What's the call?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Playing devil's advocate here, are we all sure there is a call to be made??

To be interference, there must be a play that is interfered with. The person involved says there was no play.

To be a blocked ball (thus dead), the ball must be handled by someone not in the game, or touch offensive equipment left on the field, or similar. The on deck batter IS permitted on the field, WAS doing an approved function, and an errant throw hits him. How is this different than an errant throw hitting a base coach; the ball remains live when that happens, UNLESS the coach fails the same charge, to not interfere??

Based on the description of the play, and if I were in agreement on the field, the ball hitting the on-deck batter likely was advantageous to the defense. I submit that I could certainly accept a "no call", and ball remaining live, as an acceptable ruling based on those judgments.

[jmkupka]

not trying to add a "what if" scenario...
but it is likely that, in an effort to avoid getting hit by an errant throw, the ODB could ricochet the ball well away from a defender, in itself causing an advance in base(s). That could justify dead ball, runners return, while not necessarily being INT, no?

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

not trying to add a "what if" scenario...
but it is likely that, in an effort to avoid getting hit by an errant throw, the ODB could ricochet the ball well away from a defender, in itself causing an advance in base(s). That could justify dead ball, runners return, while not necessarily being INT, no?

Of course! That is what everyone has been saying, this play is a HTBT type of play. As described, ball gets away from catcher and ODB stops if from getting farther away from F2, where is the interference? If anything it helped F2 retrieve the ball faster?

Now if you change the play and the ODB kicked a slow moving ball farther away from F2 then of course you have the potential to have a different ruling on that play. Bottom line is if you judge the ODB's actions interfere with the defense's chance to get an out, you have a dead ball INT and someone is out.

[josephrt1]

Here is a question from 2016 ASA exam, Q7. Kind of similar to the question posed in this thread. The correct answer was D, dead ball, return runners. I think the question posed here is the same. In both Q7 and the question here, the offensive player was not where they are supposed to be. The ODB is allowed to "coach" at home plate but at 8 feet from the plate I want her to be alert and mobile. Getting hit by a throw at 8 feet, even if somewhat errant, I still think i have a blocked (dead) ball. If she were in the ODcircle, I would give more leeway. But I have not had to make this call on the field.

Q7 2016ASA: With no outs, R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, B3 hits an uncaught line drive to left field. R1 rounds 3B, R2 rounds 2B and looks at F7’s throw that goes over F6’s head and is heading toward the 1B dugout. Seeing the overthrow R1 advances toward home, R2 advances toward 3B and the batter runner toward 2B. Prior to any runner touching the next base the ball contacts an offensive team member sitting in the dugout on a bucket with their feet in live ball territory, there is no defensive player in the area that would be capable of making an out.
a. Umpire signals and verbalizes “Dead ball” and awards both R1 and R2 home and the BR 3B since the ball would have entered dead ball territory had it not hit the offensive player.
b. Umpire should let play continue since the ball bounced off the offensive player and remained in live ball territory.
c. Umpire signals and verbalizes “Dead ball” and rules R1 (the runner closest to home is out) due to interference by an offensive player.
d. Umpire signals and verbalizes “Dead ball” and returns all runners to the last base touched at the time of the blocked ball.

There was also Q2 on 2016 ASA exam where runner scored and while on her way to dugout was hit by errant throw. Similar situation based on ump judgement if interference or not. I actually had this happen a while back and I let that one play on. Runner who scored was returning to dugout, away from plate area and throw was very wild and hit her from the side. In this case she was doing what she was supposed to and i kept ball live.

But these all have nuance and are HTBT type situations.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Playing devil's advocate here, are we all sure there is a call to be made??

To be interference, there must be a play that is interfered with. The person involved says there was no play.

To be a blocked ball (thus dead), the ball must be handled by someone not in the game, or touch offensive equipment left on the field, or similar. The on deck batter IS permitted on the field, WAS doing an approved function, and an errant throw hits him. How is this different than an errant throw hitting a base coach; the ball remains live when that happens, UNLESS the coach fails the same charge, to not interfere??

Based on the description of the play, and if I were in agreement on the field, the ball hitting the on-deck batter likely was advantageous to the defense. I submit that I could certainly accept a "no call", and ball remaining live, as an acceptable ruling based on those judgments.

Actually, the ODB does not have approved functions. The rule (7.1.C) simply permits the ODB to leave the circle, it provides no additional protection and the ODB still cannot interfere with the defense attempting to make an out.

I agree, it doesn't seem to be INT. However, the ODB is not a player engaged in the game and meets the definition of a blocked ball.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Actually, the ODB does not have approved functions. The rule (7.1.C) simply permits the ODB to leave the circle, it provides no additional protection and the ODB still cannot interfere with the defense attempting to make an out.

I agree, it doesn't seem to be INT. However, the ODB is not a player engaged in the game and meets the definition of a blocked ball.

I read ASA 7.1-C(2) and NFHS 7-5-3-b, stating they may leave the on-deck circle to direct runners advancing to home plate, as permission to be there, and acting in the same function as a base coach. And, like a base coach, they cannot interfere.

