U-12 FP Softball ASA rules. I am PU. Runner on third no outs. Ground ball to F6, F6 throws a bullet to F2 who is approximately 3ft up the 3d base line. F2 has ball in glove blocking baseline awaiting the arrival of the runner.
Runner bumps F2 as F2 is applying the tag. Ball comes loose as a result of the bump, collision, (not malicious)by runner.

Is runner out or safe??

Jim

If the "BUMP" was not agressive, and the runner was trying to run by the fielder not through the fielder..and the ball was dropped ?, I say "safe". If the only attempt made by the runner was to have a crash..then dead ball, "out".

Safe...No control.

The ball was dropped as a result of the Bump (collision) by the runner. The catcher had the ball in the glove under control waiting for the runner.

Still safe??

YES. A "bump" is not a "collision". When F2 dropped the ball, she no longer had control. It's the same as if she made a leghal slide, and F2 dropped the ball.

If it were a slide, yes. Otherwise, no (8.7.Q).

Now someone is going to argue the word "crash". The rule book does not offer such a definition. I will hang my hat on the runner remaining upright and it being a fact that the fielder was not losing or never had control of the ball prior to attempting to apply a tag.

Why so tough, you may ask. Because it creates inconsistent rulings if we allow each umpire to determine how rough contact is too rough to be considered incidental. This isn't as situation as describe on page 233 of this year's book where collision courses are part of the game as each player has particular rights. As I read the scenario, the runner had the option of going over, under, around, sliding through the fielder or reversing her direction. Running into the player, no matter how innocent really isn't an option.

It depends. If the runner was trying to avoid F2 by going around her, and F2 reaches out to tag and loses the ball, SAFE.

Mike,
If the runner were to slide she would land up 3ft short of home.

The ball was dropped only because the runner bumped into F2 as F2 was making the tag.
Jim

It depends. If the runner was trying to avoid F2 by going around her, and F2 reaches out to tag and loses the ball, SAFE

The runner did nothing to avoid the tag. She just bumped F2 as F2 tagged her and the ball fell out of F2's glove. As I recollect, the runner slowed down to avoid a "collision" however she still hit F2 and the ball fell to the ground.
Jim

I've still got the runner safe....We don't appear to have anything malicious or flagerant....So the runner is safe....

Speaking ASA, which is how the scenario was presented, intent, malicious or flagrant, is not required.

For that matter, the play as presented pretty much had the defense sitting and waiting on the runner, which gives me the impression the runner had time to keep from making contact with the catcher.

There is no doubt this is something each of us would have to see before making an absolute ruling. However, since a replay is not available to us, I've got to work with the impression the written scenario offers. For a runner to just run, or even walk, into the fielder with the ball makes no sense and at a higher age level, would probably be considered confrontational.

keller - maliciousness is not at issue. Intent isn't even at issue. Obviously, with the play 3 feet up the line, sliding is not appropriate. However, she has to try to avoid contact.

If the runner tried to run around, and then movement by the catcher toward the batter caused the contact that left the ball rolling, by all means, call her safe.

But the runner can't just allow contact to happen. It is clearly (by the rulebook and the casebook) the runner's responsibility to avoid the contact if the ball is already in possession of the fielder, and the fielder is in front of the runner. Go back, go around ... but don't cause the contact. period.

I have an out.

It is not possible for there to be a non-contact tag.

Did the runner run straight-line into the fielder? INT / OUT.

Did the runner twist or swerve to try to avoid the tag but the fielder moved over too? INCINDENTAL CONTACT / SAFE.

Somewhere in between? That's why you're there!

<b>Now someone is going to argue the word "crash".</b>

Right. If they means "bumps," "runs into," "contacts," or something similar, they should say so. However, it is true that umpires have their own various concepts of what constitutes a "crash," and that's one reason this play causes so many problems. I've had players run through a tag, avoiding contact with the body but hitting the outstretched glove, and when they knock the ball out everyone is screaming for a violation. I've had 10 guys in my face because a hard-charging runner stayed up when scoring, even though the ball was at the backstop and <i>no contact at all</i> was made with the catcher. Four guys suspended for 2 weeks.

I like to keep in mind the origin of ASA's rule, back around 1980. They wanted to avoid the obligatory MLB-type crash at home when the catcher had the ball and was waiting for the tag. Maybe things have evolved, but they were not trying to preclude all physical contact.

