Retired Runner Continues Running the Bases - Defense Plays on Retired Runner

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Would you be willing to expand a bit more on how case plays & interpretations cause problems in making decisions? I'm not sure I'm understanding your perspective on this piece. 

I think this conversation is an excellent example.  Case plays don't make anything legal or illegal.  Rules do.  However, umpires read case plays and selectively parse the verbiage as a rule, rather than using the case play to understand the rule and how it works.

A case play should contain with it the logic of how the rule is applied, not supplant or replace a rule.

Case plays (in NFHS, anyway) are numbered to go with the rule they refer back to.  They do not typically contain the logic as to how the rule is applied.  Too many umpires do not look for that logic-connection to gain understanding, they just read the words and accept them as "rules" to make calls.

EXAMPLE (doing it wrong):

Rule 8-1-1(d) tells us a pitched ball must touch a batter or his clothing in order for the batter to be awarded first base.

Rule 8-1-1(d)(2) tells us that if the ball strikes a loose garment, such as one being worn improperly, the award is negated.

The OLD case play 8.1.1 Situation Q presents to us a pitch that strikes "an armband-placard type device" that is "loosely attached to the belt."  According to that case play, and in accordance with the rules above, the case play tells us the batter does NOT receive the award to first base because the equipment is not being worn properly.

But then . . . CURRENT case play 8.1.1 Situation Q gives us the infamous "sliding mitt in the pocket" situation.  The case play itself states that the uniform, hat, helmet, protective equipment, shoes, etc. MUST BE WORN PROPERLY.  The case play infers that the sliding mitt is not being worn properly, admonishes the umpire for allowing it to stick out of the pocket, and then awards the base anyway.  This is not logical.  This play contains NO information on how or why this rules was applied.  It does nothing other than chastise umpires.

A question on my recent test confirms that a hat sticking out of the back pocket and being struck by the ball falls under 8-1-1(d)(2).  So why do we have a case play that says something completely contrary to the rules and previous applications?  What is the logic they used to get there?  Which one are you going to adhere to?  Saying a sliding glove sticking out is OK, but nothing else is because . . . a case play says so?  

However, you better NOT have a sweatband attached to your belt on defense BECAUSE of . . . that old 8.1.1 Situation Q case play?  Where is the rule saying this?  

EXAMPLE (doing it right):

Rule 3-3-1 tells us the offense should not leave the dugout during a live ball for unauthorized purposes.  Nowhere in the book does it list what the authorized purposes are.  We do have a penalty of a team warning and then ejection for subsequent offenses.

SO . . . when the bat boy comes out during a live ball, I should warn and eject!  NO!

Case play 3.3.1 Situation B tells us the bat boy leaving the dugout to retrieve the bat should NOT be ejected because " . . . the intent of the rule is to limit offensive players from flooding around the home plate area and potentially interfering . . . "

THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT!  Explain why the rule is there so that an umpire can learn to use it properly.

[johnnyg08]

45 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I think this conversation is an excellent example.  Case plays don't make anything legal or illegal.  Rules do.  However, umpires read case plays and selectively parse the verbiage as a rule, rather than using the case play to understand the rule and how it works.

A case play should contain with it the logic of how the rule is applied, not supplant or replace a rule.

Case plays (in NFHS, anyway) are numbered to go with the rule they refer back to.  They do not typically contain the logic as to how the rule is applied.  Too many umpires do not look for that logic-connection to gain understanding, they just read the words and accept them as "rules" to make calls.

EXAMPLE (doing it wrong):

Rule 8-1-1(d) tells us a pitched ball must touch a batter or his clothing in order for the batter to be awarded first base.

Rule 8-1-1(d)(2) tells us that if the ball strikes a loose garment, such as one being worn improperly, the award is negated.

The OLD case play 8.1.1 Situation Q presents to us a pitch that strikes "an armband-placard type device" that is "loosely attached to the belt."  According to that case play, and in accordance with the rules above, the case play tells us the batter does NOT receive the award to first base because the equipment is not being worn properly.

