hypothetical: runner skips 3B by a lot

[HokieUmp]

22 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

It's funny the FED rules specifically mention the batter peaking at the catcher's signs as an ejectable offense (after a warning), but not this.

Mr. beerguy55, could you provide a citation for a batter peaking (peeking or even piquing) at the catcher being an ejectable offense  please. I hate to admit it but that is totally new to me.

I don't think it's a rule, more like "Thou shalt not peek, else thou receives a ball in the earhole." 

So it's more of a Commandment.

[Senor Azul]

Our very own Mr. lawump actually explained all this before. He posted this explanation on February 20, 2017. Please note that his timeframe of 6-8 years prior coincides perfectly with the case plays issued by the NFHS. It also tells us that the FED really did want to penalize a gross miss.

We had an issue here in SC about 6-8 years ago where some coaches started teaching their players (when the player is an R2 with multiple runners) to grossly cut third-base.  They would basically run on the grass inside the cutout.  They were taking advantage of the fact that many plate umpires (in a two man crew) would not be looking at R2's touch of third base, but rather would be watching R3's touch of home or something else (even though plate umpires should not be watching "something else" in most circumstances!).  Anyways, this problem came to light when enough umpires (often sitting in the stands waiting to umpire the next game) began to notice a pattern and concluded that it had to be more than a coincidence.  Finally, a head coach who was frank enough gave a denial with a large smirk on his face and dripping with sarcasm.  The state high school league got wind of it and finally issued an edict stating that if it happens, the runner, third base coach and head coach (if the head coach was not the third base coach) were all to be ejected.  (Of course, the runner was to be called out...which isn't a problem because we don't have missed base appeal plays in SC.)

Anyways, the problem miraculously disappeared.  This issue hasn't been a problem for several years and the administration at the high school league has changed since 6-8 years ago...so I doubt the High School League would support us if we ejected three participants as a result of this happening today.  Rather, today I'd just call the runner out at the end of the play (because, again, we have no appeal plays in SC).  But, the League's edict 6-8 years ago did resolve this "sportsmanship" issue pretty quickly.

[Senor Azul]

Case book plays are not developed and published to supersede any rules. But they do come from the rules committee and they are official. What case book plays are is stated in the Foreword of each annual book. Here’s what it says in the 2019 NFHS Baseball Case Book:

The play situations and comments are based on questions that have been raised in administering the many thousands of interscholastic games played each season. State associations and allied groups conduct a series of baseball meetings at the beginning of each season and directors of these meetings have contributed reports, summaries and digests of discussions.

Interpretations:  Rulings in this book are approved by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee. They are official for situations as outlined.

The following text introduces the online case plays that the NFHS releases each season:

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

***

Once again, our very own Mr. lawump (who actually served on the NFHS rules committee) posted the following here on U-E on 1/14/20-- 

The NFHS casebook (and the MiLB and MLB Umpire Manuals) tell umpires how to interpret and apply the rules. These publications do not make "suggestions" as to how one should apply the rules (as written in the applicable rule book) on the field during the game. Rather, they tell umpires how they "must" apply the rules (as written in the rule book) during a game. The casebook is binding authority...just like the rule book.  

[ErichKeane]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Our very own Mr. lawump actually explained all this before. He posted this explanation on February 20, 2017. Please note that his timeframe of 6-8 years prior coincides perfectly with the case plays issued by the NFHS. It also tells us that the FED really did want to penalize a gross miss.

We had an issue here in SC about 6-8 years ago where some coaches started teaching their players (when the player is an R2 with multiple runners) to grossly cut third-base.  They would basically run on the grass inside the cutout.  They were taking advantage of the fact that many plate umpires (in a two man crew) would not be looking at R2's touch of third base, but rather would be watching R3's touch of home or something else (even though plate umpires should not be watching "something else" in most circumstances!).  Anyways, this problem came to light when enough umpires (often sitting in the stands waiting to umpire the next game) began to notice a pattern and concluded that it had to be more than a coincidence.  Finally, a head coach who was frank enough gave a denial with a large smirk on his face and dripping with sarcasm.  The state high school league got wind of it and finally issued an edict stating that if it happens, the runner, third base coach and head coach (if the head coach was not the third base coach) were all to be ejected.  (Of course, the runner was to be called out...which isn't a problem because we don't have missed base appeal plays in SC.)

