unsportsmanlike act
 

Since the Hidden ball play seems legit...then give examples of play or plays in NFHS Softball that are not illegal,utilize no props, but .... employ deceitful tactics,baiting and are not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

Evidently these plays exist or there wouldn't be a rule against them.

Off the top of my head, here are two plays that my state high school association has ruled as unsportsmanlike:

Play 1: With less than two outs and a runner on base, the BR is retired at first on a force play. The defense, in a planned manner, runs off the field as if it was the third out, including F3 rolling the ball into the circle. The runner on base, then tries to advance, only to have the defense ready with a player designated to be at the appropriate base and other one to pick up the ball.

Play 2: Runner on first steals on the pitch. The catcher, with no chance to throw her out, throws the ball high into the air in the area of F4, mimicking a pop fly. F4 then shouts "I've got it, I've got it" deceiving the runner into thinking the ball has been hit.

Blue Plate:

I don't understand why you think that the Hidden Ball Play "seems" legit. It has been legit since the dawn of baseball (yes, I know "Dear Readers" that this is the Softball Forum). Just go with it.

MTD, Sr.

Play 2 has been around a long time in baseball. Legit there.

I'm thinking I'd find Play 1 OK too. The runner and basecoaches should know (need to know actually) the number of outs.

My opinion is not germane to the discussion; the state association rules these two plays as unsportsmanlike for softball (and, I would suppose, baseball as well, but I don't work baseball). That's what state associations do.

I respect your expertise and absorb your comments in general; but if that is a PIAA ruling, I am skeptical if that applies to the rest of the world. PIAA has some unusual viewpoints on things.

But a PIAA ruling doesn't apply anywhere else so viewers shouldn't take is as gospel.

This weekend...

With R1 on 3B, had F1 & F2 walking together back into the circle, chatting it up (time out was not requested).

If R1 decided to break for home while they were halfway to the circle, and they got the out, I'd've had no problem... good play, dumb move runner.

If R1 stepped off the base once they were in the circle, and DC immediately went nuts wanting an out (which is what I was expecting), he'd be out of luck. I wouldn't have let that happen.


Long story short, R1 didn't move. My partner behind the plate advised F2 (when she returned) to ask for time next time. I didn't hear her reply...

If time wasnt granted and the runner left the base, how would you not have allowed the out to happen? Just as in your other example, dumb move runner, the ball is in the circle with the pitcher and they cannot leave the base.

You are correct. The OP asked if there was rulings, I gave examples of what is not allowed in PIAA. Other state associations have ruled in similar manners or different manners.

My point wasn't to say these play are unsportsmanlike, and I didn't render an opinion either way. My point was that PIAA has said these are not in the spirit of sportsmanship and are not allowed in PIAA contests. They do not speak for other NFHS associations.

Two great plays that are no more unsportsmanlike than wearing metal cleats/spikes. Just another "Pissed off coach whose team got caught off guard" rule that administrative personnel are duped into enacting.

I find it exactly the same as a batter calling time for the sole purpose of causing an illegal pitch.

It's been discussed here, and interped somewhere (can't remember which rulebook), that deceiving a player into performing an illegal act is not to be permitted, and could in itself be considered USC...

The other plays in this thread are not illegal, just dumb moves...

Exactly how are they deceiving the runner? The rule lookback rule clearly states they cannot leave the base when the pitcher is in possession of the ball within the circle. Lets use another example. Runner on 2, pitcher with ball in circle, F5 leaves 3rd and runs into circle to tell pitcher something. Runner sees 3rd uncovered and takes off. You going to consider that deceiving the runner? The runners must be aware of the situation, if the pitcher has the ball in the circle they cannot leave the base.

Reverse it, pitcher and catcher go back to the circle but catcher has the ball. Are you going to call time and protect the defense because they were stupid?

Who had the ball at this time, F1 or F2. If F1 has the ball, you have an out. The look back rule does not require the pitcher to be paying attention to what is going on, only to be in possession of the ball. IIRC there is a casebook play in which the pitcher has the ball in the circle, removes her glove and places it between her knees, with the ball inside the glove while she fixes her hair. The runners leaves the base while this is happening. In NFHS this is a LBR violation and an out. She still possessed the ball even if not in a normal fashion.

Under ASA rules I think it is a little different, as I think ASA requires the ball to be securely possessed in the hand or glove. Holding the glove in a "non-normal" position is not considered possession.

I would say play 1 is not illegal. Play 2 on the other hand is verbal obstruction. You are deceiving / impeding the runner by the use of a voice command. Had the ball just been thrown into the air, that's on the runner not knowing what is going on. If they use the I've got it type phrase, now the defense is using a communication to confuse / deceive the offense.

The difference, as I've seen explained, is that F2 will almost always ask for time before going to talk to F1 (F5 wouldn't do that), so the one time she doesn't (with runner on 3B) could only be interpreted as a deceptive act.

Please note: everything that is good about my umpiring skills and rule interpreting, I have learned from this forum (and experience). I wouldn't have been prepared to make this ruling if I hadn't seen it here first. :)

I have to disagree wit you that they almost always ask for time. It really depends on the situation of the play. Sometimes they do ask for time, otherwise they don't. Since the ball is in possession of the pitcher in the circle, there is already a rule prohibiting the runners from advancing.

Now where I might say it is a deceitful act is if the catcher calls all the infielders into the circle without calling time to have a meeting, and the offense, thinking times has been called has a runner step off the base to talk to a coach, only to have the fielders run out of the circle to tag the runners off base.

This situation was a little different, as F1 & F2 started out close to the plate (forget why), and walked together to the circle. I was watching this play out, and I'm certain they were ready to pounce the second R1 left the base...

Why do so many people think dekes are illegal?

ASA, by case play ruling, directs the umpire to call time when the catcher gores to the circle without calling time. NFHS generally follows ASA interps if not ruled on by them. NCAA directs umpires to NOT call time if not requested; but this play hasn't been run in recent years at that level due to timing violation rules.

So, if time isn't requested, nor granted, are you prepared to call a timing violation and award a ball to the batter?

Thank you for something I did not know. :cool:

If this play works, I suppose the PIAA would have you rule dead ball, return the runner, and some type of warning and/or ejection?

OK, but what if the play does not work and the runner scores? Is it still ruled unsportsmanlike, and the runner returned?

Very good question, and I'm not really sure how to answer. Trick plays were en vogue a few years ago, but not so much now. It has been awhile since they were discussed, I would say about 5 years.

I'm certain of the warning, but not so much on "letting it play out."

Can't see how we couldn't let it play out... we know there's not 3 outs, runner knows there's not 3 outs, and what DC would ever complain that their trick play (that blew up in their face) should be retracted?

Here's one.
R1 on 1B steals on pitch, with no throw from F2, except back to F1.
F6 tells R1 that it was a foul ball causing R1 to leave the base.
The pitch was not fouled.

First, F6 has committed Obstruction. Second, I would say that it would be a very long stretch to consider F6's actions unsportsmanlike.

MTD, Sr.

How is it a long stretch to say what F6 did was unsportsmanlike. She committed an act that was not in the spirit of fair play. Would I eject on the first offense? That is very unlikely since this is also a case of verbal obstruction, so there is already an applied penalty.

No longer a stretch than the OBS call. The runner has coaches, most of probably do not play SS for the opposition. If the runner is dumb enough to pay attention to F6, that is just a DMR.

Sure but the look back rule isn't an exception to the obstruction rule so she's still out ;-)