Proposed ASA Rule Changes #1

bkbjones

SRW wrote
Heck, bkbjones will ring that pitch up right now, even without the mat!

😉 😃

Uckin Fay baby, that's a backwards K and that means it's one out closer to Miller Time. To paraphrase some baseballer from way back, "I don't need a mat to call a strike. I might not now what the strike zone is but I know one when I see one."

Another apocryphal story has to do with some old time umpire, Bill Klem or Bill McGowen or Bill Silves. Anyway, batter turns around after a strike call that seemed a bit iffy. "Where's the strike zone, blue?" the ignorant batter asks. The brilliant umpire says, "Why, it's where I say it is. Play ball."

wadeintothem

IRISHMAFIA wrote
So, you have no problem with a runner scoring by wiping out a catcher without the ball?

To be honest? No, I really dont see this as an issue. I like the leeway of not having to make a call on a crash when the defender doesnt have the ball and it falls short of OSC.

Why would I want that discretion taken away from me?

I do like keeping runners on the bases (or vicinity) for catcher conferences proposal. ----

Have you run into a problem with this?

Not really..

I would think this would be more of a problem with the opposing coach trying to find any type of ridiculous edge demand an ejection fo a coach not in what s/he thinks is proper. But, that wouldn't be my problem as I would immediately direct that coach to the TD :rolleyes:

That too..either way, I got other things to do than be a fashion consultant.

IRISHMAFIA

wadeintothem wrote
To be honest? No, I really dont see this as an issue. I like the leeway of not having to make a call on a crash when the defender doesnt have the ball and it falls short of OSC.

Why would I want that discretion taken away from me?

You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball 😕

Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.

Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone. If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC. As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play. The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.

Dakota

outathm wrote
Something we all need to consider is that these are just recommendations. Outside of Irish, and maybe a few others, very few people in this forum will have any say in what the powers that be will decide at the get together (whatever ASA calls it).

This has been a good, relatively friendly, healthy debate, but when all is said and done, we will all call whatever the 'powers that be' decide to tell us to call.

I consider it lobbying our representatives before the vote and recreational b_itching after the vote. The first is productive, the second is fun.

Both are good.

wadeintothem

IRISHMAFIA wrote
You would allow a crash without the ball, but you wouldn't allow the crash with the ball 😕

The defender should not be there without the ball.

Just to make sure we are on the same page. A defender is standing anywhere (nowhere near the runner's path) and the runner alters their route to crash into that player for whatever reason. Or maybe a player is a little too close to the basepath and the runner decides s/he is going to teach that player a lesson or is just being an ***, and plows that player over.

A runner altering their route to plow a defender is USC.

Look at this one, F6 is standing in a position, runner crashes her.

I am to expect a runner to slide at the 30' mark between the bases?

A catcher is 15' up the line without the ball? Runner slide?

Even to the point of USC, you have no problem with that? BTW, there is no discretion being taken away from anyone.

No, I dont have a problem with it to the point of USC. Why should I?

I believe the proposed change most certainly removes discretion. I know it when I see it, I dont need or want a medium penalty for nonUSC crash.

If anything, it gives the umpire the discretion to rule a runner out for such an act which may be borderline USC.

I can act right now on borderline USC anytime I want. I tell the coach and/or player to chill it. I dont need a rule to enforce a penalty on borderline USC. It is or it isnt.. if its close I can tell them to chill.

As it is right now, a runner could literally coldcock a defender during the play for any reason and the only authority the umpire has is to eject them after the play.

The "only" 😕

The umpire cannot call an out and must allow the run if that player scores on the play.

As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.

I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...

IRISHMAFIA

wadeintothem wrote
As they should, the defender doesnt have the freakin ball.

I feel a "its for the children..." coming on...

Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

JefferMC

IRISHMAFIA wrote
If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Or if it passes, just remember that at the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs and the WINNING run wipes out the catcher, the same thing happens.

Though, I think I'd rather have the latter than the former.

bkbjones

One of the "problems" -- just as it was for obstruction and other matters in the past -- is that all 8,000 or however many umpires we have in ASA don't (or won't) call the same thing the same way. For instance, in a national I worked about five or so years ago a catcher was trying to throw out a runner attempting to steal third base. The batter did nothing at all intentional, but the thrown ball struck the bat. I had a nothing. My partner, however called a dead ball and ruled the runner out for batter's interference.

Even though it wasn't his call, and in my judgement was not interference, he insisted. Of course the coaches wanted the UIC there immediately. The UIC upheld his umpire's call. I was mad as hell but I got over it.

Now, of course, we don't have to judge intent.