To me, a bump is not a crash, though I do want to see some attempt to avoid.

Unquestionably safe
 

Minor incidental contact. Defender DID NOT HAVE adequate CONTROL OF THE BALL - it fell out with minor incidental contact. Runner is Safe.

The only way to rule an out would be following intentional or malicious contact - that didn't happen. The runner must be called safe. So sad; too bad coach; hold on to the ball.

The runner must do something wrong for the umpire to arrive at some ruling that punishes the runner.

This is not a grey area - the ball is either controlled (held) or it falls out. There is no middle ground.

How can you say this, DTTB? If runner made NO effort to avoid contact, and had ample opportunity to do so, how can you call them safe? Why disregard the rulebook in this manner? The rule is VERY clear on this.

Re: Unquestionably safe
 

Not only have you read more into this play than anyone has offered, I would like to know where in the ASA rule book states that this act must be intentional and/or malicious? Citations please.

Quote:

The runner must do something wrong for the umpire to arrive at some ruling that punishes the runner.

She did. She violated 8.7.Q.

Quote:

This is not a grey area - the ball is either controlled (held) or it falls out. There is no middle ground.

I guess what everyone wants to hear is if the girl extended her arms away from her body while applying the tag and dropped the ball or was run into before that. IOW, did F2 take the play to the runner or did the runner not allow it.

Going back to the orignal post. There has to be some form of contact(A Bump if you will) for a Tag to be made. The catcher, while making this tag dropped the ball.

We can argue all day, but the bottom line is that this is a classic HTBT play.

We're not arguing... we're discussing the nuances! :D

Well if nothing else, this has caused me to open the ASA rule book 1 more time. I have read and reread page 233 and 8-7-Q. That in it's self is a good thing. :)

Assume a few more facts
 

Let's assume some more facts. Let's say that F2 not only set up 3' up the third baseline, but that the runner slowed down because there was no clear, direct way to reach home plate (perhaps the runner is timid, inexperienced or outweighed by 50 lbs by the armored F2), thus allowing the ball to arrive before the runner. Let's also assume the runner was trying to avoid F2. And ASA rules apply.

Seems to me there would be a clear obstruction under this scenario, in that F2 impeded the runner's progress. Which is why F2 should not have set up there WITHOUT THE BALL. As has been pointed out elsewhere, fielders have no business being in the basepath without possession of the ball (unless they are trying to field a batted ball). Nevertheless, in that scenario, I sense that a significant percentage of umpires would not see anything wrong with what F2 did (despite ASA's clear rule).

Gene - yes, if you completely change the situation we will have a different answer. Yes - if F2 is in the baseline without the ball and causes the runner to react (AT ALL!), we have obstruction. The original play, however, was quite the opposite. F2 has the ball already, and it's her baseline. If runner is trying to avoid, and action by F2 causes the contact and subsequent drop, she's safe. But if there is contact (malicious or not, with or without intent), and runner was NOT trying to avoid such contact - we have an out.

I must have misread the facts
 

I wasn't intending to change any facts. I was adding a few facts and posing a new scenario. I understood that F2 SET UP THREE FEET UP THE BASELINE. Then the ball came. There are two possibilities that spring from that, neither of which are specifically mentioned in the original posting. One, the ball got there way before the runner, such that F2's ill-position could not have reasonably impeded the runner. Two, the ball didn't get there quite that soon. My scenario is the latter of the two.

So, assuming my scenario, a runner might do one of four things: (1) stop, (2) slow down, (3) try to go around F2, or (4) run right into F2. The last one (running into F2), as I understand it, would be the only one that would not result in a run being scored, due to the runner's failure to try to avoid contact. Otherwise, it should be obstruction.

What am I missing?

What you seem to be missing is the understanding that you're not missing anything. ;D

If the runner does any of things 1-3 <b>BEFORE</b> the catcher has possession of the ball, then the catcher i guilty of obstruction; if the runner does things 1-3 <b>AFTER</b> the catcher has the ball, then we just let the play, play out. If the runnner does thing 4 anytime, then she's out by rule 9.8.Q. THinf 4 is a bad thing.

SamC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
Most people know a lot of stuffl they just don't know that they know it.

Sam (I am)...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/153/421295.jpg

Tom:

Step away from the computer. You are really starting to scare me.... http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/CHCal4.gif