Whats you call ASA, NFHS and NCAA

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

This is not the ASA's definition of a "crash," which is defined (described) in rule 8-7-Q and Rule supplement #13: the requirement for a crash is the defensive player has to have (possession) of the ball.

You may still choose to eject, but not because of a "crash."

Originally Posted by CecilOne

\
There is no R2 and no second "crash". The eject/DQ is for "maliciously".

If the IP Penalty is applied, the R1 sub is awarded 3rd.

Mark, Jr., and I talked about that. There is no term "malicious contact" in the ASA Rules Book but it does use the word "crash". We did not want to use a term that was not in the ASA Rules Book. We think that we could use the "unsportsmanlike conduct" or something to the effect. But I think that we all will agree that the penalty for R1's egregious contact is ejection.

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Why are you placing R1's sub back on 2nd?? With an accepted IP, isn't that runner awarded a base in ASA, just as in NFHS and NCAA??

ASA Rules are not quite the same as the NFHS and NCAA Rules. What I wrote is correct. ASA: R1's substitute returns to 2B; NFHS and NCAA: R2's substitute is awarded 3B.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Fed*8.6.14 SITUATION B:

With R1 on second base and R2 on first base, F1 throws an illegal pitch; B3 hits ground ball to F4 who is attempting to field the ball. R2 maliciously contacts F4.

RULING: Interference does not supersede illegal pitch. Umpire(s) signal delayed dead ball for illegal pitch and then immediate dead ball for the malicious contact. R2 is out for malicious contact. The offense’s team coach is given the option of the result of the play or the penalty for the illegal pitch. If the coach selects the result of the play, R1 is returned to second, R2 is out and B3 is awarded first base. If the coach selects the penalty for the illegal pitch, R1 is awarded third base, R2 is out for malicious contact, B3 is returned to the plate, awarded a ball and if the ball is ball four, is awarded first base.

COMMENT: Because malicious contact will always supersede any other illegal action, both malicious contact and illegal pitch penalties are enforced in this situation. (5-1-1e; 8-6-10)

Mark, Jr., and I do not believe that the Comment in the NFHS Casebook Play cannot be supported by rule. Per NFHS Rules, Malicious Contact only supersedes Obstruction, but that is a discussion to have with the NFHS Softball Rules Committee.

MTD, Sr.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

ASA Rules are not quite the same as the NFHS and NCAA Rules. What I wrote is correct. ASA: R1's substitute returns to 2B; NFHS and NCAA: R2's substitute is awarded 3B.
MTD, Sr.

So, please cite the exact ASA rule on which you (and MTD, Jr, apparently) rely for that statement. Every rule I see in each of these rules sets states the penalty for an IP is a ball on the batter AND a one base award from TOP for all runners.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, please cite the exact ASA rule on which you (and MTD, Jr, apparently) rely for that statement. Every rule I see in each of these rules sets states the penalty for an IP is a ball on the batter AND a one base award from TOP for all runners.

We bad! I was typing and Mark, Jr., was reading the ASA Rules Book and I didn't hear him correctly (my hearing is bad as my eyesight, ).

I am going to bed now and will go back and re-edit my original post in the morning.

MTD, Sr.

[RKBUmp]

Why would it need to be taken up with the NFHS rules committee? There is a case play that covers the exact situation and in NFHS the runner is not awarded 3rd, they are out. Malicious contact in NFHS is always an out if committed by an offensive player, and an ejection by any player who commits malicious contact.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Why would it need to be taken up with the NFHS rules committee? There is a case play that covers the exact situation and in NFHS the runner is not awarded 3rd, they are out. Malicious contact in NFHS is always an out if committed by an offensive player, and an ejection by any player who commits malicious contact.

Because this is a case of the casebook rewriting the book. The rule book does not support the case play. If the caseplay is what they really do want, they need to edit the rule book.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Because this is a case of the casebook rewriting the book. The rule book does not support the case play. If the caseplay is what they really do want, they need to edit the rule book.

And, as far as I know, we always give precedence to the rules over the cases, supplements, POE, etc.

[RKBUmp]

Every situation cannot be covered in the rule book, that is why there are case plays and clarifications published. And since when do we ever rule different of what a published case play states, regardless of what we feel the rule book justifies?