Cheating or Aggressive Base Running?

[radness]

I am not a mind reader so I without being 100% sure it was fully intentional I just can't. Basically I need a confession. Which has happened a few times in my umpiring career. Two stand out...

Once in a different sport, I had a similar type of bush league tactic where the idiot coach came out yelling at us (because for some reason he was upset we had caught it???) and told us he intentionally did it, so we ejected him.

We did the same locally on 'intentionally running to 1st on ball 3 to try to get a free steal of second' - the coach kept gloating on how he was doing this between games which made its way other coaches and all the umpires, so he got tossed the next time he did it.

So in other words you're saying now that the coach gloated about the play that he did the next time umpires (or you would) take action.

At least that's a repercussion, albeit maybe late,
but at least that would be a repercussion.

I can appreciate you @marriard would want to have certainty on intent.
However,
Do think that there are umpires that would not hesitate to have recognized intent in that situation and not question their certainty first time seeing this.

 

[Agcy]

I am not a mind reader so I without being 100% sure it was fully intentional I just can't. Basically I need a confession. Which has happened a few times in my umpiring career. Two stand out...

Once in a different sport, I had a similar type of bush league tactic where the idiot coach came out yelling at us (because for some reason he was upset we had caught it???) and told us he intentionally did it, so we ejected him.

We did the same locally on 'intentionally running to 1st on ball 3 to try to get a free steal of second' - the coach kept gloating on how he was doing this between games which made its way other coaches and all the umpires, so he got tossed the next time he did it.

Ditto - read that in the 2018 Case Book.

 

[marriard]

However,
Do think that there are umpires that would not hesitate to have recognized intent in that situation and not question their certainty first time seeing this.

Only bad and/or untrained umpires (and there is plenty of those)

Trained umpires are taught that you just can't assume anything . If you are going to make a call you MUST be certain and it must be defendable. I can't 100% know what someone is thinking - I need more.

It is taught that way consistently across all the sports I have officiated.

We have discussed this with other rules that in particular the NCAA have been looking to remove any grey areas or areas about specific player action/intent. Such as hit-by-pitch and obstruction/interference. You can like/not like those rules as they now stand, but the removal of 'what the player's intent was' has been the best part of it..

 

[Agcy]

So in other words you're saying now that that coach gloated about the play that he did the next time umpires (or you would) take action.

At least that's a repercussion, albeit maybe late,
but at least that would be a repercussion.

I can appreciate you @marriard would want to have certainty on intent.
However,
Do think that there are umpires that would not hesitate to have recognized intent in that situation and not question their certainty first time seeing this.

Per the 2018 case book, the first time it happens, Umpire should warn the player and the coach. The second time if happens, player and coach restricted to the dugout.

Had one coach in 10U that did it on purpose. After I learned the rulebook better, I told him. He wasn't quite on board with me telling him (a couple years later) that his bush league tactic was actually illegal.

Had a college team that did it unintentionally, apparently, to my daughter who was catching. Went against her as a stolen base as the runner stayed at second even after the batter returned from 1st base to the batter's box.

 

[radness]

Only bad and/or untrained umpires (and there is plenty of those)

Trained umpires are taught that you just can't assume anything . If you are going to make a call you MUST be certain and it must be defendable. I can't 100% know what someone is thinking - I need more.

It is taught that way consistently across all the sports I have officiated.

We have discussed this with other rules that in particular the NCAA have been looking to remove any grey areas or areas about specific player action/intent. Such as hit-by-pitch and obstruction/interference. You can like/not like those rules as they now stand, but the removal of 'what the player's intent was' has been the best part of it..

Do you agree that there are situations where umpires have to have judgment on intent versus non-intentful?

 

[radness]

Per the 2018 case book, the first time it happens, Umpire should warn the player and the coach. The second time if happens, player and coach restricted to the dugout.

Simply there are so many different umpires and places to play softball that first time versus multiple times maybe irrelevant. How would every umpire know the past history of coaches?
Not possible.

Btw I am not arguing the rule book here. Rather being realistic about the situation. And knowing that umpires handle officiating/ judgment differently.

Had one coach in 10U that did it on purpose. After I learned the rulebook better, I told him. He wasn't quite on board with me telling him (a couple years later) that his bush league tactic was actually illegal.

he wasn't on board with playing by the rules... tisk tisk...

 

[nixxy311]

The thing that confuses me about this play - This was an elimination game so pretty important.
Team was down by 2. 1 out already. They do a sac bunt - 2 outs and the girl on 3rd scores to make them down by just 1.
Why try a play that might get appealed where your girl on 2nd is going to be called out to end the game??
It was a risky move already and then to get called out on it because it worked but you still ultimately lost the game.
Not sure it was worth it.

 

[marriard]

Do you agree that there are situations where umpires have to have judgment on intent versus non-intentful?

Very, very few and they continue to write more and more out. Where it is, it is written specifically into the rule.

For example, I still have to judge whether a player moved intentionally into a hit by pitch and whether a runner tries to break up a double play. Some areas of malicious contact as well (though not all).

Again - these are specific situations written into the rules and there is often guidance and case book entries which instruct you in to how they want you to judge these calls.

Often people confuse 'judgement' and 'intent' in some cases.

 

[radness]

For example, I still have to judge whether a player moved intentionally into a hit by pitch

That is a great example that can fluctuate game to game if that is applied or not.

Often people confuse 'judgement' and 'intent' in some cases.

Absolutely that happens,
and appreciate your acknowledging there is also Judgment of intent or not.

Thank you for your detailed postings on the Forum!

 

[PapaBear]

Rewatch the video. It was a three man crew. Regardless the umpire at third has no call until the defensive team appeals the runner missing third base

Saw it, originally saw it on my phone and it was blurry. Stated many times, don't care about the lack of appeal but the lack of integrity by the coach and inability of the ump not being able to insert himself/herself in the game when blatant cheating happened. Missing the bag by 10 feet does not warrant an appeal the same way kid missing the inside of the bag by a few inches being aggressive.