ASA February Clarifications

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Hmmm, interesting thought. Would you provide an example of when the umpire can use preventative officiating to prevent an unreported substitute pitcher from pitching without the situation being fixed?

If I notice a new pitcher warming up between innings, I will go up to her coach and ask, "Who's the new pitcher?" But I've also been told I have no business checking with the coach, because I'm essentially negating the opposing team's opportunity to take advantage of a violation. Which is the correct action?

I'm with Steve. Pull the line-up card and take a look toward the coach.That was often enough to ignite that light bulb above his/her head and report the change. Of course, this was more effective before the umpires were moved off the lines between innings

[Manny A]

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

I don't have a definitive answer given how this thread has developed. But if it were a D3K where the catcher retrieved the ball and either tagged the batter or threw to F3 for the out, I'd consider that a play.

If a pitch is not considered a "play" and F1 strikes out the side on 9 pitches, then 9 pitches aren't "plays" either.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Let me ask a related question. Since the pitch is not considered a play for unreported substitution purposes, would the catcher be treated the same way as the pitcher?

For example, a new, unreported substitute comes in to catch. She receives a number of pitches, including a swing and miss third strike on the second batter of the inning. If the offense protests at that point that the catcher was unreported, is the third strike pitch caught by the catcher (which results in a Put Out being recorded for the catcher in the official score book) considered a Play that would allow the offense to have the option of the of re-doing the pitch? Would it be any different if the third strike was actually a foul tip that the catcher caught?

I am ruling that yes, this is a play. The catcher caught the pitched ball, in what I will presume was an attempt to retire the BR. Per the USA Softball definition of a play, this is a play. If it's a D3K, and F2 throws to a base, then it is absolutely a play as well.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I am ruling that yes, this is a play. The catcher caught the pitched ball, in what I will presume was an attempt to retire the BR. Per the USA Softball definition of a play, this is a play. If it's a D3K, and F2 throws to a base, then it is absolutely a play as well.

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

[CecilOne]

It is interesting that all this from some of our brightest umpires results from something called a "clarification".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

From the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department:

1) No one is essentially or virtually (preferred term of a fellow umpire) saying anything!! res ipsa loquitor, the thing (rulebook) speaks for itself. Read the exact rule from the rulebook.

2) Don't want nor need ANYTHING from USA Softball that would either be redundant or unsupported by the rule as adopted and written.

3) We have in this discussion a very clear rule, and exactly one clearly defined exception (agreeing with someone else's rule that differs doesn't muddy this; it is someone else's rule, not THIS rule). The one stated exception is the pitcher delivering the pitch. Personally, I conclude that exception neither includes the catcher catching (or NOT catching) the pitch anymore than it excludes the third baseman that may catch a foul fly ball. I could be wrong; but until a different rule is passed, any official interpretation that THEN includes the catcher is unsupported.

4) Many/most consider the NCAA rulebook repetitive, redundant, overstated, by attempting to restate every permutation of third world "what if" scenarios, instead of allowing the thought process to make reasonable conclusions. And several of their restatements conflict with the original rule, creating even MORE inconsistencies. Why do you wish that on any other rulebook, rather than accept what IS, as well as what IS NOT stated?

If I were the rules editor, I would refuse to restate what I believe is clearly stated (and/or clearly NOT included).

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

So you're essentially saying that delivering a pitched ball is not a play for the pitcher, but catching that pitch is a play for the catcher. I would have to disagree with that. The same ball can't be treated differently just because it involves two different players. I would need to see something from USA Softball that says there is a difference.

Referencing the bold section as it applied to my "ruling" on the hypothetical in this thread: 2017 USA Softball Participant Manual, Rule 1: "Play"; page 30.

PLAY: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. A pitch is not considered a play except as it relates to an appeal.

That is the rule, verbatim. (Italics mine) The italicized portion is relevant to our conversation.

Edit for Steve -- I'm tired, and your last post was both eloquently verbose and firmly worded. My brain isn't compatible with your post right now. To be clear: You agree with me then, under ASA/USA, that a catcher catching (or not) a third-strike pitch for a putout is making a play? (Also, for what it's worth, I like the NCAA rulebook "in principle" as there are written rules for some of these third-world plays that come up...what I don't like is the "interpretations" that conflict with other rules, as you pointed out.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

If I were the rules editor, I would refuse to restate what I believe is clearly stated (and/or clearly NOT included).

Which is how the old rule book (not that long ago) used to be written. And then everyone thought they figured a way around a rule based on personal presumption. And that includes coaches insist on their own interpretations based upon when isn't written must be a fact or the book would have stated otherwise.

A perfect example is the "safe" signal when the umpire doesn't rule INT. It is real simple. If the umpire does not kill the play, in his/her judgment there was no INT. But no, the coach needs a positive affirmation of a negative to be able to understand the "no call".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Referencing the bold section as it applied to my "ruling" on the hypothetical in this thread: 2017 USA Softball Participant Manual, Rule 1: "Play"; page 30.



That is the rule, verbatim. (Italics mine) The italicized portion is relevant to our conversation.

Edit for Steve -- I'm tired, and your last post was both eloquently verbose and firmly worded. My brain isn't compatible with your post right now. To be clear: You agree with me then, under ASA/USA, that a catcher catching (or not) a third-strike pitch for a putout is making a play? (Also, for what it's worth, I like the NCAA rulebook "in principle" as there are written rules for some of these third-world plays that come up...what I don't like is the "interpretations" that conflict with other rules, as you pointed out.)

Answering the question with a question; when does a pitch end?

