CO Quiz

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Probably really sucks that I have two different books reaffirming my opinon that you dont disadvantage the offense with a OBS call and all you and WMB have are each other clinging whistfully to a scenario that WMB wrote hoping to test on a rule HE considers obscure - the scenario is simply incorrect to test on this rule and neither of you can present a similar scenario in either ASA or NFHS which would support your opinion.

What WMB should have done is used ASA's case play or VERY similar so as to be accurate.. because he stepped outside the boundries of this very NARROW rule where an immediate DB does NOT disadvantage the offense - into "DDB" for OBS where anything could have happened after the hit and a DB WOULD potentially disadvantage the offense. Its just an error in presentation.

Instead of simply admitting that the scenario was presented incorrectly to test on that rule you are adding stuff to the rule that is not there.

Just follow the rule mike, as written. Dont invent a bunch of stuff that isnt written there or supportable by case plays.

I've asked you both to provide evidence that on a hit you deadball immediately with CO.. still waiting.. it sure aint in the rule or case plays. Know why its not there mike? Know why you guys have no support for your position? Cuz you are both wrong. You dont disadvantage the offense with a CO call - plain and simple. If they get a hit, its DDB.

Inasmuch as you are both inventing stuff to add the rule that isnt written there or supportable by any evidence whatsoever.. and futhermore is DIRECTLY refuted in the NFHS Ump Ed program, it is actually you are making the rule much more difficult to understand than it is.

[debeau]

There is a difference on a squeeze play and a steal .
Very subtle but a difference .
My view .
Dead ball B gets 1st and r awarded home .
On a steal DDB , wait until the outcome .
Does it give definition of a steal and a squeeze play in your rule books ?

[IRISHMAFIA]

ASA

8.1.D.4 A batter become a batter-runner.

(FP)On a {b}swing[/b] or attempted bunt, the catcher or any other fielder prevents the batter from hitting the ball, touch the batter or theri bat with a runner on third bse trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal

EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner shall be awarded home plate and the batter shall be awarded first base on the obstruction. All other runners shall be advanced one base if forced.

Did you see this sentence? The ball is dead

If the umpire has judged the runner from third was trying to steal home, the BALL IS DEAD! End of story! Period! Elvis has left the building! It's what's in the rule book.

There cannot be a hit, because as even the least educated umpire knows that once a ball is ruled dead, nothing else can occur which means there cannot be a hit.

As an umpire, you have two choices, kill the ball and apply the effect or determine that the runner on third was NOT attempting to steal home at the time of the CO.

Your option, but as Ed, WMB & myself noted, this is the rule which is all any of use where trying to say in the first place.

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
ASA

8.1.D.4 A batter become a batter-runner.

Did you see this sentence? The ball is dead

If the umpire has judged the runner from third was trying to steal home, the BALL IS DEAD! End of story! Period! Elvis has left the building! It's what's in the rule book.

There cannot be a hit, because as even the least educated umpire knows that once a ball is ruled dead, nothing else can occur which means there cannot be a hit.

As an umpire, you have two choices, kill the ball and apply the effect or determine that the runner on third was NOT attempting to steal home at the time of the CO.

Your option, but as Ed, WMB & myself noted, this is the rule which is all any of use where trying to say in the first place. [/B]

Ha, thats absoluetely absurd.

OK in WMBs scenario I judge the runner wasnt stealing hence WMB's answer is incorrect and mine was correct.

Youre as well versed probably as just about anyone but you are bobbling the ball on this rule IMO mike, and not only that, I think you are smart enough to know it.

You dont judge a players actions based on what rule you want to apply mike. You judge the players actions THEN apply the appropriate rule based on what happened.

Call what you see.. its simple.

not

Figure out what rule you want to apply then judge player actions to fit the rule you've chosen.




[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 19th, 2006 at 10:48 AM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by wadeintothem

Ha, thats absoluetely absurd.

OK in WMBs scenario I judge the runner wasnt stealing hence WMB's answer is incorrect and mine was correct.

Youre as well versed probably as just about anyone but you are bobbling the ball on this rule IMO mike, and not only that, I think you are smart enough to know it.