Anyways, the problem miraculously disappeared.  This issue hasn't been a problem for several years and the administration at the high school league has changed since 6-8 years ago...so I doubt the High School League would support us if we ejected three participants as a result of this happening today.  Rather, today I'd just call the runner out at the end of the play (because, again, we have no appeal plays in SC).  But, the League's edict 6-8 years ago did resolve this "sportsmanship" issue pretty quickly.

Glad I'm not the only one who went to 'ejection as a sportsmanship violation', so at least my initial knee-jerk reaction was not completely out of left field    That said, unless we have some way to combat it with sufficient punishment-per-caught-case, we're going to see it again.

The problem with our current "just call them out on appeal" mechanism is that our chance of catching it multiplied by the punishment if caught is much less than the benefit.  Unless we can invert that, I fear this is something the NFHS folks will have to make a ruling on in the future.

[Senor Azul]

Mr. beerguy55, I followed the link you provided to the baseballrulesacademy website—a site I have visited many times before. I was shocked to read what they had posted on this subject—I had never disagreed with anything posted there before as I think it is a very reliable source of information.

I, of course, knew that the FED rule did not say what you had said it did. But now after seeing what was posted at that website it is understandable that you posted in the way you did. Anyway, I want you to know that I appreciate your honest and direct response to my question.

[The Man in Blue]

19 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Our very own Mr. lawump actually explained all this before. He posted this explanation on February 20, 2017. Please note that his timeframe of 6-8 years prior coincides perfectly with the case plays issued by the NFHS. It also tells us that the FED really did want to penalize a gross miss.

... The state high school league got wind of it and finally issued an edict stating that if it happens, the runner, third base coach and head coach (if the head coach was not the third base coach) were all to be ejected.  (Of course, the runner was to be called out...which isn't a problem because we don't have missed base appeal plays in SC.)

 

Again, I agree there should be a penalty.  However, NFHS neither makes this clear nor prescribes a penalty by rule.  While I appreciate and agree with the tactic in the post from @lawump it comes from a state association not NFHS.

[The Man in Blue]

20 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Case book plays are not developed and published to supersede any rules. But they do come from the rules committee and they are official. What case book plays are is stated in the Foreword of each annual book. Here’s what it says in the 2019 NFHS Baseball Case Book:

The play situations and comments are based on questions that have been raised in administering the many thousands of interscholastic games played each season. State associations and allied groups conduct a series of baseball meetings at the beginning of each season and directors of these meetings have contributed reports, summaries and digests of discussions.

Interpretations:  Rulings in this book are approved by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee. They are official for situations as outlined.

The following text introduces the online case plays that the NFHS releases each season:

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

***

Once again, our very own Mr. lawump (who actually served on the NFHS rules committee) posted the following here on U-E on 1/14/20-- 

The NFHS casebook (and the MiLB and MLB Umpire Manuals) tell umpires how to interpret and apply the rules. These publications do not make "suggestions" as to how one should apply the rules (as written in the applicable rule book) on the field during the game. Rather, they tell umpires how they "must" apply the rules (as written in the rule book) during a game. The casebook is binding authority...just like the rule book.  

And yet, that is exactly what has happened from a case play, once again.  There is NO rule in NFHS that states a runner who cheats receives any more or any less protection than a runner who legitimately errs. 

The 2011 case play #16 reads:

SITUATION 16: As R1 attempts to score from second base, he misses third base by cutting well inside the infield. With the fly ball being caught, Brown attempts to return, touching third as he goes back to second base. RULING: Brown will be declared out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base in a manner to gain an unfair advantage is still vulnerable to appeal. (8-2-6l)

That does not state there is any additional penalty for "a runner who misses a base in a manner to gain an unfair advantage".  It does state that runner "is still vulnerable to appeal" under the "last time by" principal.

