OK, so it's the "(one pitch)" vs. "completed her turn at bat or the side has been retired" that makes it false. I apologize to the testers. ;)

Miscellaneous question 2, NFHS, ASA, USSSA.

Is there any rule coverage for a fielder with the ball pushing the runner off a base trying to tag her?
Just from enthusiasm or clumsiness, no intent or blatant contact.
If so, where?
If not, what do you call/do?

NFHS/ASA: Seems to only be covered in Fed 10-2-3g/ASA 10-1. I'm letting an outbreak of common sense happen during this play: calling it Obstruction, judging the runner safe, and letting play continue. If they insist on tagging the "off-the-bag" runner, I'd call time/dead ball, and award that base to the obstructed runner.

NCAA ruleset has a specific rule for this, because, of course they do. :p

Seem to recall another ASA ruling from KR saying that a runner is expected/required to have sufficient control of her person to maintain contact during a tag of normal effort; that extraordinary force applied should be treated as obstruction.

I was once chastised for suggesting obstruction by a fielder with the ball.

I can see where this thought might come from. Yet, possession of the ball does not always absolve a defender from illegally impeding, hindering, or confusing a runner.

There is no rule support in the book, but I would be willing to argue that a runner dislodged from a base by a fielder is analogous to a base that is dislodged by a runner: the base is ruled to have followed the runner.

I'm not sure there really is a rule reference for this, but I am not allowing the clumsiness of the defense to cause an out for the offense. I have had this situation a couple times this season, and I simply call time, and award the runner the base they were on when they were pushed off it. I really don't declare it one thing or another, just call it dead and we continue from there.

It would be interesting to see a rule reference for that situation though.

An obstructed is protected between the bases where it occurred; with some exceptions like INT, passing another, etc.
What about a look back rule violation?

When the CR is used : The casebook has a pretty good explanation of this rule. 8.9.2 Situation B. It also references 3-4-1b in the casebook.

When a CR is not used, this is not a clear cut ruling. The reason is the location of the rule in the book. Given that this rule is under the section titled courtesy runner, it can be argued that this rule only applies when the player in question is involved in a courtesy runner situation. If the NFHS wanted this rule to apply to the pitcher / catcher when they have not been involved in a CR situation, they should move this rule to the lineup section of the rulebook, not have it in the CR section.

Is a look back rule violation one of the listed exceptions? That will answer your question.

Here is a question about the CR-pitcher question.


Top of the first inning.

Pitcher comes to bat and gets hit by a pitch on the elbow. The team had already planned on using a CR for her and when she reaches first base, the CR comes in to run for her. The inning ends up being a long inning, and her turn to bat comes up again. Due to being hit on the elbow she is no longer able to participate. Am I correct in ruling that the CR who ran for her is now the player legally in the game in that position? Can the offense substitute for this player who is now occupying the position in the lineup the pitcher would have played? Could they substitute their backup pitcher into the lineup for the CR who became the substitute? Could they then use a different player as a CR in that instance for the new pitcher?

My thinking would be yes, because the CR was no longer used, as per 8-9-2 exception. The person who went in as a CR would then become the player of record. A player may be substituted for if they occupy the pitcher or catcher position, and this substitute (for the CR-substitute) would be occupying the position in the lineup.

The rule says except in case of injury to the pitcher or catcher. If injured they do not have to face the first batter.

I understand that, but what becomes an issue is the player who initially was the CR is now a substitute in that position. Does that player (who now occupies the pitching position) have to face a batter, or can she be substituted for.

This is where the location of the rule seems to come into play. I would say because this rule is under the CR rule, she can be substituted for. Otherwise, if this rule was under the lineup section, I might have a different opinion.