You dont judge a players actions based on what rule you want to apply mike. You judge the players actions THEN apply the appropriate rule based on what happened.

Call what you see.. its simple.

not

Figure out what rule you want to apply then judge player actions to fit the rule you've chosen.
[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 19th, 2006 at 10:48 AM] [/B]

Whatever. We're discussing apples and you're entrenched in an orange grove. Or maybe it's standing by the fence sipping your water while your "partner" has a problem.

[wadeintothem]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Whatever. We're discussing apples and you're entrenched in an orange grove. Or maybe it's standing by the fence sipping your water while your "partner" has a problem.

[/B]

now now mike lets not get mean..

But now that I think of it, sipping water might be a good idea after you call CO and remove a offensive teams home run as just punishment for the batter getting obstructed by the catcher. That'll teach the batter not to get obstructed.

[debeau]

You dont "remove " the home run as it is dead ball immediatly there is catchers obstruction on a squeeze play .
Nothing happens , you cant choose not to adhere to rules because something better happens .
The rule is a clear on a squeeze play with catchers obstruction the ball is dead runner is awarded home and batter is awarded first .
My heart also bleeds when a homerun is "removed " when a runner leaves before the pitch .

[tcannizzo]

The rule is clear as mud.

1. When was the last time you saw a squeeze play with the batter swinging? There is no ASA definition of "squeeze". By definition a squeeze play is a bunted ball. Not to mention, the difference between a suicide squeeze and a safety squeeze. If the runner is going on the pitch and the batter swings, you have a hit and run.

2. How can you know the runner's intent at the time of this call? Every runner takes a leadoff on the pitch. There is nothing that indicates the runner is attempting to steal versus taking an aggressive lead. And would this include a "delayed steal"?

I find this rule patently unenforceable, except with an attempted bunt with a runner on 3rd.

[WestMichBlue]

Have any of you arguing this even bothered to read the book?

"On a swing or attempted bunt, touch the batter or his bat with a runner on third base trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal"

Now what part of swing or steal don't you understand!

"The runner shall be awarded home plate and the batter shall also be awarded first base on the obstruction. The ball is dead."

Like I said, it is a baseball rule that applies to a steal of any base. It has been in both NFHS BB and SB books for years. Three or four years ago it was modified to affect only a steal of home and brought into the ASA book.

Why - I don't know. I think that it is impossible to recognize an intended steal in the less than one second time it takes the ball to reach an obstructed batter. I don't think that we will ever call it. I just threw it out here as a fun thing - an obscure rule that most of us have never seen, and will never think about again after this post finally dies.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I think that it is impossible to recognize an intended steal in the less than one second time it takes the ball to reach an obstructed batter. I don't think that we will ever call it. I just threw it out here as a fun thing - an obscure rule that most of us have never seen, and will never think about again after this post finally dies.

WMB

I don't think it is that obscure. Yes, you don't see it often, but you get some catchers that will reach/step up on a squeeze or attempted steal of home.

And I don't think it is that hard to recognize as the runner will be coming to the plate almost immediately after the OBS occurs.

I think the difference in a runner's motion and body language makes it quite easy to recognize an attempt to steal home or score on a squeeze. No one said you have to recognize and call it instantaneous with the CO.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let's think about the rationale for a moment. If this rule did not exist, with a runner on third breaking home, I would teach every catcher in the world to make sure the batter is unable to complete a swing or bunt, unless bases are loaded. Reach out and hold the bat; run out in front of the plate, even. No reason to risk any successful squeeze or steal of home; go ahead and REALLY obstruct. No run scores, the obstruction penalty puts the batter on first, but other runners only advance if forced.

So, this rule is added to more appropriately award the assumed result of an unobstructed squeeze play; runner scores even if not forced on the obstruction. Everyone gets their just when the play is killed by the obstruction. Now, how do we rule if the "swing or attempted bunt" is successful, and the result of the play is a better result for the offense?

