|
Wed Apr 28, 2004, 10:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Discussion about a ball thrown into DBT by a fielder attempting to get a runner that left the base early. Situation: R1 on 1B, stealing on the pitch. Line drive is caught by F6 who immediately fires to 1B, but overthrows into DBT. R1 had conceded and didnÂ’t even try to return. Umpire calls Dead Ball, looks for R1 and points to 3B.
ASA added a statement in 2003 to 8.5.G EFFECT: “once a base runner advances to and passes the next awarded base, the runner may no longer return to touch any base left too soon.” Q #1: What is the next awarded base? Batter is awarded two bases from TOT, so she goes to 3B. Is 2B or 3B the “next” awarded base? Q #2: Rule says “advances to and passes the next . . . . . It does not say “And/Or.” So if 2B is the “next awarded base” and R1 touches 2B when Coach yells at her to return and touch 1B – can she? If she takes a step past 2B, is she now prevented from returning to 1B? EXCEPTION #2: “When the ball becomes dead, runners may return to touch a base left too soon if they have advanced, touched, and are a base beyond the base left too soon.” Now what the hell does that say? If they have not advanced, touched, and are a base beyond – are they prevented from returning? If they have advanced two bases beyond – are they prevented from returning? Further down in the Exception is the statement “A runner shall not be declared out if a fielder deliberately carries or throws the ball into DBT to prevent the runner from returning to a base left too soon.” Now this would suggest that a runner is NOTeligible to return if the ball is dead, however we won’t let a fielder trap the runner by deliberately throwing the ball into DBT. But that doesn’t make sense – in ASA, why would a fielder deliberately throw the ball into DBT? FINALLY TO NFHS. When the NFHS re-wrote Rule 8 a couple years ago to more closely match ASA, we know that NFHS and ASA technocrats collaborated on this effort. When the EXECPTION was printed in the NFHS book (8.4.g, Exception #2) it said “When the ball becomes dead, no runner may return to touch a base left too soon if she has advanced, touched and remains a base beyond the base left too soon.” The only difference between the ASA and NFHS words in that sentence is the word “NO,” and it totally changes the meaning of the rule. Fact is, the NFHS sentence is logical, while the ASA sentence, as I noted above, has no meaning. Now, when NFHS copies the rest of the Exception to include the part about a fielder not deliberately throwing into DBT, it all makes sense. I remember clearly in our NFHS Rules Meetings two years ago the emphasis on not allowing a fielder to violate the intent of the new rule by deliberately throwing into DBT. The following question is possibly going to offend ASA devotees, but here goes. Did the ASA and NFHS technocrats get it right when they wrote the NFHS version; and did ASA fail to fix their rule? OR – did ASA botch the revision a year later when they added the 2003 revision quoted above? (passes next awarded base, can not return etc.) WMB [Edited by WestMichBlue on Apr 28th, 2004 at 11:26 PM] 
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 06:23am
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
 I'll assume you meant R1. R1 would be awarded 3B, but is still subject to retouching 1B and all bases in between. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[b][quote] The only difference between the ASA and NFHS words in that sentence is the word “NO,” and it totally changes the meaning of the rule. Fact is, the NFHS sentence is logical, while the ASA sentence, as I noted above, has no meaning. Now, when NFHS copies the rest of the Exception to include the part about a fielder not deliberately throwing into DBT, it all makes sense. I remember clearly in our NFHS Rules Meetings two years ago the emphasis on not allowing a fielder to violate the intent of the new rule by deliberately throwing into DBT. The following question is possibly going to offend ASA devotees, but here goes. Did the ASA and NFHS technocrats get it right when they wrote the NFHS version; and did ASA fail to fix their rule? OR – did ASA botch the revision a year later when they added the 2003 revision quoted above? (passes next awarded base, can not return etc.) WMB [Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 29th, 2004 at 11:59 AM]
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 07:31am
|
|||
|
|||
|
“When the ball becomes dead, runners may return to touch a base left too soon if they have advanced, touched, and are a base beyond the base left too soon.”
