Fly Rule for a Dummy

[Comp]

Where does the rule book ever say a runner has no right to retreat from a base? There are statements about travesty and purposely running bases in reverse order but as long as it wasn't done intentionally it is nothing. And I will ask again, what difference does it make if it is a runner taking advancing to 2nd to draw a throw and score the runner or a runner backing off of 2nd base toward first and drawing a play? The defense is playing on a live runner in either case, it is their responsibility to make or not make a play if they don't want to risk letting that runner score

And I never said I was the umpire in a game where a runner retreated, I said I had seen games where it had happened. I am fully aware a runner cannot simply jump on any base, but as long as they did not bypass a base which in the situations I described where runners on 2nd heading back to first base dugout they most certainly can just jump on first base as long as it's not occupied.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[jackfrost]

Sorry for the length ... but this is a case where you need to look beyond one part of the rule.

I would encourage you to think like an umpire when looking at scenarios like this. Of course, there are both the letter of the game and the spirit of the game. In my opinion, we as umpires should be looking at "What it is the intent of the game?" not "What can they get away with?"

I'll agree there are sometimes grey areas in all rule books or areas where wording is not clear. But in this specific case, the rule is clear and does not need to be tangled with things like "spirit of the game" or the long list of other rules you are citing. USA Rule 8.3.D states "A runner shall not run bases in reverse order to confuse the fielders nor to make a travesty of the game" NFHS 8.3.6 uses almost the exact wording.

The rule regarding this situation is simple and clear and does not need to pull in all the other things you are basing your decision on.

In the situation you described, the runner was confused and started to return to a base unnecessarily. The defense saw a runner off base and tried to play on her to get an out. Bad throw, another runner scores. Live ball, play on.

 

[umpwally]

jackfrost has made an excellent point. Dissecting and digging into unrelated sections of the rule book to try to find words that support your interpretation has to tell you something. Trying to relate one rule to reinforce another and applying it on the field is not a good policy. In my opinion ‘Spirit’, ’Intent’, ’advantage’ or ‘opinion‘ should not, in most cases, be considerations that effect an umpires determination on whether a rule was broken or not, nor should those words be used to support your position when discussing your ruling on the field with a coach. Ok, perhaps intent at times but even that can be a slippery slope. Keep it simple. Was a rule broken or not? I think what you brought up was a great talking point. Thanks for that

 

[Lemond]

jackfrost has made an excellent point. Dissecting and digging into unrelated sections of the rule book to try to find words that support your interpretation has to tell you something. Trying to relate one rule to reinforce another and applying it on the field is not a good policy. In my opinion ‘Spirit’, ’Intent’, ’advantage’ or ‘opinion‘ should not, in most cases, be considerations that effect an umpires determination on whether a rule was broken or not, nor should those words be used to support your position when discussing your ruling on the field with a coach. Ok, perhaps intent at times but even that can be a slippery slope. Keep it simple. Was a rule broken or not? I think what you brought up was a great talking point. Thanks for that

On the other hand, the most frequent application of rules throughout a game are opinion (judgement) calls (outs, strikes, did she control the ball enough to call it a catch, did she intend to run into the other player, are the coach's actions enough to eject him/her, etc).

I interpreted TMIB's post as the opposite of what you said. He specifically did NOT dissect the rules. No matter which league is in play, we are using "Rule Sets" not a bunch of individual rules. They, indeed, are ALL related, cannot exist without each other. And I think TMIB is correct that together, they encompass/bind the spirit of the game.

In the case under discussion, we would all see it and say to ourselves "now something right there wasn't right," and then have to think "did it violate any rule?"

TMIB made the judgement that it did, and I know that some would disagree (a point he actually made when he posted the story).

I agree with TMIB's call in that game from the description and reasoning he presented, but if he had gone the other way in that game, and cited the reasons in this thread, I would see that point as well. And that tells me that there are indeed cases like this where the rules are open to some judgment.

BTW, I would like to have almost any blue in this thread calling my games. Many of the blues I see would have dead ball, do-over for their call. (Exaggerating, but not by much)

 

[umpwally]

Lemond, Your point is certainly well taken and thought out , however I’ll have to respectively disagree with few of your points. On the word dissecting I meant parsing words, intermingling rules or looking much deeper than intended into spelled out rules to justify your position. By the word opinion, I meant don’t let your opinion of a rule influence your call. For instance, In my opinion the look back rule should be eliminated but I will still enforce that rule regardless of my opinion. You May be confusing opinion with judgement. They are two completely different concepts. As far as all rules being related, I would have to disagree again. A runner leaving early has nothing to do with interference, a missed touch of a bag or a pitching rule infraction. They all require separate enforcement and consideration. Lastly , considering ‘Spirit’ when rendering a decision will only get you in trouble. An example of that would be a defensive coach yelling FOUL BALL on a hit ball that is clearly fair. Is that within the spirit of the game? Of course not. Is it unsportsmanlike? Of course it is but the best we would ever be able to do with that is warn and then eject if repeated. Maybe even eject without a warning . No rule would support negating the play and reversing your call of fair ball regardless of how much you think the SPIRIT of the game was breached. I will agree with you that on this particular play and most plays being described in print, we would really have to be there. Perhaps more went on that was explained or maybe printed words are not the best way to express what really happened. I suspect the latter

 

[The Man In Blue]

Sorry guys, feeling nerdy and philosophical today ... it was this or build a spice rack.