But then . . . CURRENT case play 8.1.1 Situation Q gives us the infamous "sliding mitt in the pocket" situation.  The case play itself states that the uniform, hat, helmet, protective equipment, shoes, etc. MUST BE WORN PROPERLY.  The case play infers that the sliding mitt is not being worn properly, admonishes the umpire for allowing it to stick out of the pocket, and then awards the base anyway.  This is not logical.  This play contains NO information on how or why this rules was applied.  It does nothing other than chastise umpires.

A question on my recent test confirms that a hat sticking out of the back pocket and being struck by the ball falls under 8-1-1(d)(2).  So why do we have a case play that says something completely contrary to the rules and previous applications?  What is the logic they used to get there?  Which one are you going to adhere to?  Saying a sliding glove sticking out is OK, but nothing else is because . . . a case play says so?  

However, you better NOT have a sweatband attached to your belt on defense BECAUSE of . . . that old 8.1.1 Situation Q case play?  Where is the rule saying this?  

EXAMPLE (doing it right):

Rule 3-3-1 tells us the offense should not leave the dugout during a live ball for unauthorized purposes.  Nowhere in the book does it list what the authorized purposes are.  We do have a penalty of a team warning and then ejection for subsequent offenses.

SO . . . when the bat boy comes out during a live ball, I should warn and eject!  NO!

Case play 3.3.1 Situation B tells us the bat boy leaving the dugout to retrieve the bat should NOT be ejected because " . . . the intent of the rule is to limit offensive players from flooding around the home plate area and potentially interfering . . . "

THAT IS HOW YOU DO IT!  Explain why the rule is there so that an umpire can learn to use it properly.

Thank you for the response. 

I guess I see your examples of being exactly why we have a case book. 

The case book helps us properly apply the rules. 

I don't think the rule book or case book is perfect...but baseball is full of intricacies and covering every single instance that could ever occur is unreasonable and definitely not practical. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

I absolutely agree about the intricacies, and that is precisely WHY the case book needs to teach HOW to use the rules instead of trying impart specific instructions on WHAT TO DO in a precise and specific situation.  It needs to teach umpires how to think.  

Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish.

[The Man in Blue]

Not a case play, but here is another example of NFHS actually calling for reason in the application of a rule:

 

 

[Jimurray]

21 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Not a case play, but here is another example of NFHS actually calling for reason in the application of a rule:

 

 

A surprising number of my cohorts missed the nuance of this being a "hip pocket' rule.

[The Man in Blue]

While I agree that many probably miss the nuance, I'll suggest an added possibility: how many of them are bringing from somewhere else?  Meaning, they call college ball and call it there OR they just want to be like the big guys.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

While I agree that many probably miss the nuance, I'll suggest an added possibility: how many of them are bringing from somewhere else?  Meaning, they call college ball and call it there OR they just want to be like the big guys.

I'd rather use game management with a hip pocket rule than learn the NCAA time rules, which have to be further refined by their rules guy's interps to an incredible extent. The focus on the clock has to have an effect on the PU and one PU in the CWS missed two instances of finger licking.

[johnnyg08]

9 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

While I agree that many probably miss the nuance, I'll suggest an added possibility: how many of them are bringing from somewhere else?  Meaning, they call college ball and call it there OR they just want to be like the big guys.

I think it's more about this. 

Anyone who has opened a rule book is the last 30 years knows that it's in there and it's to be used as such. 

I'm glad I don't have to manage that in my NFHS games. If they ever mandate it, I think I'll decrease my game load. I have no desire to reset a stop watch for two hours. 

[johnnyg08]

Okay...I think it's time to release the video of the play in question:

 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Okay...I think it's time to release the video of the play in question:

I got as excited when I saw this as my wife did for Taylor Swift's new album, LOL

[Velho]

Questions: 

3 man, R2 & R1, 1 out. BUs in B and A? Is that the prescribed mechanic? Or was there a 3rd BU that kept to themselves?

What was the official ruling? Looked like U2 was repeatedly trying to get the message across that R1 was out twice but PU wasn't groking it? The inning ended so was BR out for R1 INT? Or R1 out twice?

