MORE Rules clarifications...

[Teerizz]

Why is it that whenever I head ref, I have to make the unruly calls...ughh....

I just wanna get some other opinions here.

Below Us popped up a ball along the first base line and proceeds to run to 1st base. D-Balls cather runs up the line to try and make the play. It APPEARED to me that the Below Us kicker deliberately slowed down / stopped along the 1st base line to about where the ball would land, so the D-Balls catcher could not make the play.

This actually happened twice, with the second time the Runner actually going shoulder-to-should with the catcher.

What should the call be?

Now, looking at the Rules:

10.01 Runners must stay in the base-line
10.02 Fielders must stay out of the base line. Fielders trying to make an out on base may have their foot on base but must lean out of the baseline. Runners hindered by any fielder within the base line, not making an active play for the ball, shall be safe at the base to which they were running.

Now, I understand these rules...nothing wrong here. But I think something needs to be added.

In baseball / softball, the runner would be called out as he cannot interefere (especially touching the fielder) with the fielder making a play...he must avoid disturbing the play as much as possible, even if it means going out of the baseline a little bit.

Now, luckily, the Below Us runner was touched by the ball, in play, so I called him out on that regard. But, just in case this kinda thing happens again, I'd like to know what the correct call should be.

[sh3lby]

hmm.. that's a good ? I would more than likely call it a foul if I saw the runner look back and then up and then see he could slow down to hinder the fielders. Not sure if one could call it an out or not.

Anwilli, and to answer your ? about the rusty / sack game.

10. RUNNING AND SCORING
10.01 Runners must stay within the base line.
10.02 Fielders must stay out of the base line. Fielders trying to make an out on base may have their foot on base,
but must lean out of the baseline. Runners hindered by any fielder within the base line, not making an active play
for the ball, shall be safe at the base to which they were running.
10.03 Neither leading off base, nor stealing a base is allowed. A runner may advance once the ball is kicked. A runner off of his/her base when the ball is kicked, is out.

[aspey]

sh3lby said:

10.03 Neither leading off base, nor stealing a base is allowed. A runner may advance once the ball is kicked. A runner off of his/her base when the ball is kicked, is out.

Whoops, I said this one wrong in the Bunt/Team Keg game. I thought they were still allowed to "tag up" if they were slow returning to base after a foul. Although I think in our softball league, the ump wouldn't allow the pitch to be thrown if the runners didn't have time to get back (it wasn't an intentional lead).

[sh3lby]

no crap, why would the pitcher pitch before the runner got back to the base esp on a foul ball.. that's just odd / stupid

[anwilli]

sh3lby said:

hmm.. that's a good ? I would more than likely call it a foul if I saw the runner look back and then up and then see he could slow down to hinder the fielders. Not sure if one could call it an out or not.

Anwilli, and to answer your ? about the rusty / sack game.

10. RUNNING AND SCORING
10.01 Runners must stay within the base line.
10.02 Fielders must stay out of the base line. Fielders trying to make an out on base may have their foot on base,
but must lean out of the baseline. Runners hindered by any fielder within the base line, not making an active play
for the ball, shall be safe at the base to which they were running.
10.03 Neither leading off base, nor stealing a base is allowed. A runner may advance once the ball is kicked. A runner off of his/her base when the ball is kicked, is out.

Thanks, J! I didn't know whether it would be an out or something else... I gave the F'er two warnings, and yelled at him to get back to the base... with a pointing finger! After the Bunt/Bus game, anwilli was in no mood to play!

[Scottyg]

I agreed with both of the calls Troy, both runners were watching the ball and looked to deliberately slow down in an attempt to interfere with the catcher.

Now, some of us have some damn slow players on our teams, but Below Us is few and far between in that category. Tough call only becuase it was judgement and you know they are going to argue with you and its a pain in the ass.

I've only seen one other person called out fro interference, and that was because they were waving their arms on a fly ball to second in an attempt to mess with the outfielders view of the ball.

[Captain Awesome]

Whut up, Justin here from Below Us

First, Thanks Troy for reffing the game, and for doing the best you could in a stressful situation. And To D-Balls, you guys have been fun this season, and I want you to know that when we were arguing disputed calls, none of it was personal against any of you. More than anything we wanted to get the rules right with some tough games on the horizon, in which one of these calls could mean the difference between winning or not. And thanks for the beer at the bar! Classy jesture.

