHS Girl's fastpitch R1 on first and R2 on second. Both runners leave the base at the same time before the pitch is released. Can you call both runners out or should you just pick one?

Only one out per pitch/case is allowed.
If you really mean simultaneous and both as obvious, neither one influenced the other; then I guess the NY approach is ok.

Also, if so, congrats on visions and concentration to see both.

Please use our standard terms of R1 being lead runner, R2 & R3 trailing.

[MD Longhorn]

Do not default to the lead runner... SOMEONE left first - that is the player that's out. If you can't judge what happened first from two events happening nearly simultaneously ... you can't umpire, as that's half of our job.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by benbret

NFHS Girl's fastpitch R2 on first and R1 on second. Both runners leave the base at the same time before the pitch is released. Can you call both runners out or should you just pick one?

fify

Only one can be declared out, so you have to decide which one left first in your judgment. (Same as you have to decide safe or out when the ball in the glove and the runner's foot on the base arrive "simultaneously"! It is why you get the big bucks.)

I don't like what is stated above about calling the lead runner out. It leads to lazy umpiring. Decide who actually left first, and rule her out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

fify

Only one can be declared out, so you have to decide which one left first in your judgment. (Same as you have to decide safe or out when the ball in the glove and the runner's foot on the base arrive "simultaneously"! It is why you get the big bucks.)

I don't like what is stated above about calling the lead runner out. It leads to lazy umpiring. Decide who actually left first, and rule her out.

Agreed, on all counts.

[EsqUmp]

If an umpire cannot discern which runner left earlier, then it is appropriate not to reward a team committing a double violation by allowing a lead runner to remain on base. With that said, there is nothing requiring that the lead runner always be called out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

If an umpire cannot discern which runner left earlier,

they need to stop umpiring... discerning what happened first between two nearly simultaneous events is a large part our job.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

they need to stop umpiring...

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far, but they at least need to hone their skills / technique.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

discerning what happened first between two nearly simultaneous events is a large part our job.

Agreed, which is why I do not like them being given official sanction to do otherwise.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Only one out per pitch/case is allowed.
If you really mean simultaneous and both as obvious, neither one influenced the other; then I guess the NY approach is ok.

The first sentence is the point and the answer to the OPQ.

Note the bold in the second sentence. We know it can't be.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

they need to stop umpiring... discerning what happened first between two nearly simultaneous events is a large part our job.

It's not even close to comparing whether the BR's foot hit the base or the ball hit the glove first. We're talking an umpire standing behind the short stop trying to figure out if R1 left 1st or R3 left 3rd first. That's not such an easy call. The players aren't near each other. The player's have different motions. This virtually never happens so it's hard to hone something that rarely occurs.

This is similar to calling a circle rule/look-back rule violation in certain situations.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

It's not even close to comparing whether the BR's foot hit the base or the ball hit the glove first.

Didn't say it was...

This is similar to calling a circle rule/look-back rule violation in certain situations.

Yes, exactly. Or tag-up vs catch. Or any timing play. It's our job. We're trained for it. Call what you see - who left first.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Didn't say it was...

Yes, exactly. Or tag-up vs catch. Or any timing play. It's our job. We're trained for it. Call what you see - who left first.

Yes, we get paid to make those calls, however I have to disagree with your comment from below

"they need to stop umpiring... discerning what happened first between two nearly simultaneous events is a large part our job."

Telling someone they need to stop umpiring because of something like this is what I see wrong with umpiring all over right now. We have old officials having this type attitude with other officials.

I don't know about your area, but in my area of the country we are running into serious issues with being able to fill officials assignments in multiple sports. Having officials with that attitude towards other officials is not helping bring new blood into the profession. There are enough issues with parents and coaches already driving people away from officiating, we don't need other officials being part of the problem.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Yes, we get paid to make those calls, however I have to disagree with your comment from below

"they need to stop umpiring... discerning what happened first between two nearly simultaneous events is a large part our job."

Telling someone they need to stop umpiring because of something like this is what I see wrong with umpiring all over right now. We have old officials having this type attitude with other officials.

I don't know about your area, but in my area of the country we are running into serious issues with being able to fill officials assignments in multiple sports. Having officials with that attitude towards other officials is not helping bring new blood into the profession. There are enough issues with parents and coaches already driving people away from officiating, we don't need other officials being part of the problem.

If an umpire cannot decide whether one event happened before another, his ability to do his job is nearly zero. Relying on crutches like those posted above (if I can't tell which happened first, bang out the lead runner) is the sign of an umpire who has stopped trying to do their job correctly.

"something like this" is a skill that is inherent to an umpire's ability to do the job in the first place. If they can't do "something like this", they can't umpire.

I'm sorry that you work in an area where you must accept warm bodies just to fill the assignments. That's not the case here. Most good umpires don't get as much work as they want, because there are so many good umpires.

Then again ... just 60 miles from here, I was asked to come help out because they were short, and my partner literally yelled, "TIE!" on a banger at first... (I guess he could not discern which event happened first... ) - so I recognize that there ARE areas where they are just trying to fill spots, by any means necessary.