Interesting scenario question
 

This was posed on a you make the call segment, by a NCAA DI baseball umpire (who has worked regional and super regional level, if not the CWS).

He applies this ruling to HS baseball and softball, and I'm not suggesting he is wrong, but I'm wondering the rules application if this were to happen.

Nobody on base. Fly ball down the left field line. F9 reaches up attempting to make a catch and touches the ball directly above the line, but fails to secure the catch. The ball deflects off the glove and over the fence on the foul side of the line / pole.

What is the ruling and what's the rule reference? Speaking NFHS here, but what about other codes as well.

Baseball, OBR, MLBUM/MILBUM: 2 bases

In ASA it is a "ground rule double".
Rule 8.5.I - when fair batted ball deflects off a defensive player and goes out of play: effect; all runners awarded 2 bases from time of pitch. (This is not worded perfectly clear because a ball over the fair fence is also going out of play. Rule 8.5.H does cover that separately as a home run)
ASA book also has rule supplement 26 which more clearly says touched fair but goes over fence in foul territory is double.

Before looking at any other responses, and from my reading of your words, it is a four base award. Defense tipped a fair ball over the fence. The ball was flying fair when she hit it. Not any different if it lands before crossing fence or after. If this was same scenario but 20 feet closer to infield, it would be a fair ball and play would continue.

Guess you need to read the other responses :) It is a 2 base award

I believe it is 8.4.3.H for NFHS

This was my thought as well, however the umpire in question, who is also in charge of officials for our state athletic association said it is a 2 base award.

As others have said, when a fair batted ball is deflected out of play it is a 2 base award. If this situation actually happened, as it was presented, I would have gotten it wrong.

I'm torn on my opinion of this rule. I think the rule is unfair because it takes away what would have been a fair ball and possible home run from the offense. At the same time, for the defense to come over and make a play to touch the ball, means they likely have made a very good play just to get in position for this to happen.

I think this situation is not the intent of the deflected out of play rule, but is a consequence of said rule. I think the reason for the rule is the balls that are line drives or hard grounders that deflect off the defender and bounds away into DBT. In that case the 2 base award is appropriate.

Being torn on your opinion and thinking a rule is unfair, not a good mind state for an umpire.

Why? There are a lot of rules that are unfair. Personally I think the jewelry rule in most NFHS sports is unfair and is not a good rule. Does it mean I won't enforce the rule? No, it is still the rule, but it isn't a good rule.

Being torn on my opinion of a rule isn't an issue either. I don't have to like the rules I enforce, I only have to enforce them. With that said, I likely would have gotten this particular situation incorrect, in part because of my opinions. With that said, what are the odds anyone actually has this particular play occur.

So if you have to tell a player to take off jewelry you have unfairly affected the game. But I get where you are coming from. I do baseball and nit shit rules do not affect the fairness of a game in my neck of the woods.

There have been over the years many rules that I thought were stupid, unfair, ridiculous, silly, or poorly written so as to either be misapplied or generate unnecessary "conversation" with coaches, etc., etc. Nothing wrong with an umpire having such opinions or discussing them here.

I agree that an umpire thinking his job is to make the game fair is not a good mind state for an umpire, especially if he starts to ignore or shade the application of rules to comply with his own sense of fairness.

While I understand the rationale behind the NFHS jewelry rule, I don't paticularly like the "see what we can get away with" attidute making it the umpire's responsibility seems to engender.

NFHS's rules questionnaire asks about a rule proposal to restrict the coach for any violation of "properly and legally equipped" discovered after the plate meeting (question wording heavily paraphrased...). I answered that I would favor such a rule. My reasoning is to place more of the burden on the coach, where (IMO) it properly belongs.

Has to go over fair territory t be a homer. 8.4.3.R

I would be a lot more supportive if they more reasonably defined jewelry and adornments. I hate needing to address some of the items like gel bands, yarn, hair control items on the wrist, and other items obviously not unsafe short of 27th-world imagination scenarios.

I agree with this.

But, the NFHS rule CAN be applied very simply: unless the adornment is specifically allowed, it is illegal.

Steve:

My definition is jewelry is very simple: If you weren't wearing when you came out of the womb, it is jewelry. :p!

MTD, Sr.