I know unsportsmanlike conduct when I see it. I know an unintentional crash from someone intentionally trying to take someone out. Alas, some of our brethren either don't, because they don't, or won't for fear of some consequence, make the call. Hence, it may very well have to be legislated whether we like it or not.

IMHO, no need for the legislation.

topper

bkbjones wrote
For instance, in a national I worked about five or so years ago a catcher was trying to throw out a runner attempting to steal third base. The batter did nothing at all intentional, but the thrown ball struck the bat. I had a nothing. My partner, however called a dead ball and ruled the runner out for batter's interference.
........ I was mad as hell but I got over it.

😕 Unless it was strike 3 on the batter, why was the runner out?

SethPDX

Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him. 😀

bkbjones

SethPDX wrote
Because bkbjones was working with "that guy." You all know him. 😃

It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

topper

bkbjones wrote
It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

As for Topper's question: She was out because of "interference" by the batter. It wasn't strike three on the batter, just a case of OOO.

Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

wadeintothem

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Actually, not at all though it could apply. This is nothing new as it was once a "Henry said" rule which was supported by a case play.

BTW, "obstruction" is not Klingon for "free shot".

But I'm tired of talking to the wall. If this change doesn't pass, just remember the next time the tying run scores in the bottom of the 13th with 2 outs that if she wipes out the catcher with the ball in the outfield, you may be going to the 15th.

Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

😀

NCASAUmp

wadeintothem wrote
Just say it Irish.. support this rule change or you want to harm children...

Cuz the 15th inning thing, no matter how horrible it sounds, is some lame rhetoric.

😃

No rule is ever a good rule unless you can use it to make children cry. Sprawled on the floor. While laughing. 😉

SethPDX

bkbjones wrote
It was a fellow Oregonian that made the call.

[shakes head slowly]

topper wrote
Unfortunately, I'm not forum savvy enough to know what OOO means.

Unless I'm missing something, my question still stands - If it wasn't strike three, why is the runner called out for batter's interference?

Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?😃). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.

youngump

SethPDX wrote
[shakes head slowly]

Overly Officious Official (Oregonian?😃). See also picking boogers, taking the dirty end of the stick, and calling anything and everything.

The answer is that nobody should be out on this play. The batter didn't do anything to interfere.

I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.
________
Wellbutrin lawsuit settlements

SethPDX

No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

IRISHMAFIA

SethPDX wrote
No, the batter did not interfere. By the description the batter was standing where a batter normally stands, doing nothing out of the ordinary. If a throw hits the bat, play on. I'd have nothing as well.

And a UIC should not be making up penalties, especially when no rule is violated.

What the hell is it with this thread? Does no one read what is actually posted?

If the ruling was interference, the player causing the INT is to be ruled out. We understand that INT probably should not have been called. However, it was and the ruling was upheld. The penalty for INT by a batter is that the batter is ruled out, NOT THE RUNNER. All runners return to the last base touched at the time of the INT.

And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

wadeintothem

IRISHMAFIA wrote
And Wade is just being his usual incomprehensible self. The "crash" rule is a safety issue. It can be USC in all cases. When the player has the ball, the runner is out regardless of intent to commit USC. All this change does is give the same physical protection to the player without the ball. Granted, the player is not supposed to be in the base path, but there are also rules in place protecting the runner. If you honestly believe a runner has a right to lay out a defender, IMO, you are working the wrong game.

You know, sometimes you are so full of crap irish. Why is that? Why are you built that way? As a state UIC you have potential.. and then, you come up with your BS when you have no argument. Stick to the facts.

I favor the rule as it is and have fended off your idiotic childish vitrol since. Do you have argument that is not vitrol? 15th innning and lay out the catcher.. that is so lame you should be ashamed of yourself to be using it as your banner argument for your little lame rule change.

Spare me your handwringing about the children and tell me why the heck I need an out if the defender does have the ball and potentially not even close to having the ball? A punitive out that every skinny little idiot 3B coach wants and argues for.. but doesnt know the rule... every time a runner brushes/knocks a little bit his catcher standing in the way.

its obs and you are whimping wanting an out for a little tap.

Thats the point of the rule.

We dont need an out and we can already eject them if it reaches that level.

topper

youngump wrote
I think Topper's point is that when the UIC let the judgment stand he still should have come up with a penalty that matches the incorrect judgment. The batter interfered and therefore the batter is out not the runner.

Actually, my point is that the ruling was incorrect, forget about judgement. While I can do little about a partner missing calls, I will not allow my partner to kick a rule. Both umpires take the blame for this. The icing on the cake is the UIC upholding the ruling. All this happening at a National? Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

« Previous Page Next Page »