Rule 8-2-6l

Rule 8 Baserunning

SECTION 2 TOUCHING, OCCUPYING AND RETURNING TO A BASE

ART. 6 . . . Appeal procedures and guidelines

l. Last Time By. If a runner correctly touches a base that was missed (either in advancing or returning), the last time he was by the base, that last touch corrects any previous baserunning infraction. (8-4-2q EXCEPTION)

This tells us the runner who skipped third base can absolve himself of that sin by retouching third base on his way back to second.  There is no caveat about the reason he skipped third base.  The 2011 case play is not telling us there is an appeal on him for missing third base -- it is telling us there is an appeal for him leaving second base early.  Well, in actuality, it is just poorly written and doesn't really tell us what is going on.  Did he leave early?  One would presume so, since he is headed back to second.  Where was the appeal?  We really don't know, but again presume it is at second for leaving early.

Let's look at that exception though ...

Rule 8 Baserunning

SECTION 4 RUNNER IS OUT

ART. 2 . . . Any runner is out when he:

q. is on or beyond a succeeding base when the ball is declared dead (5-2-2b-1) after having left a base too soon on a caught fly ball, or he failed to touch a preceding base, or he continues and touches a succeeding base after the ball has become dead and the defense initiates a proper and successful appeal;

Again, no language about a runner who cheats, only language for what happens when you miss a base (regardless of reason) and it is appealed properly.

Yet ... here is the quote from Mr. Hopkins in The BRD:

Official Interpretation: Hopkins:  “Last time by” does not apply when a runner misses a base to gain an unfair advantage. (Website 2011 #16 and 18)

Nowhere in NFHS language does it ever state that a runner missing a base "to gain an unfair advantage" loses any protection afforded to a runner who legitimately errs.  Mr. Hopkins took a case play, albeit a poorly written case play, and imparted his own opinion with no basis in NFHS rules.

I understand Mr. Hopkins holds a position of authority.  However, he still needs to abide by the written rule, not create his own.  The case play provides "an official situation[s] as outlined" and Mr. Hopkins, purposely or inadvertently, misapplied it.  Perhaps it was just poor wording and it was not intended that way, but now we have Carl Childress publishing it in The BRD and it is now accepted by some as something that actually has superseded the rule it was attempting to provide guidance on.

 

 

I found the original NFHS publication for the 2011 case plays here:

  http://www.ccbua.org/Training_Docs/2011_NFHS_Baseball_Rule_Interpretations.pdf

Rule citations came from the 2020 version of the NFHS Baseball Rules Book.

[Senor Azul]

As I pointed out in the very first sentence of my first post in this thread there is a current case play in the current case book about the principle of last time by. Also, those online case plays already posted do tell us what rule is being interpreted—8-2-6l.

2020 NFHS Case Book Play 8.2.6 Situation H:  R1 is stealing on the pitch and a fly ball is hit to right field. R1 misses second base by (a) a few inches or (b) a greater distance because he cuts across the infield missing second base as he advanced toward third base. F9 catches the fly ball and R1 now retouches second base as he retreats to first base. F9's throw is errant and R1 reaches first base ahead of the throw. The defense now appeals that R1 should be out as he did not initially touch second base. RULING: In (a), R1 is not declared out as he touched second base on his return to first and as a result corrected his mistake by touching second on his last time by the base. In (b), R1 is out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base by such a great distance in order to gain an advantage would still be vulnerable to appeal under the principle of last time by.

***

quoting lawump--someone who actually served on the rules committee--again The NFHS casebook (and the MiLB and MLB Umpire Manuals) tell umpires how to interpret and apply the rules. These publications do not make "suggestions" as to how one should apply the rules (as written in the applicable rule book) on the field during the game. Rather, they tell umpires how they "must" apply the rules (as written in the rule book) during a game. The casebook is binding authority...just like the rule book.  

[The Man in Blue]

I know I am yelling at clouds here ... 

IF we want to punish players and coaches who are cheating, I am all in favor of it.  However, let's do it properly under 3-3-1f(4).  These case plays, old and new, are NOT doing it properly.  Mr. Hopkins and NFHS have made up a concept and attributed it to a rule that DOES NOT support the enforcement they are directing.  8-2-6l and its exception, 8-2-4q were posted in their entirety above.  Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

I understand the world we live in now is one where we double down and keep repeating the same things to create our own reality.  Publishing a new case play that makes the same error (that this assertion is not defined or supported under rule) does not place a rule in the rule book.  If case plays by the NFHS's own definition are not replacements for rules, then we cannot simply add provisions that we like and claim they are supported.

