CO Quiz

[WestMichBlue]

OK Wade - it is a bit of a trick question because I am quoting an obscure rule that most us probably never heard of.

Change my play a bit, and not have R1 stealing home on the pitch, and lets assume the ball is hit to F4. She has no play at home so she gets the out at first. Now we have clasic CO and you offer the O-coach the option of play or penalty.

BUT - we are quoting ASA 8.1.D.4b or NFHS 8.1.1.e - which is a unique rule applying only to a squeeze or steal home play. IF the batter is obstructed, the penalty is immediate dead ball, award home to R1, and send B2 to 1B. That is supported by ASA casebook 8.1-24.

However, the NFHS casebook play, which you found, is obviously wrong. It is not treated the same as normal CO.

WMB

[wadeintothem]

The case book is wrong for NFHS?

Come on WMB. That same case plays been there awhile.. CO is beat to death in clinics.. no one has put out a correction.

I wish I had a ASA case book , unfortunately i dont. Maybe you could do a quick paraphrase for me.

At anyrate, I'll have to agree to disagree and state the rule is obviously written with the intent:

a swing (not a hit) or an ATTEMPTED bunt (not a bunt)

the wording to me is clear but you are reading it differently.

I also think my interpretation is in line with the spirit of the rule, not putting the offense at a disadvantage on any OBS by using DDB, which is consistent throughout all OBS scenarios.

The only reason its dead and not DDB in the squeeze rule we are discussing is because the ball was MISSED by the batter (presumably for a rules discussion because of CO), the batter isnt going anywhere, so there is no need to allow a play at home which could be unsafe, or a play anywhere else when the runner will be awarded home... ie unnecessary risk for no possible gain by the offense.

Thats my interpretation and reasoning, supported by case play, also logic, and consistancy of all other OBS rulings.

I do respect yall so we'll have to agree to disagree here at this point.

[wadeintothem]

Got out the big book (lol) .. in my NFHS Officials Education Program Book for SB.. the sentence in reference to this also supports my interpretation
Page 149 - Case 9 DDB CO
If .. runners were attempting to advance on the pitch, you must use your judgement to make sure you do not penalize the batting team for the obstruction (by negating advancement of the runners).

And every one of you would negate a bases loaded squeeze double scoring two runs because of CO.. .. knocking it down to 1 run award... ie penalizing offense because of CO.

Dont understand it, but I suppose thats why we will have to agree to disagree.

[WestMichBlue]

”At anyrate, I'll have to agree to disagree and state the rule is obviously written with the intent: a swing (not a hit) or an ATTEMPTED bunt (not a bunt)”


Come on, Wade – if you are going to take such a literal reading of this rule, than what are you going to do with the standard CO rule. Back up a couple lines in either book and read, “The catcher or another defensive player obstructs, hinders or prevents the batter from striking or hitting a pitched ball.”

Would you suggest that if the batter actually hits the ball, then you couldn’t have obstruction?

FYI – ASA casebook Play 8.1-24: ” (FP only) R1 is on 3B. A squeeze play is in progress as the batter attempts to bunt the pitched ball and is obstructed by the catcher.”

“Ruling: Dead Ball and obstruction are declared. B1 is awarded 1B, R1 is awarded home as a result of obstruction during a squeeze play.”

Now compare the ASA case play with the one you found in the NFHS casebook. The rules are the same in both books; the ASA case play exactly meets the rule, and the NFHS one does not. IMO, the NFHS one is wrong and I am adding it to several pages of rules and casebook errors I have submitted to the Committee for revision next year.

WMB

[WestMichBlue]

And every one of you would negate a bases loaded squeeze double scoring two runs because of CO.. .. knocking it down to 1 run award... ie penalizing offense because of CO.


Wade – the operative word here is, “immediate dead ball. At the exact instant of obstruction the ball is dead. There is no double or home run – nothing can happen during dead ball.

WMB

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
And every one of you would negate a bases loaded squeeze double scoring two runs because of CO.. .. knocking it down to 1 run award... ie penalizing offense because of CO.


Wade – the operative word here is, “immediate dead ball. At the exact instant of obstruction the ball is dead. There is no double or home run – nothing can happen during dead ball.

WMB

Ha, tell that to the coach who just watched his hitter hit the ball to the fence despite the best efforts of the catcher to obstruct. You penalized the offense for obstruction. You further create a situation where catchers should argue FOR obstruction in certain instances, pretend like they got hit etc or even intentionally obstruct.

And your case play from ASA was an ATTEMPTED BUNT, not a successful bunt, and I agree with the case play but does not affect this argument or the case at hand.

you can submit that change all you want, but IMO, it will not be accepted to illustrate what you are stating.. because you are incorrect in your interpretation to begin with. The NFHS is consistent here, as evidenced by ALSO the NFHS education program.