R1 admits he was out at 2B as the crew conferences. Speaks to intentionality and, imo, the retired runner exemption doesn't trump an intentional and overt act to deceive and confuse.

[johnnyg08]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

Questions: 

3 man, R2 & R1, 1 out. BUs in B and A? Is that the prescribed mechanic? Or was there a 3rd BU that kept to themselves?

No, I think we want U3 in C with R1, R2 and < 2 outs. 

 

[BLWizzRanger]

I hear (I assume) U3 hollering 'runner's out.'  Anyone else hear that?  I can't tell if he hammered him and I don't think he punched him out (why would he? it wasn't close).  But, he did verbally state that the runner's out.   

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

I hear (I assume) U3 hollering 'runner's out.'  Anyone else hear that?  I can't tell if he hammered him and I don't think he punched him out (why would he? it wasn't close).  But, he did verbally state that the runner's out.   

Some version of "out at 2"? 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

5 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

I hear (I assume) U3 hollering 'runner's out.'  Anyone else hear that?  I can't tell if he hammered him and I don't think he punched him out (why would he? it wasn't close).  But, he did verbally state that the runner's out.   

Some version of "out at 2"? 

I can hear it once with what looks to be a nonchalant hammer.

I don't see U3 further stressing the "Out at 2" until after play relaxes and he see PU called the same R1 out - not that he would since R1 is behind him and he now has BR coming into 2nd. If he were in C, he might have seen R1 picking up and keep running which would have given him chance to "Out. OuT. YOU'RE STILL OUT!" like on a non-U3K passed ball K that BR takes off on.

 

[johnnyg08]

59 minutes ago, Velho said:

I can hear it once with what looks to be a nonchalant hammer.

I don't see U3 further stressing the "Out at 2" until after play relaxes and he see PU called the same R1 out - not that he would since R1 is behind him and he now has BR coming into 2nd. If he were in C, he might have seen R1 picking up and keep running which would have given him chance to "Out. OuT. YOU'RE STILL OUT!" like on a non-U3K passed ball K that BR takes off on.

 

So...with all of that in mind...do we have anything here for the retired runner (R1) to continue running the bases after he has been put out?

[Velho]

24 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

So...with all of that in mind...do we have anything here for the retired runner (R1) to continue running the bases after he has been put out?

Just from the video... no. 1 run scored, BR on third, 2 outs.

Not enough evidence that R1 was intentionally running to confuse the defense. He even complains he was safe at home. It's not inconceivable he lost his head for a moment.

Based on the rules/case plays, I think benefit of the doubt goes to the retired runner.

If, when R1 came up and said "I was out at 2B", I'd ask* "why did you keep running?". If he said something like "to create chaos", then I'd have 2 outs.

P.S. Feels like HPU* had an ego moment here and wasn't hearing anything from anyone.

* He said sitting in his home office having had a long time to digest and debate the situation vs. being there and having seconds to react

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Just from the video... no. 1 run scored, BR on third, 2 outs.

Not enough evidence that R1 was intentionally running to confuse the defense. He even complains he was safe at home. It's not inconceivable he lost his head for a moment.

Based on the rules/case plays, I think benefit of the doubt goes to the retired runner.

If, when R1 came up and said "I was out at 2B", I'd ask* "why did you keep running?". If he said something like "to create chaos", then I'd have 2 outs.

P.S. Feels like HPU* had an ego moment here and wasn't hearing anything from anyone.

* He said sitting in his home office having had a long time to digest and debate the situation vs. being there and having seconds to react

Fair assessment. 

I think the big takeaway from a play like this is the notion that continuing to run the bases after being put out is not interference. It only becomes interference when they impede the defense from playing on another runner...with one of those things NOT being if they choose to play on the retired runner again. Think of it this way....if that were the rule...the defense could intentionally play on a retired runner to get another out. One example states that a runner who is retired and is running across the diamond back to the dugout and the defense is trying make a play on R3 who is attempting to score...THAT would be retired runner interference.