ASA February Clarifications
 

February Plays and Clarifications

#1 is throwing me for a loop.
"In this play it appears that the defensive coach has begun to come out of the dugout but has not requested time to protest so the substitution of the player by the offense would now put Davis legally in the game."

So if the defense had requested time to protest then the umpire's error in letting the offense come in first would be ignored and we'd honor the protest? I'm also confused by the assertion in that quote given that the OP says:
"The defense requests time and the defensive manager, who was waiting for Davis to complete their turn at bat, begins to come out of the dugout to protest the unreported substitute."

Thoughts?

Like most "complicated" case plays and test questions, this is written poorly. While it makes sense in the context of a clarification to say "the defensive coach calls time to protest the unreported sub", that's not how it works in the real world. As umpires, we don't know if the coach is calling time to swap pitchers, yell at his shortstop for being out of position, or come chew on us for having such a terrible strike zone. We can't assume anything until it happens.

The clarification IS correct in my opinion: whoever says it to me first, wins. This has rule support.

An example from an NCAA game last year: Home team subs in a new batter with 2 outs, unreported. This player strikes out and then goes and plays F3. Two outs are made in the top of the inning at 1B against the visitors. I am waiting for the visiting head coach to appeal the sub...never happens.The third out of the inning is a pop-up to the pitcher. The visiting head coach comes up to me between innings and asks: "What do we do about that unreported sub? Don't I have the option to nullify the play?"

I had to say "Coach, you've made me aware of an unreported substitute. Since a pitch has been thrown after she made a play, I can't nullify it. She is now legally in the game - I will clarify the sub with the home team and report to your book."

All he wanted to do was ask about the rule, but in doing so, he notified me that he was aware of an unreported sub. At that moment, I have to enforce the rule as written for that situation. If I had simply answered him, it would have given him the advantage to appeal it (again) when it was most beneficial.

Edit to add: The clarification that I DON'T like is #3. An unreported F1 throws a pitch, resulting in an out. The offense properly protests the unreported sub, but the clarification is that the act of pitching does not equal making a play. I disagree, but them's the breaks.

I think how I would handle this situation:

Defensive Coach comes out of the dugout and is walking toward me...If it looks like he is coming to talk to me, I will call time.
Offensive coach now starts to speak, I either ignore or tell him I will talk to him in a moment, because the defense had my attention first.

I would allow defensive coach to appeal the unreported sub and deal with it.
Now I have to deal with the offensive coach and manage that situation. Bottom line is that the offensive coach and player have had ample opportunity to properly report the sub into the game and did not do so.

Much like when you have multiple violations, you address actions in the order which they occur.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

PLAY: F1 is an unreported substitute with B1 at bat with a 1-2 count. B1 hits the ball to F6, who throws to F3 to retire B1. The offensive coach wants to protest F1 for being unreported.

RULING: In this case the unreported substitute, F1 did not make a play. Since F1 did not make the play and it is brought to the attention of the umpire F1 is now in the game with no penalty. The pitch is considered in the case of an appeal meaning that was the appeal before or after a pitch. This is not an appeal it is a protest. The act of F1 making a pitch is not making a play. Rule 4, Section 6C8

Actually, I have a problem with this rule. Not the play or given ruling, but the rule in general.

Please explain. :confused:

I don't speak for Mike; he can certainly speak for himself.

Assuming I know what he's saying, I absolutely agree. I think it is absurd to have no penalty for a team not reporting substitutions. There are now teams that make NOT reporting subs a team strategy; if not brought to plate umpire's attention (and many teams do not bother, since there is no penalty), they have multiple re-entries, and subs playing in more than one position for more than one starter. And nothing can been done to keep it legal, because there is no record of a prior participation.

And I blame the opposing team for not saying something the first time it happens. They set themselves up for ignoring the violation just because there is no real penalty.

Steve is correct, this is exactly to what I was alluding. When this change in the rules occurred, it was simply a dummying down to help relieve the coaches/managers of the responsibility of thinking and playing the game fairly. I'm just trying to figure out just how the game survived for over 75 years of the rules in place that required a little brain power on behalf of the teams.

So along those lines I have 3 notes in my book on section 4.6.C:

There are 3 different terms used in 4.6:
1. Is discovered
2. Is brought to the attention of the umpire
3. Is protested
Do they all mean the same thing. To be “protested” and “brought to the attention” require someone else to notify the ump. But “is discovered” is vague. If I as the ump detect the change, is that “discovered”?

NCAA: the act of pitching/catching IS considered a play. 8.3.2 note page 80.

Accurate answer; yes, if you detect it, it has been discovered.

Real world answer; detecting it when you can use preventative officiating, do it. Afterwards, if there is a possible advantage/disadvantage to either team as a result of you "discovering", well, I would simply continue to not notice, and put the onus on the opposing team to bring to my attention and protest.

While true, and while we can prefer one rule-set's interpretation over another, this thread's title makes that immaterial to the ruling. ASA/USA Softball interpretations, especially when spelled out as clearly as in this case, simply have no obligation to match what NCAA interprets.

I can give you examples of NCAA rulings that simply don't even have support with their own rules, if that helps.

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?

When I "observe" someone new walking out, or an obvious reentry, and especially during a changeover half inning, I most often pull out my lineup card and pen, open the lineup card, and meaningfully wait for a coach that I just KNOW is just waiting to report it to me but having a different conversation. About 90% of the time, that expedites what is otherwise an avoidable delay, and preventative, as well, without actually telling the coach to report it. If the coach doesn't take the hint, I put it all away when the catcher throws down, and let the chips fall as they may.

If a "friendly" team, if/when it finally reported by either team, I might suggest to my catcher (the one player on each team I always want on my side) that she "remind" her coach about re-entry when she's on her way out. My experience is that is one position that has a prevailing number of runners and then re-entry (followed by DP, F3, F5 in quantity), as well as a team leader.

Interestingly (and I know I was the one saying this isn't an NCAA thread, BUT), the experimental 90 second rule would remove any such delay, since substitutions must be made at the beginning of the 90 seconds; if not, the offending team must wait one complete batter to make (or assumably report) a legal substitution.

As to what you've been told, I would only suggest that "never", "always", and "not your business" are blanket statements that shouldn't "always" apply. Look at where you are, what you are doing, and judge what is appropriate accordingly. "Never" and "always" are words used most often by those that lack the ability to make that judgment, or else presume that you lack that ability.

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

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.

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.

"clarification"
 

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

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).

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.)

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".

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.

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.

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.

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 <fumbled in his pocket for a coin>
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 <fumble a grounder>
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.

Good summary of Merriam Webster! I was pretty sure you would see it as fun. :D