View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 20, 2011, 09:43am
BretMan BretMan is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
Yes, NFHS is still "On an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground." Defense must come from foul territory to use the colored base. Play can be appealed before batter-runner comes back to 1st.

ASA changed this year that on an errant throw the defense can use either base.

NFHS and ASA were the same until this year.
I'm not so sure that NFHS would be any different, with respect to an errant throw pulling the fielder off the white base and directly to the colored one.

While ASA did not change the wording of the actual rule in their rule book, they have apparently changed their interpretation of their rule, and of what exactly constitutes a fielder being "pulled into foul ground". This was an interpretation that kind of "snuck in under the radar". It directly conflicts with a case play that had previously been published in their case book. The old case play said that the fielder had to be pulled completely off the base and completely over into foul ground- not just from the white base directly to the colored one- before the colored base could be used.

There was a lengthy thread on this here a few months ago: My First Ever Official Protest

Since this came up in a game for me this summer, and since there seemed to be some confusion about how it should be ruled, I had sent an email to Kevin Ryan at ASA for clarification. In his response to me, he presented the "new" interpretation that a fielder being pulled directly from the white base to the colored base would be a legal play by the defender.

That was the first that I had ever heard of this being the case. Interestingly enough, the following month this play and interpretation appeared in the "Plays and Clarifications" section of the ASA web site.

In the above noted thread from Officiating.com, someone posted that this same play and question had been posed to Mary Struckhoff at NFHS the previous year. In her response, she agreed that the play was legitimate and the batter-runner would be out. Essentially, she gave the same response I got from ASA, and she gave it one year prior to the "new" ASA interpretation being published.

You do have to wonder if an email response from a member of the NFHS Rules Committee can be considered as an "official" rule interpretation. If you think it can, then apparently ASA and NFHS are in agreement on this play.
Reply With Quote