The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 14, 2003, 10:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Was an actual rule put into the book for 2004 to back up this case play, or is ASA satisfied with the Case Book as the only authoritative source for ruling an OUT for flagrant misconduct?

Or, I suppose there is another alternative - Case Play 10.8-1 was removed for 2004?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 15, 2003, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Was an actual rule put into the book for 2004 to back up this case play?
Guess not.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 15, 2003, 07:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
My 10.8.1 deals with two runners on a base, but I am indeed curious as to whether any rule will be inserted in the 2004 book specifically to cover the out for USC.

Is the case play the one where the batter hits the ball over the fence but is called out and ejected because he threw the bat?

At last year's pre-season meeting, several UICs acted as if the out-for-USC rule had always been there, claiming that a dirty crash at home plate had always been an out as well as an ejection, even if the ball was nowhere near the catcher. I was just filling in for our guy, so I kept my mouth shut, but I felt like asking where that rule had been hiding in the book.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 16, 2003, 01:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
Is the case play the one where the batter hits the ball over the fence but is called out and ejected because he threw the bat?
Yes.

Quote:
At last year's pre-season meeting, several UICs acted as if the out-for-USC rule had always been there, claiming that a dirty crash at home plate had always been an out as well as an ejection, even if the ball was nowhere near the catcher. I was just filling in for our guy, so I kept my mouth shut, but I felt like asking where that rule had been hiding in the book.
The rule is not there even now. The case play references 10-1K to justify the OUT call, but all 10-1K says is the umpire will call any player OUT who is OUT.

Personally, I have no problem making the call if the situation presents itself, although I would expect a knowledgable coach to dispute the OUT and without a rule backing up the case play, if protested, it would be a crap shoot whether the call would be upheld, IMO.

It would just be a lot cleaner if ASA would back up this particular interpretation with an actual rule.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 16, 2003, 01:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by greymule
Is the case play the one where the batter hits the ball over the fence but is called out and ejected because he threw the bat?
Yes.

Quote:
At last year's pre-season meeting, several UICs acted as if the out-for-USC rule had always been there, claiming that a dirty crash at home plate had always been an out as well as an ejection, even if the ball was nowhere near the catcher. I was just filling in for our guy, so I kept my mouth shut, but I felt like asking where that rule had been hiding in the book.
The rule is not there even now. The case play references 10-1K to justify the OUT call, but all 10-1K says is the umpire will call any player OUT who is OUT.

Personally, I have no problem making the call if the situation presents itself, although I would expect a knowledgable coach to dispute the OUT and without a rule backing up the case play, if protested, it would be a crap shoot whether the call would be upheld, IMO.

It would just be a lot cleaner if ASA would back up this particular interpretation with an actual rule.
You're correct, nothing was offered to make the change. Henry was a bit busy and I don't think it was the time to bring it up. Once I get home, I will see if I can find out what the NUS intends to do with this.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1