ASA rules apply here.

Saturday afternoon, I was calling a 12-U game. A lot of bad feelings between the 2 teams. The batter hits a deep fly ball over RF's head. As she rounds 1st, she runs square into the 1st baseman who is looking into the outfield. A clear case of obstruction. Now, the BR looks at the 1st baseman, pushes her hard, back about 2 steps, and continues to run. I have my arm out for OBS, trying to quickly think of the rule for this. The BR stops at 3rd, I yell "Dead Ball!!" and talk to my partner. I then eject the BR for USC and put the substitute back on 1st. I have been looking through all 4 rule books that I call for and cannot find a situation where the USC warrants a dead ball except where the offensive player crashes into a defensive player who is holding the ball.

Am I missing the rule, or do you award the bases to the obstructed runner and then eject her? As far as I'm concerned, she was ejected as soon as she pushed the girl. All play should have stopped there, with no benefit from the OBS.

It's covered in the casebook. Not sure, but it may be play 10.8.1 or something like that.

interesting question. the player did warrant an ejection, no doubt. i probably would have left the new BR on 3rd unless I had killed the play at the time of the USC. if i had waited until she stopped on 3rd to kill the play then i really couldn't justify putting her back on first.

10.8-1 is indeed the case play.

The ruling is for flagrant misconduct. Dead ball. Runner out and ejected. Runners return.

Why are you guys trying to figure out where to place a substitute runner? If you decide this was USC, she's out. No runner to place, no substitute needed.

good point!

Well I would need a substitute for the ejected player, otherwise this game is over. Can't go shorthanded on an ejection.

Why are you guys trying to figure out where to place a substitute runner? If you decide this was USC, she's out. No runner to place, no substitute needed

Mike basically had it correct. Batter-runner out and ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct. You need a substitute for the next time the batter comes up or the defense takes the field.

I agree with ejection, of course.
But I cannot find any rule on ISF Rulebook to say the runner is also OUT. I'm not saying I don't agree with the out. I'm saying there's no such rule for ISF. There's anybody over there who can help me to rule the right thing under ISF?

At the moment the only things I can say for sure: 1) this CAN'T be an interference. 2) No out after the USC: USC has not a specific rule in ISF Rulebook....

A.
(confused)

There is not a definite rule is ASA, either. There is only the case play, which says that ASA wants the player declared out for flagrant misconduct.

Sometimes flagrant is flagrant. Easy to see. Sometimes, it is merely unsportsmanlike. Sometimes, it is nothing.

This may not translate well to Italian, but ...

Think of it as similar to adding a civil rights violation to a murder case; the murder deprived the victim of his civil right to life, freedom of choice, etc.. Not exactly what a civil rights violation is intended to cover, but it is used to be sure to penalize murderers sufficiently.

Now, we have a flagrant misconduct violation by a runner; we are tacking on an interference call to call the runner out in addition to the ejection, using a theory that the flagrant collision kept the first baseman from making a play later in the sequence (maybe as the cut-off, whatever) because she was taken out of the play. Sure, the interference call is flimsy by itself, but it is tacked on to get the "out" in addition to ejection, because the ejection alone may be insufficient deterrent to stop that type of flagrant play.

This is intended as a matter of philosophy and policy, more than black letter law.

I haven't heard this case play discussed by any NUS member, so perhaps you are right. But, just going by the case play (10.8-1 just to remind everyone), it does not cite the interference rule.

The rules cited are:
10-8-A (the generic "conditions justify" rule for the dead ball).
10-1-J-3 (for the ejection)
10-1-K (the generic "declare the batter or runner out" rule for the out.)

IOW, the justification for the ruling boils down to umpire authority in dealing with flagrant misconduct, not any specific action by the runner that would fall under rule 8-7 (or, in the case play, BR and rule 8-2).

The cited case play is a BR who throws the bat in anger.

For everyone'e benefit, here is the case play word-for-word.

Lots of thanks to you!!!
Unfortunately I have not an ASA Rulebook, so that I often think you have rules on it that I've never heard of!
:o)
I get the point of AltUmpSteve, but still thinkin' an 'out' is too much in this situation. It's a pure interpretation. I will discuss about it with the 'bosses' here...

Thanks again!

A.

Casebook? *perk* Where can I get ahold of one of these?

TIA :)