Malicious contact

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

ASA does not have an out call for flagrant/excessive or malicious contact.

Your words. You didn't specify by situation.

ASA does have an out call for flagrant contact.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Which is rule supplement 13 and only applies to a fielder in possession of the ball and waiting to make a tag.

That is why I said "nearest".

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Your words. You didn't specify by situation.

ASA does have an out call for flagrant contact.

Which rule do you mean?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by cecilone

which rule do you mean?

rs 13

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

rs 13

This particular play has been the source of most of my dead-ball outs and a bunch of missed youth ejections over my umpiring career. Most of that has been ASA ball. Today I learned there is no interference rule against a runner "interfering" with a fielder who does not have the ball. I have probably called this out 20 times with no one ever protesting (except when I ejected a 12 y.o. kid).

Instead of the catcher, let's imagine this play at 3B. A runner from 2B intends to score on a base hit to LF. When rounding 3B, the runner intentionally runs over and through F5 who is waiting for the cutoff throw. There is no ASA rule support for an out or a dead ball.

If the fielder has the ball when the crash is initiated by the runner, we have the RS #13 and 8-7-Q rule support. Otherwise, a strict interpretation of the rules would lead me to believe we play on, and eject at the conclusion of play.

[BlueDevilRef]

I think that rule then and pardon my French is bullshit. On what grounds can you eject if you don't have enough to have an out and a dead ball? The two should be inclusive to each other

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I think that rule then and pardon my French is bullshit. On what grounds can you eject if you don't have enough to have an out and a dead ball? The two should be inclusive to each other

Rule 1: Ejected Participant - A team representative removed from the game by the umpire, usually for an unsportsmanlike act or conduct.

Trucking a player without the ball just because there is no other penalty in the ASA rules = unsportsmanlike conduct. Now, I don't disagree with you that perhaps there should be an additional penalty for a bush league move like this, but unless someone gives a rule cite, there simply isn't one.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I think that rule then and pardon my French is bullshit. On what grounds can you eject if you don't have enough to have an out and a dead ball? The two should be inclusive to each other

Ever hear of unsportsmanlike conduct?


They used to have an out in the old regime when MB & HP justified the call with a long stretch of rule interpretations.

In 2009, I proposed a change which removed the words "has the ball" which would result in an INT ruling including an out for the runner who creates flagrant contact with a possible subsequent ejection.

[BlueDevilRef]

Of course I have heard of unsportsmanlike conduct......which is how you eject in any rule set. Maybe ASA should stop worrying about chin straps and silly things like that and get this rule right. Around here, it's fallen by the wayside anyway so it's nothing to me but I'd be bothered with an ejection but no out in this type of play.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Instead of the catcher, let's imagine this play at 3B. A runner from 2B intends to score on a base hit to LF. When rounding 3B, the runner intentionally runs over and through F5 who is waiting for the cutoff throw. There is no ASA rule support for an out or a dead ball.

If the fielder has the ball when the crash is initiated by the runner, we have the RS #13 and 8-7-Q rule support. Otherwise, a strict interpretation of the rules would lead me to believe we play on, and eject at the conclusion of play.

In NFHS, if the initiator of the malicious contact is the offensive player, the play is dead immediately and the offender is declared out (if not already having been put out).

While ASA doesn't seem to have an out unless the defender has the ball and awaiting to tag the runner, is there anything that says the play would be dead immediately as in NFHS?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Of course I have heard of unsportsmanlike conduct......which is how you eject in any rule set. Maybe ASA should stop worrying about chin straps and silly things like that and get this rule right. Around here, it's fallen by the wayside anyway so it's nothing to me but I'd be bothered with an ejection but no out in this type of play.

If I'm.not mistaken asa no longer requires chin straps.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If I'm.not mistaken asa no longer requires chin straps.

I'll admit I don't know bc I don't do it anymore. But last time I did, chin straps was all anyone was concerned about. I found it very silly.

[Umpire@1]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Ever hear of unsportsmanlike conduct?


They used to have an out in the old regime when MB & HP justified the call with a long stretch of rule interpretations.

In 2009, I proposed a change which removed the words "has the ball" which would result in an INT ruling including an out for the runner who creates flagrant contact with a possible subsequent ejection.

I agree 100%. Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Use some common sense. You see a player with or without the ball and they get intentionaly taken by a offensive player just to be taking her out. And she should be called out and ejected. RS 13 or what ever you want to say. But I am ejecting and calling out.

[RKBUmp]

If you are working an asa game and the fielder does not have the ball you have no rule basis to call an out.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I find it very poor of ASA to not have this rule. Very silly.

It's a rule of equity. Simple as that.