My answer is, the same as any other catcher obstruction ruling. Either it is canceled (8.1-D(1)), or it is an offensive coach option (8.1-D(2)). I read 8.1-D(4) solely to provide a steeper alternative to 8.1-D(3) when the intentional obstruction serves to cost the offense a run they are entitled to score. Even if it isn't crystal clear that (1) or (2) CAN be the result of this play, then 10.1.L makes it clear; when imposing one penalty versus another which applies, or even to ignore any penalty, you do not impose a penalty which favors the offending team. Applying 8.1-D(4) only, rather than considering (1) or (2) which might also apply, would favor the offending team.

Just my $.02.

[wadeintothem]

Yep, thats correct and I agree 100%.

I already tried to explain to them with their incorrect interpretation of this rule, they are not only disadvantaging the offense and rewarding for CO, but also creating a situation where a catcher may Intentionally CO or argue that they did CO or dance around pretending the bat hit their glove to try to draw CO.

Kinda odd, but despite their inability to provide any type of written support for their opinon whatsoever, and written evidence presented to the contrary, they still maintain you call the ball dead immediately, even on a hit, homerun, or anything else, whether you advantage defense for the violation or not...

[Al]

Hey Mike,

I am just wondering why the rule says "prevents" the batter from hitting the ball instead of saying "if the catcher merely hits the bat with his glove, or touches the batter". I am just wondering why would they include "prevents". It seems to imply that if the batter does Hit The Ball there is a difference. I know the Umpire must go with the rules, but I think the rules you posted are for obsturction that "Prevents" the ball from being hit, or where a batter is touched. I know the rule also says "touches the batter, or their bat with a runner on third, but doesn't that just apply if the ball is not hit? If not why put "prevents" in the rule? I really don't know, that's why I am asking. But I just can't imagine a batter should be held to a single if a catcher hits the bat with his glove, or touches the batter, but it does not prevent the ball from being hit in the hole for a sure double, etc.

As the rule is written it does not say what should be called if the ball is actually hit, even with the obstruction. DDB makes sense. I think DB goes against the principal of the rule.

..."swing or attempted bunt, the catcher or any other fielder PREVENTS THE BATTER FROM HITTING THE BALL, touches the batter or their bat with a runner on third base trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Al, because as Steve mentions, a catcher can step in front of a batter with touching him/her and prevent the batter from hitting the ball.

Steve, I understand what you are saying, and I'm not sure I agree with the rule, but it is there as plain as day.

The point I'm trying to get across is the manner in which it is worded prevents the umpire from making a choice. This makes any other decision protestable.

Runner on 3B. Squares to home and is coming full tilt on the pitch. There is no doubt she is attempting to steal home or there is a squeeze play. LH hitter loses control of the bat out after hitting the catcher's glove, but contacts the ball and pushes toward F6. The SS cleanly fields the ball and retires the BR at 1B as R1 scores.

Now any option is detrimental to the offended team. Result of the play is R1 scores and the BR is out. The enforcement of the CO is BR awarded 1B and R1 returns to 3B. 10.1.L only states that the umpire is not to enforce a penalty for a rules infraction which would be an advantage to the offending team. It does not state the umpire can apply another rule because they didn't like the result of the initial call.

I consider the EFFECT of 8.1.D.4 much like an INT call. An umpire does not allow everything to occur and then rerun every possible what-if scenario until you determine to apply what you believe is fair. It would be nice if we could, but we all know better.

I cannot perceive permitting, without opposition, the offense to acquire a run, place the BR on 1B and move any runner forced, being considered a penalty enforcement which benefits the offending team.

I will see if I can get Kevin or Craig to comment on this as it should apply or if the wording needs to be corrected.

BTW, from the 2005 ASA Umpire Clinic Guide:

SQUEEZE PLAY (Fast Pitch Only)(Rule 8, Section 1 D-4)
In Fast Pitch when the catchers obstructs a batter during an attempted squeeze play or steal of home, BOTH catcher obstruction and an illegal pitch shall be called. The ball is DEAD, the batter is awarded first base and the third base runner advanced to home plate.

Emphasis is ASA's, not mine.

[AtlUmpSteve]

In the older regime, I am pretty confident how Henry and Merle would have come out. All I ask, Mike, is that you present my rationale with my ruling. If Craig (and whomever he consults) disagree, so be it; that is the ruling. Not asking for credit; just that it be presented as a reasonable ruling based on the wording and intent.