ASA Question #39

[Dakota]

I agree that whether or not it was an IFR situation and whether or not the ball was caught can impact future possible rulings resulting from the play given, but I don't see how they have any impact on the actual ruling for the situation described.

We have interference by the BR prior to reaching 1B. Dead ball. BR out, if obviously intended to prevent a DP, R2 out. R1 scores. 8-2-F.

If IFR, or if the ball is actually caught, then 8-7-P, but same result. Dead ball. BR out. R2 out. R1 scores.

The only contention, it seems to me, is a "what if" that is not covered by the question... What if the defense appeals R1 for leaving early on a caught fly? If the fly was caught, then honor the appeal, 3rd out, run does not score. If the fly was NOT caught, then deny the appeal.

I do have a question, though, suppose this was the bottom of the 7th, tie score and IF was called or should have been called (IOW, ball catchable with ordinary effort, but was not due to the interference)?

Is (as was suggested earlier in this thread) application of 10-1-L supportable?

Note that 10-1-L reads

The umpire will not penalize a team for any infraction of a rule when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team.

This would read to me that the umpire may choose to NOT impose the penalty, not that the umpire may choose to "set things right" in the more general sense.

The penalty here is not the problem. It is the timing of the interference. The offense benefitted by interfering AFTER the score, not by having a penalty imposed.

[Edited by Dakota on Feb 24th, 2006 at 12:26 PM]

[greymule]

This would read to me that the umpire may choose to NOT impose the penalty, not that the umpire may choose to "set things right" in the more general sense.

Good point. It's apparently either impose the penalty or don't impose the penalty. In the play in question, it wouldn't be possible to refrain from invoking the penalty. However, in the case where BR knocks F3 down but F3 catches the ball anyway and gets the runner from 3B out on appeal, ignoring the interference would indeed "set things right."

Except that if you call the interference at the moment BR knocks F3 down, you've stopped play. The bell has already rung.

With the winning run on 3B in the bottom of the 7th and one out, the offensive coach should remind both runner and batter than if the ball is popped fair in the infield and close enough to the batter, the runner from 3B should streak home and the batter should run out and interfere in whatever way is necessary to prevent the fielder from catching the ball. The coach would risk ejection and a place in infamy, but his team would win the game.

[Edited by greymule on Feb 24th, 2006 at 01:29 PM]

[mcrowder]

Originally posted by Dakota

The OP.

Actually, it is a pretty straight-forward rules question, in my view.

Why?

Why?

How?

If we set aside the presumption that the correct call by rule is unfair, the question itself is, as I said above, pretty straightforward.

The BR collides with a fielder in the act of fielding a batted fly ball that has double play written all over it. Was it double play because it was an IF and runners had left their bases? Probably, but does it matter to the call? The rule is 8-2-F. 8-7-J or -P might also be applied.

As to the concern about unfair, IF the ball was caught and then knocked loose, then R1 does not score on proper appeal, but the umpire should be clear that he is ruling a catch, so the defense knows what the call is.

Why/How?

For starters, because if the ball was not actually caught, and it was not actually fair, it's a completely different situation.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
For starters, because if the ball was not actually caught, and it was not actually fair, it's a completely different situation.

Not if it is a fly ball. The interference happened before fair/foul comes into play.

[greymule]

Not if it is a fly ball. The interference happened before fair/foul comes into play.

We can't let R1 score if BR prevents F3 from catching a ball that would have been foul except for the interference.

But what do I know? Maybe we can!

[Dakota]

It's a fly ball! It is not foul until it is actually uncaught. Therefore, the interference causes it to be foul, but only after the interference, so the ball was already dead. Or am I becoming too convoluted about this?

See 8-7-J-2.

[greymule]

Or am I becoming too convoluted about this?

The rule is at the root of the problem.

R1 crosses the plate on pop toward 1B. BR knocks F3 to the ground. You call interference. Sitting 5 feet in foul territory, F3 makes the catch.

Score the run?

[Dakota]

I seem to recall a thread of a year or two ago where the issue of the defense playing through the interference and making further outs was discussed, and one member suggested we should not be so fast in declaring the ball dead to avoid rewarding the offense for the violation.

One downside (besides not following taught mechanics) is it may make it appear the umpire is biased or at least making up his calls to suit the situation.

For example, if you wait, but the defense does NOT make the play, and you then call interference late, do you appear to be deciding after the fact to call the runner out?

[greymule]

I seem to recall a thread of a year or two ago where the issue of the defense playing through the interference and making further outs was discussed, and one member suggested we should not be so fast in declaring the ball dead to avoid rewarding the offense for the violation.

That's sure tempting to do, Dakota, but I was admonished decades ago never to let play continue. You never know what might happen after your "no call" or "delayed call." Inevitably, the teams will get wrapped up in what happened afterward, and it could be very difficult to set the clock back.

The problem is not our mechanics. It is the rule itself.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Remember, this is a question on an umpire test. Do you think the IF was called? If you were talking to a newbie and s/he asked that question, I would guess most on this board would respond, "It better have been!"

Convoluted? Apparently, since you now have F3 knocked to the ground in foul ground. This what happens when counter scenarios enter a conversation.

You all remind me of a bunch of liberals, never believing what they see can be all there is. Must be a conspiracy to take over the umpiring ranks by the UAE! Next thing you know it will be the ports and Disneyworld!

[mcrowder]

Ding ding ding. Exactly.