But that permission to 1) be on the field, 2) leave the on-deck circle, and 3) perform an approved function tells me two things, at least:

A) Unlike the ASA case play referenced above, this person is somewhere they are permitted to be; not someone required to be in the dugout but affecting live ball play, and

B) How/why would we reference a blocked ball rule that applies to offensive items NOT permitted in live ball territory?

Absent a case play, or a specific rule citation, I do not believe this is a dead ball scenario; the ODB has permission to be there, doing exactly what the ODB was doing, did nothing to interfere, did not interfere, and did nothing intentional to be considered even an attempt to interfere with the opportunity to make an out (or play). Acting in an approved (base coach) function, the offense shouldn't be penalized for the misplay by the defense.

That's my opinion, anyway; and I don't see a clear rule cite that contradicts.

[josephrt1]

Hi Steve,

Looking at what you and Tru_in_Blu said, this would be a live ball. Looking at every citation in the ASA book related to on-deck batter, they only call a dead ball & runner out if actual interference with the ability to make an out. No citation calls for a blocked ball call. So let me ask you a follow up questions:.

lets say the ball hits the ODB the same way as in the original post with no play obvious at the time and the secondary runner was all the way back at the 3rd base bag. Now the ball deflects off the ODB and skips away allowing the runner to score. if the ball hadn't hit the ODB, it would have stopped at the backstop and catcher would flip to the pitcher. Maybe get the out or maybe runner doesn't attempt to come home. What would we have in this situation? It sounds like form your post that the ODB had a right to be there, did not interfere, so now we have a live ball which could lead to another run.

I'm not arguing with you, just following the thought through and i can't find a rule citation to counter you with. But i don't like the idea that an ODB can get close enough to get hit by a errant ball and not be penalized.

Thanks

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I read ASA 7.1-C(2) and NFHS 7-5-3-b, stating they may leave the on-deck circle to direct runners advancing to home plate, as permission to be there, and acting in the same function as a base coach. And, like a base coach, they cannot interfere.

Yet 8.7.O provides a specific exception from interference by a coach. No such exemptions exist for an ODB

But that permission to 1) be on the field, 2) leave the on-deck circle, and 3) perform an approved function tells me two things, at least:

A) Unlike the ASA case play referenced above, this person is somewhere they are permitted to be; not someone required to be in the dugout but affecting live ball play, and

B) How/why would we reference a blocked ball rule that applies to offensive items NOT permitted in live ball territory?

Well, that is not what the ASA rule states. A ball is blocked if it touches a person not engaged in the game. IMO, that is an active participant such as defensive player in the field, a runner, a batter-runner, a batter and the umpires. It does not include any person not required to be on in playable territory which includes coaches, ODB, bat person, ball person, bullpen occupants (if in playable territory), media, etc.

Absent a case play, or a specific rule citation I do not believe this is a dead ball scenario; the ODB has permission to be there, doing exactly what the ODB was doing, did nothing to interfere, did not interfere, and did nothing intentional to be considered even an attempt to interfere with the opportunity to make an out (or play). Acting in an approved (base coach) function, the offense shouldn't be penalized for the misplay by the defense.

That's my opinion, anyway; and I don't see a clear rule cite that contradicts.

For those not participating in the game, there are specific allowances for coaches and media personnel should the accidentally be contacted by a live ball. There are no such exception for the others I have noted. If they were considered "engaged" with the game, why is there a need for a specific rule to cover these exceptions?

And, like Steve, that is my opinion and I don't see a clear rule cite that contradicts.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, that is not what the ASA rule states. A ball is blocked if it touches a person not engaged in the game. IMO, that is an active participant such as defensive player in the field, a runner, a batter-runner, a batter and the umpires. It does not include any person not required to be on in playable territory which includes coaches, ODB, bat person, ball person, bullpen occupants (if in playable territory), media, etc.

Did this forum previously conclude [ASA] that an ODB must be present? I don't have my book handy, but doesn't 7.1 use "shall" when referring to the ODB?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Did this forum previously conclude [ASA] that an ODB must be present? I don't have my book handy, but doesn't 7.1 use "shall" when referring to the ODB?

The rule does say "shall". However, as a matter of game management, I refuse to hold up a game with a pitcher and batter that are ready because an on-deck batter isn't. And, I am frustrated whenever I see another umpire that does wait, because I think that is an absurd requirement. I'm pretty sure at some point I was directed by ASA NUS that the rule was meant to be interpreted to mean that IF there was an on-deck batter, that person must be in the on-deck circle.

I also umpire games at sites where there simply isn't a safe place for an on-deck batter to stand; should I refuse to continue unless a player puts herself at risk?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

Did this forum previously conclude [ASA] that an ODB must be present? I don't have my book handy, but doesn't 7.1 use "shall" when referring to the ODB?

The book may read "shall", but it is incorrect. Should probably read "may".

It is an unenforceable rule simply because not all fields can safely accommodate such an area. And some fields simply do not have ODC, but provide an area outside the fence near the dugout and I'm certainly not going looking to see if player not of active stature is occupying a particular space