Leaving aside the fact that the sentence is a grammatical nightmare, for precision, "if" should read "whether or not" or simply "even if." Obviously a runner can return if he has not yet advanced to the next base. The only difference between the ASA and NFHS words in that sentence is the word “NO,” and it totally changes the meaning of the rule. ASA also changed "remains" to "are," which throws a monkey wrench into the structure. In the area of how the extent and timing of the runner's advance affects his ability to return to touch a base missed or left too soon, ASA and Fed differ greatly. ASA's rule is close to OBR's (but it is not the same). [Edited by greymule on Apr 29th, 2004 at 08:40 AM]
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 08:29am
|
|||
|
|||
C'mon, WMB,...
Wouldn't everyone expect the sentence structure and grammar of a book published by a high school organization to be better than a book published by a bunch of Hooters patrons?  The ASA book needs a good editor, true. But you do know how to start a nice discussion! Let me paraphrase your last paragraph... Quote:
There was a bit of a discussion on the ASA wording of this rule awhile back, when the change was published. Of course, if search was working maybe someone could actually find the thread! But, I digress... "Next awarded base" is the awarded base that the runner advances to next after the award is made. The umpire can inadvertently "trap" a runner by prematurely announcing the award. Example: runner is between 1B and 2B at the TOT, but is running full speed. Ball is overthrown and goes out of play. If the umpire calls DEAD BALL - RUNNER TO THIRD while the runner is still running, and the runner touches 2nd before stopping, the runner is now trapped and cannot return to retouch. The umpire must wait until the runner has completed whatever baserunning s/he is going to do before announcing the award. After the award is announced, the meaning of "next awarded base" becomes obvious.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 10:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did the ASA and NFHS technocrats get it right when they wrote the NFHS version; and did ASA just forget in the drive home? OR – did ASA just screw it up?
ASA changed its rule in 2002. It had read just like Fed's. Here's ASA's 2002 re-write: "When the ball becomes dead, runners may return to touch a missed base or a base left too soon even, if they have advanced, touched, and remain a base beyond the missed base or the base left too soon." Notice that (though they misplaced the comma) they originally had included the word "even." They also later changed "remain" to "are." I find also that the previous wording represented a rule change for the 1998 book. I can't remember what the ASA rule was before 1998. Apparently ASA has gone back and forth on this matter. In my opinion, ASA's rule is far superior to Fed's, which unfairly limits the runner's opportunity to return. It's certainly arguable also that ASA's rule is superior to OBR's, which again can trap the runner unfairly (though not as ridiculously as Fed's.)
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 11:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Rules are meant to be written in a manner to convey specific information, not to satisfy grammatical standards. For God's sake, this isn't even a consideration for college entrance any longer, why would it be here? In the rule above, the word "if" portrays the rule quite well and in the manner it was meant. JMLHSEO,
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 12:52pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I said in my post, it's obvious that a runner who has not yet advanced to the next base is able to retouch. Therefore, the rule need not remind us of that fact.
However, WestMichBlue did pose the question: Now what the hell does that say? If they have not advanced, touched, and are a base beyond – are they prevented from returning? So he for one was not sure. So "if" in this case did not mean "only if," though it often does. "They'll let you on the airplane if you have two photo IDs" means "only if you have two IDs," not "and also if you don't have two IDs." The fact that some colleges no longer require knowledge of grammar is a reflection of the sad state of affairs in American education. Colleges gave up the standard because they had no choice, not because they decided such skills were unimportant. And there would be no reason for the runner to return had they not missed a base or left one too soon. There is no need to offer perceived options. I don't understand the point. The options in question did not involve why the runner was returning, but whether the runner could return either before or after having advanced to the next base when the ball became dead.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Thu Apr 29, 2004, 03:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sun May 02, 2004, 01:55pm
|
|||
|
|||
Even if (not only if) I separate the three debates going on in this topic, I'm lost.
In NFHS, once the ball becomes dead unintentionally, no runner can return past a base, even if it was missed. In ASA, once the ball becomes dead, a runner can return past a base. Apparently, both apply regardless of whether the bases are awarded or earned. Did I over-simplify too much and get something wrong? Is the justification for the NFHS version that nothing can happen to change a runner's position during a dead ball except an after-the-fact award?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Sun May 02, 2004, 03:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The ASA rule seems more balanced, since it does take away possibilities from the offense because of a defensive mistake.