Submit this to your big wigs and when clarified for you you can admit you are incorrect in your interpretation of that rule:

-----------------------------------------------------
R1@3B, R2@2B, R3@1B, Full Count 2 Outs - Runners leave on the pitch.

Catcher reaches for the ball and the B4 hits the catchers mit as she smashes the ball to the right field fence.

R1 and R2 Score, BR advancing to 2B.

------------------------------------------

You are stating you should have called an immediate deadball penalizing the offense.. and thats simply incorrect. So go ahead and submit to the higher ups.

They will tell you this is a DDB and normal CO applied, of that I am sure... I've seen no one else anywhere support penalizing the offense for CO until now.



edited cuz i suck at spelling lol

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 16th, 2006 at 09:37 PM]

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue



Come on, Wade – if you are going to take such a literal reading of this rule, than what are you going to do with the standard CO rule. Back up a couple lines in either book and read, “The catcher or another defensive player obstructs, hinders or prevents the batter from striking or hitting a pitched ball.”

Would you suggest that if the batter actually hits the ball, then you couldn’t have obstruction?

No the wording is clear to me.. obstructs, hinders OR prevents..

If the batter hits the ball AND the catchers mit .. the batter was hindered and obstructed and within that definition... and we have have CO, DDB.

I do read it literally - and it is accurate.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by wadeintothem

So bases loaded, CO, ball hit to fence with runners going..a obvious double with 2 maybe 3 runners scoring..instead because of CO you call immediate dead ball and do 1 base?

Sorry I dont agree and at this point i dont see where case plays support this opinion...

Willing to learn here, but this is killing a play in a DDB situation shifting it in favor of the defense.

Why not tell your catcher if a HR hitter is up.. on the squeeze obstruct the batter?

Or.. if the hitter hits the ball hard on the squeeze dance around like the batter hit your glove, you might draw the call.

I think you need to reread the rule. This applies to a squeeze play or steal. Simply running on the pitch is neither. Like many other instances, the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play.

BTW, if I'm R1 and the B takes a full cut while I'm attempting to steal home, that SOB better keep running straight to the parking lot beyond 1B, 'cause if I catch'em, I'm going to hurt them!

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA


I think you need to reread the rule. This applies to a squeeze play or steal. Simply running on the pitch is neither. Like many other instances, the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play.

BTW, if I'm R1 and the B takes a full cut while I'm attempting to steal home, that SOB better keep running straight to the parking lot beyond 1B, 'cause if I catch'em, I'm going to hurt them! [/B]

HAHAHA

OK Mike, good save, you saw the error of your original ruling realizing you were disadvantaging the offense if you maintained your position..

Now we'll see if ed and wmb will backtrack as well.. as a matter of fact you two can feel free to use the "theres a difference between leaving on the pitch and stealing" line to save face if you need to, but both of you should realize as mike has that you were interpretting it wrong originally... and I wouldnt suggest WMB that you submit anything to a rule committe yet until you understand the rule.

HAHAHAH

That was good one mike. Ya gave me a laugh over morning cofffee. You are unique to say the least.

[WestMichBlue]

Wade - I tried to email this so as to take our argument off-line, but you do not allow email so here is my final response.

You’ve had your fun, and expressed your sarcasm, but I am telling you that you are flat-out wrong.

What we are discussing is a very unique rule, somewhat obscure, and one that most people have no clue about. It is a baseball rule that found its way into softball, though I don’t know why. In MLB it rules on a runner trying to steal with subsequent CO. Dead ball and runner is entitled to the base.

It has been in both NFHS BB and SB books for years as a note under CO. If you have access to any NFHS books prior to 2002 you can find that note.

Around 2002 it became a rule in both NFHS SB and ASA FP – exactly as you see it today. And the 2002 NFHS casebook had the same play you see today. It was wrong in 2002, and it is still wrong.

In baseball this rule makes sense. A runner gets a big jump on the pitcher (especially from 3B if the pitcher is throwing from the windup) and the catcher knocks the batter off balance or holds their bat, catches the ball and nails the runner (again especially in the “suicide bunt” play). Kill the play, and award the base.

In softball this rule makes no sense. With the ball traveling from the pitcher’s hand to the plate in less than a second, the runner does not get more than a step or two and I doubt if the catcher ever senses a steal and has time to react. Whatever, the rule is there. Though now (in NFHS and ASA) it applies only to a runner trying to steal from 3B.

If you honestly read the rule in both books, you can see that it requires an immediate dead ball. Thus no hits can come into play.

If you read the ASA casebook (copied here earlier) you can see that it agrees with the rule. From that position, logic will tell you that the NFHS casebook play is wrong. It is 180 away from the ASA case play, and the ASA is right.