As it pertains to the thread, there were 3 calls that were argued by Below Us during the game. Two of them had to do with the "interference" issue when 2 equally weird muffed kicks popped up and went up the first base line. On these issues the rule-book is clear...if a fielder interferes with a runner who is in the base-line progressing towards a base, the runner is safe. In both instances the runner was bumped by a fielder while in the base path before the ball hit them...at that moment of contact, the runner is safe. The ball hitting them afterwards is irrelevant.

As Troy explained, he made a judgement call that the runners were intentionally slowing down such that contact with fielders would be initiated. If true, I believe in the spirit of the decision to call the runners out, however the decision is still inconsistent with the rules as stated. Nothing in the rules allows for a ref to determine a base-runner's intent.

I can only speak for myself (the first player called out), and state that I didn't run full bore to first base because I thought the ball at first was going foul. I did start running hard when I saw that it may stay in. But my intent here is irrelevant as long as I stayed in the basepath. Steve (the base runner during the 2nd incident) very well may have slowed down deliberately, I just don't know. He went equally shoulder-to shoulder with the catcher reminiscent of a legal soccer play (Steve plays soccer). His intentions may have been bad (I'd have to ask him) but as far as the rules go, since he clearly stayed in the basepath and was bumped by the catcher, he should have been awarded first base. The burden is on the fielder not to touch runner.

The other issue when the 1st-base ref called a runner out on what would have been the 3rd out in the inning...in other words, the fielding team had reason to believe the play was dead and the inning over. However, the out call at first call was subsequently overruled by the head ref. Meanwhile a DB runner rounded third and scored. The First-baseman froze for a second after the called out, before throwing home (much too late to get an out). It was a tough issue because the 1st baseman DID eventually make a play for home, maybe in response to his teammates yelling at him to do so, maybe not. Once again a determination of intent was made, which the rulebook does not allow for.

So should the runner who scored return to 3rd? Unfortunately I don't see anything in the rulebook that describes "over-ruling" protocols, just experience from other sports. At issue here is NOT whether the Head Ref should have over-ruled, but whether the play was dead after the first "out" call regardless if a fielder attempts to make a subsequent play or not.

In retrospect, I should have requested to stop the game and review the rulebook in each of these cases...it's what I typically do when I'm a ref, so that both sides can atleast acknowledge a ruling from what was witnessed by the refs whether they agree with that call or not. So Troy, I apologize if that oversight on my part allowed the game to become more stressful...thank you again for reffing the game in the heat. I do believe that the decisions you made on the disputed calls were made in the spirit of fairness.

Anyway, hope to see a lot of folks next Sunday, our Final Four measures up with any division out there. Congrats to the other 3 teams that made it through

[aspey]

Honestly, this one is a tough call and both views make valid points. My focus falls on a little note in the rule that I even overlooked when I first heard about this:

Runners hindered by any fielder within the base line, not making an active play for the ball, shall be safe at the base to which they were running.

It sounds like if the fielder is trying to make an active play for the ball, then incidental contact is allowed, the play continues, and the runner would not automatically be safe. In this case, it sounds like the runner would have been out by contact with the ball and that the interference rule wouldn't apply.

The only way the rulebook talks about baserunner intent is if they try to boot the ball and sacrifice themselves. I suppose a ref could also call unsportsmanlike conduct on very obvious interference, but that does not sound like the case here.

[Captain Awesome]

Taylor I don't believe that the sentence you pointed out modifies the first sentence in rule 10.02. I believe that:

" Fielders must stay out of the base line."

and

"Runners hindered by any fielder within the base line, not making an active play for the ball, shall be safe at the base to which they were running."

...are mutually exclusive statements, else the first statement would have been modified by a comma, saying something along the lines of "Fielders must stay out of the baseline, unless making a play for the ball." That the two statements at hand are separated by another sentence seems to reinforce their mutual exclusivity.

[Scottyg]

I still feel like the correct call was made for that game, it was a judgement call on Troys part and the runner did seem to be slowing down to shield the ball from the catcher. Luckily in this case the team was up by close to double digits and therefore the call had no bearing on the game. I think a quick email (Justin usually does that right) to ask for clarification on the correct call by the higher ups might be in order.

We did this last year with the foul ball call when the batter was not making an attempt as well as the encroachment calls and that resulted in the rules changing/being clarified for this season.

I'd forgotten about the other call, and I'd have to rule in favor of Justin on that one. Once the call had been made by a ref, whether or not it is overuled, play should stop. The first baseman stopped because the play was over, if you overrule that call the runner should have been at 3rd.

[Rodeo Jock]

A la Past Pres Erin... YOU PEOPLE ARE MAKING MY BRAIN BLEED!!!