__________________
Tom
|
|
Sun May 02, 2004, 03:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT. It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
|
|
Sun May 02, 2004, 10:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Runner is past second when starts to return. Defense attempts live ball appeal but overthrows 1B into DBT. Ball dead. Runner now stranded (NFHS). Runner may return to retouch (ASA). NFHS: The defensive mistake (the overthrow into DBT) stranded the runner, giving the defense an out they could not earn with basic thrown & catch. ASA: The defense blew their chance for an appeal by poor play. Runner returns and retouches. Which seems more balanced to you?
__________________
Tom
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 12:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NFHS: The defensive mistake (the overthrow into DBT) stranded the runner, giving the defense an out they could not earn with basic thrown & catch.
ASA: The defense blew their chance for an appeal by poor play. Runner returns and retouches. Which seems more balanced to you?" NFHS. Whether the defense made a good or bad play has nothing to do with the intent of the rule. The rules for DBT are designed to compensate for a less than perfect ball park. In the perfect field the ball is always in play unless it is hit over the fence. In a less than perfect field there are all sorts of ways a thrown ball can go out of play, so rules are written to move runners to where they reasonably would have ended on their own had the ball stayed in play. My guess is that NFHS feels that if a runner is one base or more past the base they must return to - at the time the ball was declared dead - not when it was thrown, that had the ball stayed in play there would have been plenty of time for the defense to field the ball and throw to the base for the out. (Remember that the runner has to retrace his path which takes a little extra time.) Dakota - can you justify the ASA position? A runner past 2B, the ball thrown past 1B. At the instant the ball hits the fence in front of the dugout, will the runner go back to second and get back to 1B before the catcher or pitcher retrieves the ball off the fence and throws to 1B? I doubt it. Sure you can imagine it happening, but you are trying to write a rule for umpires to automatically apply to every game, every skill and age level. You can see the logic in DBT rules for other situations. On a passed ball to the backstop, will runners typically advance more than one base? No? So if the ball is blocked, the umpire awards ONE base by rule. If F6 fields ground ball and throws it over F3's head, will the B-R advance to 3B? Maybe sometimes. May not even get to 2B if F2 or F9 are aggressively on the ball. But if the ball goes out of play, we will assume, by rule that they would have made it to 2B. WMB
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 06:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Abel hits a ball off the fence, touches 1B, misses 2B, and slides into 3B as the throw goes into DBT. In Fed, Abel cannot return to touch 2B. In ASA he can, except that if he first proceeds home and touches the plate, he cannot.
ASA's rule seems more fair to me. Abel on 1B. Baker hits a drive to right center. Abel takes off and is around 2B and halfway to 3B when F9 makes a diving catch. Abel begins to retreat to 1B. The throw to 1B goes into DBT while Abel is not yet back to 2B. In Fed, Abel cannot legally return to touch the base he left too soon. In ASA, he can. (In ASA, Abel is awarded home as long as he was past 2B when the throw left the fielder's hand; in OBR, Abel is awarded 3B.) To me, Fed's rule rewards the defense's error. Why does Fed insert an arbitrary point at which to strand runners? In OBR, runners, no matter how far they have advanced, can return unless they proceed to the next base after the ball becomes dead. That rule (slightly different from ASA's) has not caused any problems that I know of. Is Fed trying to prevent a certain kind of play, or are they just simplifying things for umpires? What's the problem with allowing runners to return?
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Mon May 03, 2004, 08:03am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm not "justifying" either set of rules; only making an observation that the ASA rule seems to me to strike a better balance (for the imperfect field conditions) than does the NFHS rule. I'm not anti-NFHS. Overall, they do a good job of recognizing their "constituents" (if you will) - school-age girls. Whereas ASA must take into account a much broader constituency, including little kids, boys, men, and women. However, in this case, I believe ASA has the better rule, even for schoool-age girls. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tom
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