Bases loaded, no outs, R1 crosses the plate before anything else happens, F3 settling under a foul pop (ok, for those definition guys... a pop up over foul ground). BR, seeing that R1 is dead meat for leaving early (as is R2 and R1), plows F3 before he can make the catch.

BR out for INT. By RULE, R2 is out and R1 scores. And R1 cannot be ruled out for leaving early, as there was no catch (EVEN if F3 actually catches the ball - the catch never happened - it was after the immediate dead ball caused by the INT).

If a better application of the rule prohibiting a team from gaining advantage from their transgression exists, I'm unaware of it. Mike's "sometimes life isn't fair" argument is a horrible excuse.

And the OP is not THAT far different from this one (since the timing and even existence of the catch/no catch is not clear, the call of IFF is not clear, and the location of the ball ("near the 1B line") is not clear enough.

[greymule]

a bunch of liberals, never believing what they see can be all there is

Mark this moment. Mike and I agree on something.

I see a guy on death row for the serial murders of a dozen little kids.

The liberal sees much more: a guy who needs counseling because he is suffering from HFS.

[Dakota]

Yes, we can (and have) added to the test scenario to expand the question to various what ifs and fairness issues and possibly a hole in the rule book.

But, way back before I indulged myself by participating in the what ifs, I pointed out that as a test question, it was not that complicated, and the answer was clear, and all the unanswered vagueness in the question's scenario made no difference whatsoever to the call.

Was IF called? Who cares? Call is the same (maybe the rule reference is different in the event of a protest, but the call is the came).

Was the ball caught? Who cares? Call is the same (same maybe as above).

Was the fly ball over foul territory? Who cares? Call is the same.

Now, admitedly, greymule's original post took no issue with the call; he was raising the fairness question, which may or may not exist in the question's scenario. For example, it does NOT exist if the catch was made, since the defense can remove the run by proper appeal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Ding ding ding. Exactly.

Bases loaded, no outs, R1 crosses the plate before anything else happens, F3 settling under a foul pop (ok, for those definition guys... a pop up over foul ground). BR, seeing that R1 is dead meat for leaving early (as is R2 and R1), plows F3 before he can make the catch.

BR out for INT. By RULE, R2 is out and R1 scores. And R1 cannot be ruled out for leaving early, as there was no catch (EVEN if F3 actually catches the ball - the catch never happened - it was after the immediate dead ball caused by the INT).

Nope, R1 cannot score on a foul ball.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
No outs, R1 on 3B, R2 on 2B, R3 on 1B, B4 pops up near the 1B line and runs into F3, knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play. R1 has touched home plate before the collision.

All the NFHS guys should be use to this type of question. Read it again. Does it not say "knocking the ball loose"?

Loose from where? Do you think F3 may have already caught the ball? If not, there would be no need to mention it. Therefore, it is a dead ball, R2 is declared out, R3 returns to 1B. That's a double play. Even better, a possible appeal may still exist for R1 leaving 3B early.

Don't care about baseball. You want to reference any set of their rules, fine. However, it would be nice if you kept it to yourself. Interjecting them into a softball discussion adds nothing, but consternation to the less-than-seasoned softball umpires.

But the phrase, "knocking the ball loose to prevent a double play" clearly implies two things:
1. The action by the runner had a purpose (preventing a double play), and
2. The action by the runner did, in fact, prevent the natural double play that would have resulted as the play unfolded (i.e. R1 took off as soon as the ball was hit into the air). If the ball were CAUGHT then the runner would NOT have been successful in "preventing the double play." So, it was *not* caught.

Yet, I think it is a very poor question because it leaves too many things unclear to the test taker. That is the essence of a bad question - lack of clarity.

A good question should neither be a test in testmanship nor require the test taker to parse words and discern their hidden meaning. It should only test the understanding of the pertinent point.

Secondly, it only seems that references to baseball rules bother YOU. The *fact* of the matter is that softball is a game that has evolved DIRECTLY from baseball. Many (actually *most*) of the rules of softball have come directly from baseball. Certainly, over the years, different softball organizations have morphed their system of rules into a more proprietary structure but, nonetheless, the essence of the rules have been derived from baseball.

So, it's only natural (although perhaps not particularly helpful) to wonder if a seemingly inappropriate ruling would be administered in a similar fashion under another system of rules - baseball being one of them. Already, in this thread, there were comparisons with how this situation would be ruled under ISF. That reference didn't seem to bother you. If somebody wondered how this would be ruled under AFA, or NSA, or USSAA - would that cause anybody any "consternation?" It's a natural form of curiosity and sometimes such comparisons are VERY helpful in revealing an inadequately addressed rule.

I'll give you an example. My daughter's fastpitch team has played in several AFA tournaments in the past few years. We even went to some of their National Tournaments. Our team hadn't had much experience with AFA so I took it upon myself to familiarize myself with their system of rules. To their credit (AFA's), they make their rules readily available for all too see. ASA prefers to keep their system of rules under lock and key. I discovered that the AFA batting-out-of-order rule never clarified whether any additional outs gained on a hit by the improper batter were allowed to stand. I wrote an email to the AFA seeking clarification. Their answer was, "Oops!" Their intent was that such outs would *not* stand and they said that they would have to rewrite that section to make that clear. I wouldn't have even known to ask such a question without first being aware that OTHER system of rules sometimes DO allow you to keep additional outs, ASA being one of them.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Feb 26th, 2006 at 04:45 PM]