[Teerizz]

Just so we're clear....I called the runners out because the ball touched the runner in play...NOT b/c of an interference...and I was in plain sight of the ball and runner, so I was confident in what I saw. I merely mentioned the interference just in case it occured again, and the ball did not touch them.

I just compare all rules to baseball / softball rules since that is where they were originally adopted from. I also want to define a few terms for you:

Base Line - A base line is an imaginary direct line between the bases that extends about 5 feet wide.

Base Path - A base path is a direct line between a base and the runner's position at the time a defensive player is attempting (or about to attempt) to tag a runner.
(The base path isn't established until a play is being attempted or about to be attempted on a runner)

Interference - Interference is the act of an offensive player or team member, umpire or spectator that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

The situation here points to the word "judgment". This word can easily cause cheers and at the same time heartburn for players and fans alike. First of all as a base runner you must always allow a defensive player to make a play on any batted (kicked in this case) ball. To have interference, the offensive player, in the umpire's judgment, must be impeding, hindering, or trying to confuse a defensive player. Now you notice that the rule doesn't say anything about intentions. The player does not have to do any of these things intentionally to get called out for interference. So if a runner accidentally bumps a shortstop in the middle of throwing to first and the ball sails over the right field fence guess what? Dead ball, interference, the runner is out. Also notice that there is nothing about the runner stopping or going around a defensive player. There is nothing in the rules that indicate this must be done. All the runners can do is to try to avoid a defensive team's attempt at a play.

And it was in my opinion that the runner didn't do anything to try and avoid the catcher, but rather get in his way. Since the base-line is not a striaght, narrow, 6" chalked line...I just feel that he can move a little bit.

Also, looking at baseball rules 7.08.b

mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/runner_7.jsp

Another link that explains this somewhat:

mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=call3



But maybe an email to the head-head-head ref of the league would help out. I mean, otherwise...I'd stand in the base-line all the time and make it so the fielder can't catch a ball....throw a shoe at them or something (extreme exaggeration of course). I just think WAKA needs to go into more detail with this rule.

[Captain Awesome]

This will likely be the last itme I chime in, but anyway for folks that have read down this far there must exist some element of interest in what went on here or rules interpretation in general.

Scotty, to your points that Troy made a judgement call, or that the runner [in at least one of the cases] appeared to slow to shield the catcher from the ball, I won't dispute that the call that was made was correct given such a determination of intent. My argument is that the ref does not seem to be empowered by the rules that govern baserunning to be able to make such a "judgement call" in this situation in the first place, unless there is blatant unsportsmanlike conduct (in which case the runner is not only out, but ejected). The only judgement call at play is determining what came first, the interference or the ball hitting the runner.

Put another way, if the rules do not restrict a base runner from walking, skipping, jogging, crawling, cartwheeling, or sprinting to a base, at whatever variations of speed, a runner should not be penalized for doing so, unless, as Taylor mentioned, there was clearly unsportsmanlike behavior exhibited. Unsportsmanlike behavior was not what was cited as the reasons for either of the outs, and I don't believe anyone's actions here were unsportsmanlike.

So what is left is what is stated in the rules, which is that a fielder must stay out of the base line, whether they are there making an active play on the ball or not (I agree, confirmation of this point from WAKA would be useful, but the statement "Fielders must stay out of the baseline." seems intentionally unambiguous to me). Violation of this premise is interference. It should have it then, that, if the interference occurs before the runner is hit by a ball, then the ball hitting them is irrelevant. Similarly, if the interference occurs after the runner is hit by a ball, then the interference is irrelevant.

Alright back to high fiving myself and practicing my air guitar solos

[anwilli]

Um.... so, we're straight, right? Can we put this to bed finally? This makes my eyes hurt.

[Captain Awesome]

Troy-

I don't fault you for citing baseball rules during the game and especially not now, as your post on the subject is helpful. I just don't believe the rules for WAKA are applied in the same way as baseball from the language that they use (not your fault, there's). WAKA clearly seems to put the impetus on the fielder to avoid contact, and not the runner. As such, the interference I refer to in my post on the subject refers to interference by the fielder, not by the runner.

Given your background in baseball/softball, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't looking for fielder interference when you witnessed the plays at hand, which would have cemented when contact between fielder and runner occured (in my case, it was probably pretty close, though in Steve's case - the second case - he was clearly "interfered" with before the ball hit him). I don't fault you for that either because it makes sense.

Anyway, I think you've acted honorably on this all the way through on this, I just think WAKA messed the whole thing up when it deviated from baseball with the, "Fielders must stay out of the baseline" statement.