What about Case Play 10.8-1?

Dakota · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Nov 14, 2003, 10:39am

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?

Dakota · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 15, 2003, 01:11pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Was an actual rule put into the book for 2004 to back up this case play?

Guess not.

greymule · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Nov 15, 2003, 07:05pm

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.

Dakota · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Nov 16, 2003, 01:40am

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.

IRISHMAFIA · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Nov 16, 2003, 01:54pm

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.