Here are the critical words used in the case play and how often they appear in the NFHS rule book:

R1 is out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base by such a great distance in order to gain an advantage would still be vulnerable to appeal under the principle of last time by.

Miss in the form of derivatives missing, missed, and misses appears 18 times.  17 of those are in relation to base running (the first one is in reference to a swinging strike).  NONE of those 17 instances include any reference or information on the cause of the miss or the intent of the runner or prescribe a penalty other than that given in a basic appeal play.  None of them afford any more or less protection to a runner who cheats.

Great distance never appears.  Great appears one time in reference to controlling influenza through hygiene.  (Really!)  Distance appears 5 times, all in reference to playing field dimensions.

Gain advantage never appears.  Gain never appears.  Advantage appears twice.  Once in the score keeping section and once in the Coaches Code of Ethics: The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

Vulnerable never appears.

Last time by appears once, and was cited in full up above.  There is no exclusion or reference to the reason or intent of the runner.

 

The next failing of this series of case plays is the directive that there should be a different standard applied to a cheating runner ONLY under an appeal.  If we are punishing a team for cheating that we are aware of, why would we be directed to only do this if the other team complains?  Do we knowingly allow a pitcher to grease up or cut the ball until the other team complains?  Do we knowingly let the batter cover the entire bat with pine tar until the other team complains?

Finally, here is the real danger with case plays, and we have seen it here with the "fielder 20 feet away from the bag on a pick off attempt" scenario ... the literal readings that occur.  By the literal reading of the poorly written 2011 case play #16, that would only apply for a runner who skips third base, not one who skips second base.  By the literal reading of the 2020 case play, any miss of second base by "greater distance" than "a few inches" is deemed deliberate and we should not allow the runner to retouch second base.

 

Again ... yes, let's punish the cheaters, but let's do it properly by using the rules in existence or writing a new rule, not make something up and publishing it a case book.

[ErichKeane]

6 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I know I am yelling at clouds here ... 

IF we want to punish players and coaches who are cheating, I am all in favor of it.  However, let's do it properly under 3-3-1f(4).  These case plays, old and new, are NOT doing it properly.  Mr. Hopkins and NFHS have made up a concept and attributed it to a rule that DOES NOT support the enforcement they are directing.  8-2-6l and its exception, 8-2-4q were posted in their entirety above.  Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

I understand the world we live in now is one where we double down and keep repeating the same things to create our own reality.  Publishing a new case play that makes the same error (that this assertion is not defined or supported under rule) does not place a rule in the rule book.  If case plays by the NFHS's own definition are not replacements for rules, then we cannot simply add provisions that we like and claim they are supported.

Here are the critical words used in the case play and how often they appear in the NFHS rule book:

R1 is out on the appeal because a runner who misses a base by such a great distance in order to gain an advantage would still be vulnerable to appeal under the principle of last time by.

Miss in the form of derivatives missing, missed, and misses appears 18 times.  17 of those are in relation to base running (the first one is in reference to a swinging strike).  NONE of those 17 instances include any reference or information on the cause of the miss or the intent of the runner or prescribe a penalty other than that given in a basic appeal play.  None of them afford any more or less protection to a runner who cheats.

Great distance never appears.  Great appears one time in reference to controlling influenza through hygiene.  (Really!)  Distance appears 5 times, all in reference to playing field dimensions.

Gain advantage never appears.  Gain never appears.  Advantage appears twice.  Once in the score keeping section and once in the Coaches Code of Ethics: The coach shall master the contest rules and shall teach them to his or her team members. The coach shall not seek an advantage by circumvention of the spirit or letter of the rules.

Vulnerable never appears.

Last time by appears once, and was cited in full up above.  There is no exclusion or reference to the reason or intent of the runner.

 

The next failing of this series of case plays is the directive that there should be a different standard applied to a cheating runner ONLY under an appeal.  If we are punishing a team for cheating that we are aware of, why would we be directed to only do this if the other team complains?  Do we knowingly allow a pitcher to grease up or cut the ball until the other team complains?  Do we knowingly let the batter cover the entire bat with pine tar until the other team complains?

Finally, here is the real danger with case plays, and we have seen it here with the "fielder 20 feet away from the bag on a pick off attempt" scenario ... the literal readings that occur.  By the literal reading of the poorly written 2011 case play #16, that would only apply for a runner who skips third base, not one who skips second base.  By the literal reading of the 2020 case play, any miss of second base by "greater distance" than "a few inches" is deemed deliberate and we should not allow the runner to retouch second base.