If a pitch passes the batter, bounds off the catcher or the backstop, and then hits the batter still standing in the batter's box, is that HBP? Why not? The only logical answer I can consider is ...........


because it is no longer considered a pitch at that point; the pitch ended when it passed the batter and is caught (or not) by the catcher. We extend that "pitch" if the batter was swinging in a real effort to hit the ball and is obstructed by the catcher in that effort; but if that doesn't apply, the pitch ended.

If the sole exception to the definition "PLAY" is that the pitch itself is not a play, then when the pitch ends .......?? Well, ipso facto, that's a play. (Don't you just love the Latin??) If there is to be any other conclusion or exception, then it would have been stated by the 84th year of ASA/USA Softball.

Frankly, I also prefer the NCAA rule here, as long as we are entitled to a preference; if the unreported/illegal/inaccurate sub participated (and the pitcher obviously did participate in throwing a pitch), it should have a consequence, IMO.

[RKBUmp]

Except according to a recent USA case play or clarification it is still a pitched ball until it is controlled by the catcher.

Not too long ago there was a play presented about a pitched ball that gets away from the catcher and knocked up the baseline. As the catcher is attempting to retrieve it, they knock the ball into the dugout. According to the ruling it is not treated the same as a thrown ball, it is still a pitched ball and would only be a 1 base award from the time of the pitch.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Except according to a recent USA case play or clarification it is still a pitched ball until it is controlled by the catcher.

Not too long ago there was a play presented about a pitched ball that gets away from the catcher and knocked up the baseline. As the catcher is attempting to retrieve it, they knock the ball into the dugout. According to the ruling it is not treated the same as a thrown ball, it is still a pitched ball and would only be a 1 base award from the time of the pitch.

Reasonable point, but not definitively the same. When it comes to awarded bases, the question/issue is "what caused the ball to be blocked or out of play"? What impetus created the dead ball? Was it the pitch, a thrown ball, a batted ball, or a new and or secondary impetus that resulted in the dead ball, and/or was the secondary impetus accidental or intentional?

I believe we can (and must) differentiate between a ball that was pitched and then left the field of play, a ball that was pitched and subsequently mishandled (muffed would be the equivalent football term, if that helps) without any intent beyond an effort to retrieve and left the field of play, and a ball that was pitched, controlled, and then control was lost (fumbled would be the equivalent football term) with the ball leaving the field of play. I don't see that the the second or last extended the life of the "pitch"; just that any subsequent award may be affected by the actions after the pitch was no longer a pitch, if that has bearing on the causation of the dead ball.

Referring to football, as it were. When a punt is muffed, the punt still ended when muffed; but unless recovered by the kicking team in bounds, the ball is placed as if the punt hadn't ended!! That doesn't extend the punt, it just describes the enforcement. When the punt is caught by the receiving team, and THEN fumbled, the punt still ended when caught, and subsequent action may have different results than the muff.

Maybe you aren't a football guy; and I'm more than a decade out of officiating that game, so my verbiage and example may be off, flying by the seat of my pants. But my point is the same. There are instances where subsequent action may result the same as if a pitched ball that isn't (anymore) were still a pitch; but that only directs the subsequent enforcement, doesn't make it still a pitch, just tells you to treat it as if it were still a pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

IMO which I believe is the same as ASA/USA softball

A pitch is not a play. It is an act which initiates action on the field. An attempt to retire a runner or batter-runner by any defender is a play.

[CecilOne]

Definition of muff (BTW, first defined as a noun)

transitive verb
1
:
to handle awkwardly

2
:
to fail to hold (a ball) when attempting a catch

intransitive verb
1
:
to act or do something stupidly or clumsily
2
:
to muff a ball — compare fumble
---------------------------------------------------------
Definition of fumble
intransitive verb
1
a
:
to grope for or handle something clumsily or aimlessly
b
:
to make awkward attempts to do or find something
c
:
to search by trial and error
d
:
blunder
2
:
to feel one's way or move awkwardly
3
a
:
to drop or juggle or fail to play cleanly a grounder
b
:
to lose hold of a football while handling or running with it
transitive verb
1
:
to bring about by clumsy manipulation
2
a
:
to feel or handle clumsily
b
:
to deal with in a blundering way
:
bungle
3
:
to make (one's way) in a clumsy manner
4
a
:
misplay
b
:
to lose hold of (a football) while handling or running

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Definition of muff (BTW, first defined as a noun)

transitive verb
1
:
to handle awkwardly

2
:
to fail to hold (a ball) when attempting a catch

intransitive verb
1
:
to act or do something stupidly or clumsily
2
:
to muff a ball — compare fumble
---------------------------------------------------------
Definition of fumble
intransitive verb
1
a
:
to grope for or handle something clumsily or aimlessly
b
:
to make awkward attempts to do or find something
c
:
to search by trial and error
d
:
blunder
2
:
to feel one's way or move awkwardly
3
a
:
to drop or juggle or fail to play cleanly a grounder
b
:
to lose hold of a football while handling or running with it
transitive verb
1
:
to bring about by clumsy manipulation
2
a
:
to feel or handle clumsily
b
:
to deal with in a blundering way
:
bungle
3
:
to make (one's way) in a clumsy manner
4
a
:
misplay
b
:
to lose hold of (a football) while handling or running

To me, without using a dictionary, the difference between a muff and a fumble is similar to the difference between failing to catch a ball and the rule for an intentional drop. You cannot drop that which you have not first caught; you cannot fumble that which you have muffed. Both the drop and the fumble require prior control; the muff describes failing to control it to begin with.