I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but it is much more succinct than the other resources I was looking for a quote from.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording.

Letter and spirit of the law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As @Lemond astutely pointed out: the game is not an individual rule or even a bunch of independently individual rules. It is a collection of intertwined points that make up something much larger than themselves: The Game. The Game is clearly defined in any rule book, before any of the rules are spelled out. The intent -- or The Spirit of The Game -- resides here.

I provided over a dozen instances on a likewise number of points, none of which spelled out what we are talking about. All of which indicate The Spirit of The Game. In those instances it was pretty evident, at least in my opinion, that a runner running the bases in reverse order (outside of returning for a tag up or missed base) was NOT a part of the intent of the game. I could find NO references to indicate that running the bases in reverse order was intended as a legal and practical part of the game.

The rule specific to this states "A runner shall not run the bases in reverse order either to confuse the fielders or to make a travesty of the game ." Even the Letter of the Law here does not provide definition or standard to determine what a "confused fielder" is nor is there any standard or definition of what actions "make a travesty of the game." In my mind, there is no Letter of the Law covering these aspects. In my mind, one reasonably concludes a violation of The Spirit of The Game, or the intent of how the game should be played, would be considered a "travesty of the game".

@umpwally, your own example is counter to your position on this.

Lastly , considering ‘Spirit’ when rendering a decision will only get you in trouble. An example of that would be a coach yelling FOUL BALL on a hit ball that is clearly fair. Is that within the spirit of the game? Of course not. Is it unsportsmanlike? Of course it is but the best we would ever be able to do with that is warn and then eject if repeated. Maybe even eject without a warning.

What is "unsportsmanlike"? (I may add, the word "unsportsmanlike" does not appear in the NFHS rulebook.) 3-16-13 cites unsporting acts as (a) "using words or actions to incite or try to incite spectators to demonstrate"; (b) "use of profanity, intimidation, and/or deceitful tactics, baiting or taunting"; or (c) "behavior in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play." I did not see anything about yelling "foul ball!" there. Yet, you (and I) believe that act to be in violation of ... what? Clause (c)? And you are potentially jumping to an immediate ejection of the coach for ... what? There is no Letter of the Law, so we resort to the Spirit of the Law. (I am curious why you refer to this as unsportsmanlike, but did not chose to invoke the word "interference" which is - Letter of the Law - applicable to verbal violations?)

Is a curve ball a deceitful tactic? How about a fake bunt? No, and we would hope nobody would believe these acts to be unsporting. These are normal and routine acts within the game. Are they deceitful? Hell yes! Are they designed to "confuse" the opposing team? Absolutely! But are they in violation of The Spirit of the Game? To @Comp 's point (which I agree with in principle), there are all sorts of actions that are designed to "confuse" the opposing team, but we do not apply The Letter of The Law to these instances ... why? The book very clearly says deceitful tactics are not allowed. I would like to believe that we, as umpires, are attuned to the intent of the game, The Spirit of The Game.

Despite your claim @umpwally , you cannot officiate a sport to The Letter of the Law. Organizations recognize this. The NFHS, on page 64, states: "Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

I still cannot find any rule that intends to give a base runner the right to run the bases backwards. I find lots to the contrary.

 

[flash277]

Wow, this has to be the longest discussion on a situation that most of us have not, nor will ever see.

 

[umpwally]

Fair enough. I think we both said our piece. Can we agree to disagree?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Sorry guys ... I'm bored.

... and I don't want to do the things I should be doing.

 

[umpwally]

MIB..... I Understand about your priorities.I should be out doing things I’m supposed to be doing as well. My wife thinks I’m out mowing the lawn..lol. Anyway. I certainly respect your opinion and your interesting point of view. I’m hoping I’m on the field with you next time this situation happens and you decide to enforce your ruling of it being illegal for runners to run in reverse except to retouch a base missed or left too soon for two reasons. Number 1, I have never ever heard of anyone understanding the rule that way. Number 2 , I’d love to hear what your UIC says when you are explaining why the protest, which is sure to happen, shouldn’t be upheld.