 

Again ... yes, let's punish the cheaters, but let's do it properly by using the rules in existence or writing a new rule, not make something up and publishing it a case book.

I agree here... My understanding is that the Case Plays are supposed to be official interpretations of the rules, which would require that they have SOME Basis in the rulebook.  This case play doesn't seem like it is justified by the rulebook, it quotes a rule that doesn't say what it claims it says. This feels a lot like legislating from the case-play-making-judge bench

That said, I ALSO see @Senor Azul's point that these 'interpretations' (whether or not justified) are prima-facie 'law'.

[agdz59]

7 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Again ... yes, let's punish the cheaters, but let's do it properly by using the rules in existence or writing a new rule, not make something up and publishing it a case book.

I couldn't up-vote this post enough.  What TMIB is alluding to is what is so maddening about this and other umpire forums.  On the one hand, the respected umpire resources rail against MSU (Mad Max, Mr. Blue, etc) but will defend to the death MSU in a handful of (to me) random instances where it has been canonized by the high priests.  I don't get it and it frustrates the hell out of me to the point where I don't umpire at this time.

Don't get me wrong - I GET why we don't want to MSU.  But, as is also beaten into us - BE CONSISTENT.  Fix the damn rule and all of us can get on board.  What is so hard abut that? Wouldn't it make everyone's job easier if we didn't have to divine through long years of study which MSU is OK and which will stop getting you assigned?

Thank you TMIB.

[Senor Azul]

I am simply amazed how you guys think it is such a simple process to change rules. Again, I am going to turn to our member lawump who actually served on the FED rules committee. He posted a pretty detailed explanation of what has to happen to get a rule change adopted in a lengthy post dated June 11, 2019, in the High School forum and titled All Good Things Must Come to an End.

I urge you all to read it—it is very informative. It's not an easy or quick process. Here's what he said about case book plays being somewhat easier to solve issues--

Additionally, if the baseball rules committee felt that there were issues in the sport that needed to be addressed, but did not require a rule change, we could vote to insert new plays into the casebook.  Since casebook plays are not "rule changes", but rather are interpretations of existing rules, they are not required to be submitted to the states ahead of time.  And, in fact, it is common for the committee to draft and adopt a new casebook play(s) after having a discussion on a particular issue when we felt we could deal with the issue with a casebook play rather than have to wait to submit a rule change proposal the following year.

Here’s the link--

https://umpire-empire.com/topic/72861-all-good-things-must-come-to-an-end/

[The Man in Blue]

Nobody said it was simple or easy ... What I (we?) have been saying is use case plays to provide guidance on how to apply rules ... don't MSU and drop it into a case play when you can't get an actual rule change done.  

I read @lawump's post on getting a rule change through when he originally posted it.  I agree it is a very eye opening and enlightening post and I applaud him sharing that peek behind the curtain.  I have held elected public office and have served on several boards of directors (as well as worked with scores more), so I am not ignorant of the processes (or politics) involved with bureaucratic change.  

Here are his words on case plays ...

Additionally, if the baseball rules committee felt that there were issues in the sport that needed to be addressed, but did not require a rule change, we could vote to insert new plays into the casebook.  Since casebook plays are not "rule changes", but rather are interpretations of existing rules, they are not required to be submitted to the states ahead of time.  And, in fact, it is common for the committee to draft and adopt a new casebook play(s) after having a discussion on a particular issue when we felt we could deal with the issue with a casebook play rather than have to wait to submit a rule change proposal the following year.

That is what we are discussing.  We are discussing case plays that insert desired rulings that are not supported by rule. 

Specifically in this case, the need for somebody to enlighten us on where the rules support disallowing a retouch when a runner is deemed to have cheated rather than erred.  The rule cited in the case play does not support that.  In fact, that rule supports the assertion that there is no difference.

If NFHS needs a consultant/writer to clean up their case play book, I'm available.  I suspect many of these controversies are the result of poorly written case plays (as #16 was back in 2011).  Perhaps they should have somebody not involved in the process doing the editing/proof reading.  Or maybe they do, I don't know on that one.