Rainy day test, no book, provide your instant, simulated on-the-field response. NFHS or ASA (FP)

R1 on 3B, no outs, 1-1 count on B2.

R1 breaks for home on the pitch, catcher's glove is hit by B2. Result is a weak ground ball to F1. No play at the plate so F1 takes the easy out at 1B.

What is your call, and what are the possible outcomes of this play?


WMB

I am assumming you are talking about hitting the glove with the bat. If so you have a delayed dead ball call, once runner is put out at first you have the coaches option.
Options are:
1)Take the play, depends on if R1 crosses home prior to the out at 1st if run would score or not and BR out.
2) Take CO and put R1 back on 3rd and B2 at 1st.

Is there something I missed?

I think you missed that the Runner was attempting to advance.. i.e...

I believe since she left on pitch .. the coach can take result.. or enforce CO, which the coach surely would.. which would be Runner gets home AND BR gets first.

If runner from third is coming home on a steal or squeeze play the ball is dead when the obstruction occurs and batter is awarded 1st and runner is awarded home no option.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Feb 16th, 2006 at 03:55 PM]

I agree with DaveASA/FED, with the exception of scoring the run. With nobody out, in this situation, the run would count even if the coach chooses to accept the results of the play.

Had their been two outs, the run still wouldn't count, since the DDB was called before the runner had advanced (presumably) to home. So the coach would only accept the penalty option of awarding B2 first and putting R1 back on third.

man would suck if the player had hit a homerun despite the Obs.

dont believe you are correct on the immediate dead ball due to steal/squeeze.

I don't write the rules I just enforce them.

In the scenario the ball was hit..
its DDB.. what rule makes it dead on a hit?

ASA 8-1-D-4b NFHS 8-1-1e pen

I knew you were gonna say that.. you are not understanding the difference between a swing/attempted bunt and a hit when applying the rules .. or the decided disadvantage you place the offense in applying the rules in the manner you are IMO... because of the hit its DDB .. had the batter swung at the pitch or attempted to bunt, it would be immediate dead ball (as opposed to letting some wild play ensue after an OBS when the ump knows the result, so the play is simply killed.. whereas with the hit you would offord the opportunity to the offense to get a better result.)

Didn't the batter swing at the pitch to hit the ball? Your comment was "had the batter swung at the pitch or attempted to bunt, it would be an immediate dead ball." Well they have to swing to hit the ball.

Speaking ASA

Ed is correct. The rule allows for three different occurences:

1. prevents the batter from hitting the ball (no)
2. touch the batter (no) OR
3. their bat. (yes)

The rule applies if any of the three occur.

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.

am i also to understand.. that the squeeze rule does not apply in the manner you are applying it on a successful bunt? After all.. the rule says attempted bunt...not succesful bunt..

IMO you are proferrring an opinion on a rule that would put a catcher in position to argue FOR CO in certain situations.

Image a catcher saying "she hit my glove owie owie owie" just to draw that?

[Edited by wadeintothem on Feb 16th, 2006 at 06:00 PM]

NFHS Case Play 8.1.1 P48 2006.. the closest I can find, but applies directly to the NFHS rule being quoted.

R1 @ 3B .. on the steal F3 cuts off the pitch and tags R1 -

Deadball at end of action.. ie DDB, treated same as CO, with coach option as a result or penalty.

If you two have something better than that in writing I'd like to see it, its the closest I can find.

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

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.

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.

”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

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]

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.

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! ;)

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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

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.

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 <b>REALLY</b> 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) <b>CAN</b> 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.

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...

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".

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.

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.

I'll see what I can do, but I think you should also keep in mind that 8.1.D.4 is probably as much a rule meant as a deterent from the catcher stepping in front of a swing. IOW, a safety issue, thus killing the ball the moment it happens while negating any advantage a defensive coach may perceive in instructing his/her catcher to do so.

What we need is a ruling on when there is a hit, especially with potential extra bases .. double hr.. whatever..

Thx for going to the higher ups Mike, I'll be interested to see ASA's Ruling.

Oh yea, Im gonna luv this forum for sure.
Im sure I have ruled on this and a few similar sitches wrongly after reading some of this, but we arent going to court here.
Yeah, softball is as much law in some places as Bible, but I aint going to hell over a bad or misinterpreted rule. I wanna get it right like the rest, but nobody wins, especially the players and coaches, if grace and mercy dont apply from all parties.
There are no perfectly officiated games, only games offically perfected (after we see the replay)http://smilies.sofrayt.com/^/aiw/hi.gif