WMB

[wadeintothem]

No.. you directly contended that you would take away a hit with an immediate deadball... ie wipe away a double OR a homer and reward CO... on an attempted bunt.. sure the play would be killed, but your scenario was a hit and I contend that on a hit, be it to 2nd base, to the out field, or on a homer normal CO applies even if runners are going.. so as to not advantage defense and reward for CO. You DDB a hit.

I gave a number of scenarios where a hit would be normal CO and you stood by your ruling every time based simply on the fact a runner at 3B was going.

Its flat our wrong..

I dont think this needs to go to email.. it isnt like we are calling names or whatever, its a debate on a rule.. and you are flat out incorrect in your interpretation which results in rewarding CO and as mike now says (and I've said all along), judgement must be used so as to not reward CO as you would do.

You cant undeadball a premature dead ball call.. but you CAN DDB and adjust later - you simply are incorrect in application, thats all there is to it.

[wadeintothem]

I might point out that in your very own scenario.. you would have called DB immediately and the play at first never would have happened.. and you wouldnt have known whether F3 missed the catch conceivably enabling the runner to advance to 2nd.

There are so many reasons you are wrong in your application its almost unfathomable.

crappy speller edit

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 17th, 2006 at 12:17 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by wadeintothem

HAHAHA

OK Mike, good save, you saw the error of your original ruling realizing you were disadvantaging the offense if you maintained your position..

Now we'll see if ed and wmb will backtrack as well.. as a matter of fact you two can feel free to use the "theres a difference between leaving on the pitch and stealing" line to save face if you need to, but both of you should realize as mike has that you were interpretting it wrong originally... and I wouldnt suggest WMB that you submit anything to a rule committe yet until you understand the rule.

HAHAHAH

That was good one mike. Ya gave me a laugh over morning cofffee. You are unique to say the least.

[/B]

I backed up on nothing. It seems you are insisting on interjecting a preconceived manner in which to handle this.

If you don't like the rule, attempt to have it changed.

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

I backed up on nothing. It seems you are insisting on interjecting a preconceived manner in which to handle this.

If you don't like the rule, attempt to have it changed. [/B]

Yes you did, you initally agreed with ed and wmb on applying 8.1.4.d on this hit.. ie immediate dead ball (no play at first etc).. to now you are saying " the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play"...

You cant have it both ways (judgement on the play or IMMEDIATE DB), youre going to need to pick what way to go after the hit.. immediate dead ball and applying 8.1.4.d regardless of result of hit or delaying the DB to observe how it plays out (F3 possibly misses throw, errors ensue .. BR eventually gets all the way home.. ball is hit hard..or whatever.)

Unless of course you are advocating a new cal "Delayed Immediate Dead Ball" ...


Either every one of you is jumping up yelling "deadball" IMMEDIATELY _OR_ you are effectively DDB and observing what happens to with the hit... but you cant use judgement on the result of the hit by the batter/play AND immediately call DB.. its impossible. Its one or the other..

Batter hit by pitch - blam dead ball. You call dead ball.. even if a runner is going, BR running to first, whatever... Every umpire and coach on earth knows it. The play is killed, no if ands or buts.. no matter what happens. There is no judgement involved. There is no need to know whether F3 made the catch for the easy out or whatever.

Simple..

Batter hits pitch despite CO.. play made for easy OUT at first.. you have DDB and apply CO.

Its almost a defacto DDB given the scenario..

Now youre on the fence of your call IMO..


So which is it mike? You are jumping up with WMB declaring the play dead - DB IMMEDIATELY --- or you are observing to see how the hit plays out and using judgement with DDB.

Not both - its one or the other..

For me, I think its obvious I am correctly obseving to see what happens with the hit not calling immediately DB just because runners are going so as to not disadvantage the offense, as is taught by NFHS in both their education program AND case plays.

Its not a matter of whether I "like a rule" .. its a matter of how you are interpretting it and IMO, based on your last post, you know WMB is wrong.. hence your "judgement" statement.. but for whatever reason are going to try to shuffle around .. not out and out saying that this is in fact a DDB scenario BECAUSE of the hit.

Because WMB said the batter hit the ball you observe to see what happens and use judgement - DDB.. thats what a DDB is, even if you dont signal it, a DDB situation is still a DDB situation.

You kill the play or you DDB, not both.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by wadeintothem


Yes you did, you initally agreed with ed and wmb on applying 8.1.4.d on this hit.. ie immediate dead ball (no play at first etc).. to now you are saying " the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play"...

Try addressing the full paragraph.

I think you need to reread the rule. This applies to a squeeze play or steal. Simply running on the pitch is neither. Like many other instances, the umpire is going to need to render a judgment on the play.

Yes, the umpire is going to have to render a judgment on whether the play is attempting to steal or just moving on the pitch. I don't believe this rule is as difficult as you seem to want to make it.